A question on Masculine Behavior....

[Knightsaber Priss]

I've been in the dark for decades about a man's seemingly natural inclination towards images of scantily clad women. I'm betting this subject has been tackled before but I've yet to discover any information about it. What baffles me is just why guys need to see women with as little scrap of clothing on as possible in print or whatnot to turn them on. As a woman, just a really hot looking guy in tight pants and a shirt is enough. Why do guys have to see so much to have fantasies of hot women? I just don't get it.

 

[Docker2.0]

If you had balls you would!


Seriously, I have always wondered that myself. How come I see 2 women wrestling seem like such a turn on?!?!

 

[MaskedManJRK]

If you had balls you would!


Seriously, I have always wondered that myself. How come I see 2 women wrestling seem like such a turn on?!?!

I always thought it was a "more is better" type attitude. Women are good, so more women would be better.

 

[BatSpider]

I've been in the dark for decades about a man's seemingly natural inclination towards images of scantily clad women. I'm betting this subject has been tackled before but I've yet to discover any information about it. What baffles me is just why guys need to see women with as little scrap of clothing on as possible in print or whatnot to turn them on. As a woman, just a really hot looking guy in tight pants and a shirt is enough. Why do guys have to see so much to have fantasies of hot women? I just don't get it.

Guilty

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

If you had balls you would!


Seriously, I have always wondered that myself. How come I see 2 women wrestling seem like such a turn on?!?!

Maybe I should feel glad I'm not male because look at all the money I'm saving by not investing in smut magazines and online porn.

I guess this seriously is a question that breeds more questions. Maybe it's how the genders utilize their brains to disseminate outside stimulus?

 

[Docker2.0]

I always thought it was a "more is better" type attitude. Women are good, so more women would be better.

...................ok. you lost me!!

 

[terry78]

It shouldn't be that difficult to explain, but it's more of a feeling than an explanation. Part of it is ingrained, part is just social breeding. You see a hot chick practically naked and don't feel anything for it, you're viewed as weird. Or gay.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I always thought it was a "more is better" type attitude. Women are good, so more women would be better.

But don't you find it more creatively stimulating to picture from a fully clothed image what the person looks like without anything on? I daresay I'd get bored looking at naked people all day.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Honestly, I think women's...subtlety when it comes their figurative spank bank comes more from gender expectations. Women are "supposed" to be prim and virginal, when slobbering over pornography is expected with men.

Just throwing a theory out there.

 

[Docker2.0]

Maybe I should feel glad I'm not male because look at all the money I'm saving by not investing in smut magazines and online porn.

I guess this seriously is a question that breeds more questions. Maybe it's how the genders utilize their brains to disseminate outside stimulus?

You're a girl?!?!?!

 

[bullets]

I think the actual body part ( breast,ass, etc) is a big part of what turns us on . So to see that and more of it will always be a turn on. A girl doesnt have to be in a bathing suit to be attractive though.

 

[MissHush]

well, isn't it more fun if women wear some clothing that covers, so more is left to the imagination? would you really rather she just come naked or have to put some (fun) effort into doing it yourself?

 

[terry78]

Even in the corporate world, if a woman has on a decent suit, this is what most of us are thinking.

 

[bullets]

It shouldn't be that difficult to explain, but it's more of a feeling than an explanation. Part of it is ingrained, part is just social breeding. You see a hot chick practically naked and don't feel anything for it, you're viewed as weird. Or gay.

At this point you must be gay or worn out from sex.

 

[MissHush]

I think the actual body part ( breast,ass, etc) is a big part of what turns us on . So to see that and more of it will always be a turn on. A girl doesnt have to be in a bathing suit to be attractive though.

actually, according to cosmo, in animals, breasts were how males knew the female was ready to mate. so today's men feel a connection towards that.

 

[bullets]

well, isn't it more fun if women wear some clothing that covers, so more is left to the imagination? would you really rather she just come naked or have to put some (fun) effort into doing it yourself?

I would rather she be in lingerie or some clothing that i can strip off.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

But don't you find it more creatively stimulating to picture from a fully clothed image what the person looks like without anything on? I daresay I'd get bored looking at naked people all day.

Eh, never effected or distracted me either way.

 

[Ender Durden]

I've been in the dark for decades about a man's seemingly natural inclination towards images of scantily clad women. I'm betting this subject has been tackled before but I've yet to discover any information about it. What baffles me is just why guys need to see women with as little scrap of clothing on as possible in print or whatnot to turn them on. As a woman, just a really hot looking guy in tight pants and a shirt is enough. Why do guys have to see so much to have fantasies of hot women? I just don't get it.

easy, you just answered your own question. as a male, i see a attractive woman fully clothed in nice tight clothing, yea that would be enough to turn me on, of course, it would, the person is attractive enough to begin with.

but wouldnt you be turned on more if that guy started unbuttoning his shirt? maybe, those pants get a little tighter? more even if they started to come off?

yea, im just assuming, but im sure the difference between male and female sexuality is hardly there at all.

 

[bullets]

actually, according to cosmo, in animals, breasts were how males knew the female was ready to mate. so today's men feel a connection towards that.

I think it goes a little beyond that but it could be something ingrained in our head from generations of sexy times. All I know is I feel connected.

 

[MissHush]

easy, you just answered your own question. as a male, i see a attractive woman fully clothed in nice tight clothing, yea that would be enough to turn me on, of course, it would, the person is attractive enough to begin with.

but wouldnt you be turned on more if that guy started unbuttoning his shirt? maybe, those pants get a little tighter? more even if they started to come off?

yea, im just assuming, but im sure the difference between male and female sexuality is hardly there at all.

no. i don't get turned on by a guy in tight pants. i think their slightly gay if their package is hanging out of their pants. i'm content with jeans and no shirt. but it's not like we stare at penis's or chests or anything. women tend to be more focused on the parts they can connect with: eyes, lips, hands...

 

[Ender Durden]

no. i don't get turned on by a guy in tight pants. i think their slightly gay if their package is hanging out of their pants. i'm content with jeans and no shirt. but it's not like we stare at penis's or chests or anything. women tend to be more focused on the parts they can connect with: eyes, lips, hands...

well of course i didnt mean the package to be bulging out, but i did mean the unbuttoned shirt and other things related to that.

women always love to emulate how much they focus on the eyes and other sensual body parts, but i know full well that they focus on the chest, shoulders, ass, calves, muscular back just as much as males do with a womans body parts

 

[MaskedManJRK]

no. i don't get turned on by a guy in tight pants. i think their slightly gay if their package is hanging out of their pants. i'm content with jeans and no shirt. but it's not like we stare at penis's or chests or anything. women tend to be more focused on the parts they can connect with: eyes, lips, hands...

You could connect with the pe--

Wait. Nevermind. That joke's too crass, even for me.

 

[MissHush]

well of course i didnt mean the package to be bulging out, but i did mean the unbuttoned shirt and other things related to that.

women always love to emulate how much they focus on the eyes and other sensual body parts, but i know full well that they focus on the chest, shoulders, ass, calves muscular back just as much as guys do with a womans body parts

maybe abs & biceps. but most women could care less about backs, shoulders, calves...in all honesty, if they know how to rock it and they look good doing it, we're content.

i apologize if i offended any other ladies...that's just my opinion t:

 

[bullets]

I'm always attracted to hair. If a girl has nice hair that cause me to look in her direction.

 

[tzarinna]

"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep."
- Elaine