Even if what is physically beautiful changes across times and cultures, you are still admitting that men pay attention to something physical and skin deep. So I am not sure how this is a counter to men being visually driven
Something About Sex.
- Thread starter Richard B Riddick
- Start date
- Tagged users None
because he said it, and he's always right about everything.
got it
That's what I wanted to no, but I think he said he won't respond or something like that.
I'm still not seeing anything regarding the Rainbow Coalition.
I am assuming you mean homosexuals, as their banner is refracted light. If so I'd imagine you have not heard much about it because none of the men here in this thread bar you are gay. So if you have something to say, just say it
I'm simply meaning that this seems to be a totally hetero-centric thread that is using phraseology to imply that the homosexuals are part of the same group and that we should not be lumped into your generalizations as we do not completely share the same qualities.
Also, how would you know that I'm the only gay man here? That would require yourself asking each man in this thread their sexuality, including yourself. And let's not forget the women in this thread. Also, how many in this thread may be bisexual or pansexual (either case resulting in a quantitative 1/2)? Best ask and grab your proof. Don't forget to cite your sources and that wikipedia is not a valid source.
Also, how would you know that I'm the only gay man here? That would require yourself asking each man in this thread their sexuality, including yourself. And let's not forget the women in this thread. Also, how many in this thread may be bisexual or pansexual (either case resulting in a quantitative 1/2)? Best ask and grab your proof. Don't forget to cite your sources and that wikipedia is not a valid source.
Well I said you are the only man here who is gay, I said nothing about the females
I am not gay
Harlequin has a girlfriend
Jesse is married
Richard has spoken at length about giving girls the ultimate orgasm
Pooley and Lew are pals whom I know well and know they are not gay
Shu is married
Stevie has a girlfriend
I do not know Dan too well yet but I do not think he based on our conversations
Does that help?
Plus going by my gay friends, the only difference is they like men and almost dress as snappily as I do. Homosexual and Heterosexual men have far more similarities than differences. Being male isn't about sexual preference, because funnliy enough your sexuality doesn't really define you
I am not gay
Harlequin has a girlfriend
Jesse is married
Richard has spoken at length about giving girls the ultimate orgasm
Pooley and Lew are pals whom I know well and know they are not gay
Shu is married
Stevie has a girlfriend
I do not know Dan too well yet but I do not think he based on our conversations
Does that help?
Plus going by my gay friends, the only difference is they like men and almost dress as snappily as I do. Homosexual and Heterosexual men have far more similarities than differences. Being male isn't about sexual preference, because funnliy enough your sexuality doesn't really define you
I'm still not seeing sources.
As for sexuality defining us, no it doesn't but there are correlations between them.
As for sexuality defining us, no it doesn't but there are correlations between them.
It seems like you came in here for the sole purpose of starting a new argument...?
Considering this thread spun off another thread about whether guys prefer girls who wear makeup, the homosexual aspect wasn't really the point.
Are you making the claim that gay men, generally speaking, are not visually driven in the same way as heterosexual men?
Are you making the claim that gay men, generally speaking, are not visually driven in the same way as heterosexual men?
*Bambi questioned my sex life and said some things to me*
*Ego shields reduced to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% and holding*
But she did reduce your ego, though.
If I were trying to start an argument, believe me, you would know. To clarify, no.
No, I refuse to make generalizations as that started this. What I am saying is that a significant portion of gay men are not visually driven, or only partially. Though I can't say this for sure based on my limited sample group, if you account for the extrapolation then you can estimate at least 25% are at least partially not, possibly more or less but with any study you have a margin of error. I'd also take the time to say that this thread, while it spun off from a heterosexual thread, now encompasses a greater sum and the words that have been thrown around in here are not limited to the heterosexual front. All I'm asking for is that either A] we stop making imprecise generalizations or B] we add in the homosexual front as a counterpoint/support to your points.
No, I refuse to make generalizations as that started this. What I am saying is that a significant portion of gay men are not visually driven, or only partially. Though I can't say this for sure based on my limited sample group, if you account for the extrapolation then you can estimate at least 25% are at least partially not, possibly more or less but with any study you have a margin of error. I'd also take the time to say that this thread, while it spun off from a heterosexual thread, now encompasses a greater sum and the words that have been thrown around in here are not limited to the heterosexual front. All I'm asking for is that either A] we stop making imprecise generalizations or B] we add in the homosexual front as a counterpoint/support to your points.
everytime I have spoken to a gay man (I've known quite a few) they are often checking other blokes out and always make a comment on how good they look, then follow it up with some kind of comment on how he'd like to get him in bed. Though they are gay so they do it in a much funnier flamboyant way.
My gay friends on facebook always post up pictures of men with half their clothes off, and coment on them. They're just like straight men but instead of commenting on women they comment on men. But, that's just with the majority of the guys I know who are gay.
Obviously there is always an exception and no one has said there isn't. I think you're just trying to pick at things for the sake of it.
My gay friends on facebook always post up pictures of men with half their clothes off, and coment on them. They're just like straight men but instead of commenting on women they comment on men. But, that's just with the majority of the guys I know who are gay.
Obviously there is always an exception and no one has said there isn't. I think you're just trying to pick at things for the sake of it.
Wow in the 0 sentences you went from not making generalisations to making a generalisation
I'm sorry we didn't cater to your personal lifestyle group, but as most of the people in this thread were involved in some fashion in the original thread which was about heterosexual attraction, plus the majority of people in this thread and the other were/are heterosexual and were perfectly fine discussing heterosexual attraction, the gay man was never brought up. However, now that you've actually said something that contributes to the discussion in some form, you have brought that into the thread. Which is something you could have done five or six of your posts ago, without the "woe is me, won't somebody ever please think of the gays?" hand-wringing that you have done before your most recent post.
Generalizations happen. It's the internet. I'm glad your superior intellect allows you to avoid such provincial things as them, but we mere mortals may continue to use them through the course of this thread. I am hopeful that will not offend your delicate debating sensibilities.
I don't recall anyone saying men are exclusively visually driven. Possibly primarily, but then "primarily" would imply that there was a "secondarily" at some point. Certainly there are varying degrees of arousal via visual means across the board, as all humans are wired slightly differently. But the overwhelming majority, even by your numbers among the gay population of NW GA, use visual means as a significant proportion of their sexual arousal.
Generalizations happen. It's the internet. I'm glad your superior intellect allows you to avoid such provincial things as them, but we mere mortals may continue to use them through the course of this thread. I am hopeful that will not offend your delicate debating sensibilities.
Gavin said:
I don't recall anyone saying men are exclusively visually driven. Possibly primarily, but then "primarily" would imply that there was a "secondarily" at some point. Certainly there are varying degrees of arousal via visual means across the board, as all humans are wired slightly differently. But the overwhelming majority, even by your numbers among the gay population of NW GA, use visual means as a significant proportion of their sexual arousal.
Someone's a creeper. Hang wringing? Woe is me? Nice to see you're assuming what my emotions and state of mind are. Just remember when you assume, you make an ass out of you. I swear that modified quote came from That 70s Show and was followed with the threatening of a foot in your ass.
All I asked was that instead of making broad generalizations about men that you use more precision in your arguments and that if you are simply going to state 'men' and think that everyone is going to know you imply 'only heterosexual men' then you shouldn't be arguing when someone calls you on it.
No assumption. It was an observation based on the whining in your previous posts in this thread.
Gavin said:
You're jumping in mid-stream and trying to reverse the course of the river. This discussion was about 40 posts strong between the two threads, solely talking about heterosexual male attraction. You could have just brought up gay men possibly being different, but instead you tried to call everybody out for talking about the topic we were all talking about. It looks very much like attention seeking.
Heh.
I'm just tired of disproving people...
I refute it thus...
1. If men were gentically pre-disposed to find certain physical traits appealing. Our mating patterns would be like certain species of birds where females are almost universally attracted to the male gendered bird with the brightest feathers.
2. In our case, it would seem some of us are attracted to birds with bright feathers and others are attracted to birds with dull feathers. There is enough differentiation between demographics in terms of what people find physically appealing & the concept of beauty changes enough that it can't be due to some genetic or hardwired biological predisposition.
3. Therefore, men are not "visually driven" in a genetic or biological way. Bell-bottoms are sexy for a few decades, then something else is sexy and something else. It constantly changes and a person's conception of what is sexy has more to do with environment, upbringing and indoctrination moreso than anything else.
4. Therefore, in suggesting men are "visually driven" what we're actually saying is men grow up in cultures which tell them what things are sexy and which are not. They're indoctrinated and assimilate certain views and opinions. And, its the idea or concept of those things their brain finds sexy, rather than the appearance or physical characteristics of it.
5. I'll give you some examples. Anal sex. It wasn't considered sexy until recently. This recent development isn't because men always found women's anuses sexy & were visually driven to that part of a woman's body. Its because there was more media coverage of in terms of porn, etc. And, because, the idea of doing something risque or "progressive" eventually took hold. Thus, saying men are into anal sex because they're "visually driven" would be somewhat pointless. Obviously our concept of what sexy is are constantly changing at a pace too fast for genetics or biological hard-wiring to be involved.
6. Hence, men are not visually driven. Its more the idea or concept of something or someone which excites them. And, those ideas and concepts can change very quickly.
It helps if you understand the difference between instintive, hard-wired, genetically based behavioral conditions and conditions relating to psychology, a person's mentality and environment. Behavioral patterns like.... birds flying south for the winter may take thousands of years to develop. They don't manifest themselves overnight.
If men were hard-wired or genetically pre-disposed to find certain physical traits appealing, there should be more uniformity and less differentiation between what people find physically attractive.
Think of it this way...
-In eras where the ideal man was considered to be a rugged and tough individual, women swooned over guys with face stubble.
-In eras where the ideal man was considered to be a metrosexual, pretty, boy with no chest hair, women swooned over an entirely different type of guy.
It wasn't necessarily the physical aesthetics or characteristics that women found attractive.
It may be moreso that whether people realize it or not, all those commercials, movies, books and tv shows they watch that may sub-consciously indoctrinate them into the idea of certain traits being "sexy" does have an effect on them.
And, if that's the case, what people find sexy has more to do with their environment and what they're raised to believe is "sexy" than any intrinsic or hard-wired biological preference for certain visual appearances.
I refute it thus...
1. If men were gentically pre-disposed to find certain physical traits appealing. Our mating patterns would be like certain species of birds where females are almost universally attracted to the male gendered bird with the brightest feathers.
2. In our case, it would seem some of us are attracted to birds with bright feathers and others are attracted to birds with dull feathers. There is enough differentiation between demographics in terms of what people find physically appealing & the concept of beauty changes enough that it can't be due to some genetic or hardwired biological predisposition.
3. Therefore, men are not "visually driven" in a genetic or biological way. Bell-bottoms are sexy for a few decades, then something else is sexy and something else. It constantly changes and a person's conception of what is sexy has more to do with environment, upbringing and indoctrination moreso than anything else.
4. Therefore, in suggesting men are "visually driven" what we're actually saying is men grow up in cultures which tell them what things are sexy and which are not. They're indoctrinated and assimilate certain views and opinions. And, its the idea or concept of those things their brain finds sexy, rather than the appearance or physical characteristics of it.
5. I'll give you some examples. Anal sex. It wasn't considered sexy until recently. This recent development isn't because men always found women's anuses sexy & were visually driven to that part of a woman's body. Its because there was more media coverage of in terms of porn, etc. And, because, the idea of doing something risque or "progressive" eventually took hold. Thus, saying men are into anal sex because they're "visually driven" would be somewhat pointless. Obviously our concept of what sexy is are constantly changing at a pace too fast for genetics or biological hard-wiring to be involved.
6. Hence, men are not visually driven. Its more the idea or concept of something or someone which excites them. And, those ideas and concepts can change very quickly.
Anyways, that should be a wrap.
That's a very good point.
Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but nope, never happened.
Richard B. Riddick said:
And yet the nature of sexual arousal in men does not pertain to genetics, what was merely proven (by yours truly) was that a man's sexual arousal was stimulated in the amygdala and the hypothalamus more so than in women. In terms of attractiveness, there are biological and intricate environmental factors that influence a man's perception of what makes one woman attractive and another woman repulsive in his eyes. Our mating patterns are thus a culmination of scientific rigidity and unpredictable individualistic rituals—that is to say, one man loves a woman differently from another yet his actions yield the same result during “unprotected” coitus—pregnancy. That was a weak example to be sure, but surely it enriched you with understanding?
Richard B. Riddick said:
So you are saying that the per-determinant factors of physical attractiveness is strictly and wholly influenced by culture and the differentiation of cultural beliefs from nation to nation and from people to people? But what of the subconscious necessity of a man admiring a woman who is fuller in figure due to her possessing child-bearing hips? Or better yet what of the evolutionary tinge of the role of sexual intercourse in human nature—to procreate and strengthen one's lineage? Aren't those influenced by science and isn't the nature of attractiveness not just environmentally affected but also affected by psychological facets as well? But then … maybe I'm wrong.
Richard B. Riddick said:
… this is true to a fault but it's not entirely valid. There have been studies conducted in the past and recently that would dispute that attractiveness and sexuality in men and women is purely environmental in nature.
Richard B. Riddick said:
Visualization denotes the act of visualizing imagery from one's mind and subsequently viewing it through the lens of one's eye. (Lol, that was so well worded
)To state that men simply are attracted to the ideas of women in certain clothing or possessing a certain body type is ludicrous. Certainly a man must see the idea itself in its physical form to appreciate it. He must notice the voluptuousness of a woman to appreciate and be sexually aroused by her curves. Redundant last point is redundant. Also, anal sex and any other form of copulation was not taboo in ancient societies such as Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome; even practices of fellatio and cunnilingus were fairly common within these societies so anal sex was never necessarily taboo or frowned upon from a historical society standpoint. If we're talking about the “strangeness” or “bizarreness” of anal sex in Western society then even that is tinged in falsehood because anal sex has been quite commonplace for quite some time within North America. Pornographic material didn't really increase nor decrease the practices of these different types of sexual intercourse in a dramatic factor from a societal standpoint. Also, I fail to see how the “lack of anal sex in a society” or the lack of popularity of anal sex in a society correlates to men visualizing or not visualizing it. If a man sees a round bottom he may or may not be attracted to the fullness of it—whether he engages in anal sex with a woman is a matter of preference but the visual aestheticism or the visual repulsion of aforementioned buttocks drives (at least in part) the man's desire or undesirability to perform the act.Richard B. Riddick said:
Richard B. Riddick said:
Re-read my explanation to your second to last point.
you're saying that you know most gay men are not visually driven, but you have a small sample group so cannot prove that. those two sentences there are utterly ridiculous.