Are women turned on by naked men?

[Anonymous]

I'm wondering because I think they totally are (exact same way men are by naked women) but have to hide and lie about it because of social taboo. I also think that a female who has a negative reaction seeing a penis is very sexually immature- This doesn't mean she has to be turned on seeing one, but at the very least should feel neutral about seeing one. And of course, women being turned on by a certain male body has evolutionary reasons that go back to the dawn of time. I've never bought into the idea that women are less visual or that the ideal male body is aesthetically inferior to the ideal female body. What do you guys think?

[Anonymous]

Increased muscularity and strong jaws isn't necessarily just a nice physical attribute that makes you sexy. Muscles are meant to make you stronger and more fit to hunt and lift heavy things, and although some women do find muscles attractive, a lot of other women don't put as much emphasis on them. So it's not like muscles were solely created for women to gaze at.

Anyway, no, I'm not turned on by naked men. I'm being 100% honest here, since I don't think it's something I have to hide on here (considering that I'm anonymous). Even in real life I wouldn't be ashamed of saying it, I suppose. But, here's the deal. A man becomes 497548 times sexier if he's my boyfriend. Why? Because I'm emotionally attached to him at that point, and I've learned everything about his body that there is to learn. That's sexy to me. I WANT to have sex with him. I don't WANT to have sex with strangers, even if they're hot. They don't turn me on nearly as much as my boyfriend does. In fact, they don't turn me on at all. I have to KNOW a person to be able to be turned on by them, you know. But then again, that's just me, so I'm not speaking for every woman here.

Also, I think you're generalizing quite heavily on the seeing a penis thing. So if some random ass guy sends me a fugly picture of his penis, am I just supposed to go "oh ok"...? Um no. I don't want to see his penis, and if I don't want to see it, I'll pretty much become irritated. Otherwise, maybe you're theory about that is somewhat accurate.

Personally I have never only been attracted to only one body type. I've been attracted to skinnier guys, heavier guys, tall guys, and guys who were barely even taller than me (if not the same height), as well as muscular guys and guys with barely any muscles at all.

I don't think the "ideal" male body is aesthetically inferior to the "ideal" female body. I just think that men hype up body image A LOT more than woman. And because they keep hyping it up, it makes it seem like men are less sexy when women, when in fact, that really isn't true.

[Opinion Owner]

your theory*

[Opinion Owner]

A LOT more than women*, it makes it seem like men are less sexy than women* so many spelling errors... I should have proofread this before posting... haha

[Asker]

I'm talking about what women had to be attracted to in order to survive the dawn of time. Emotional attachment didn't help that cause. This is why I think females are culturally brainwashed to think the way you do instead of it being natural and that's what irritates me. Maybe some penises are also ugly like that, but it's immature to think arousing looking ones don't even exist. I doubt women ACTUALLY care less about body image than men.

[FlyingTurtle]

Lol women weren't necessarily "attracted" to penises at "the dawn of time", but I'm sure they found out how good they felt pretty quickly, and that's the attractive part, the feeling they give, not necessarily the way they look. (To be fair I think vaginae look super weird too. Bodies can be hella sexy. The sex parts aren't necessarily, in my own personal opinion.)

[Asker]

They have to be attracted by sight first and experience desire, otherwise they won't have sex and find out the penis feels good.

[Opinion Owner]

No... that doesn't really sound quite right to me. Just because a penis might not visually be the most attractive thing on earth, it doesn't mean women are 100% uninterested in them. Cave women were probably just curious. You don't have to be attracted to something or someone in order to be curious. Emotional attachment did help, though. It gives a sense of protection and comfort, two very essential emotions/feelings. Also, just because humans MIGHT have thought one thing in the past, it...

[Opinion Owner]

doesn't mean that we still do think like that, or SHOULD think like that. Attitudes and world views change. I'm not suppressing some cave woman feeling inside me just because I don't think every penis I see is attractive, nor am I lying because it's somehow "taboo" to confess what you really think.

[Asker]

You are suppressing it because that's how cave women got turned on when you think about it logically. Curiosity isn't the leader into sex, desire is, it's the way it works. Men and women with chemicals in their brain that make them lust so emotional attachment plays no role in motivating people for sex, neither gender. Visual arousal for women seeing the penis was important because a longer one could get the sperm closer to the egg and girth would feel better during intercourse, Visually assessing

[Asker]

the size was important for these reasons.

[Opinion Owner]

Hahaha, seriously? Humans knew nothing about biology at that time, so how were they supposed to think whether the length of a man's penis is important or not? Seriously... Emotional attachment DOES play a role, though. Very few women would have sex with someone they don't trust, care about or like. I doubt that that has changed. Visual arousal was probably a thing back then, yes, but putting this much emphasis on the penis ALONE is stupid.

[Opinion Owner]

And no, I'm not suppressing anything. I'm very aware of what I like and dislike. I'm not turned on by the sight of a penis, I'm more turned on by the things it does, or imagining about the things it's able to do. Visually it does 0 for me. Just face it.

[Opinion Owner]

I also find it kinda hilarious that you, as a man, is trying to force your beliefs onto me when you have no idea what it's like being a woman and seeing a penis. If you have no experience about it, you pretty much have no right to act as if your opinion is the right opinion. No experience, no opinion. Sorry. And I'm sure there are women out there who are turned on by the sight of SOME penises. But I'm not one of those, and no, as I said, it's not because I'm suppressing my inner cave woman.

[Asker]

Of course they knew nothing about biology intellectually, that's why they were drawn to it lust fully. Women didn't go through a smart process to know length was better, they are wired to lust over it I stead to ensure they go for that. You may realize what you think you like, but you don't understand WHY. You are a product of societal brainwash if penis doesn't turn you on by sight and if you need anything other than visuals to want sex. Women aren't naturally emotional about sex, it's all

[Asker]

Because of society.

[Opinion Owner]

Not naturally emotional about sex? Dude. We're letting a piece of your body go inside our body. That needs a huge amount of trust and comfort, which makes it emotional. I'm sorry, no matter how you try and twist and turn it, that's just the way it is. I have NEVER had anyone try to tell me that penises are ugly and that I should think they are. I just kind of found out about all that myself. Just like how I think vaginas are ugly. Doesn't mean they aren't cool, though, so just relax already.

[Asker]

Putting something in your vagina makes you think there needs to be emotions? Wow worst logic ever. That provides nothing logical or scientific to support your claim. You learned to find penises gross like that in subtle ways, I'm not saying someone went up to you and told you straight out to think that way, social brainwash doesn't work that way. It alters the way you think because it's subtle and you don't realize it, that is why it's effective.

[Opinion Owner]

To me it needs emotions. I don't want to just carelessly have sex with anyone. I need to trust him, and I know for a fact that loads of women think like this. Tell me how I've subtly learned how to dislike the way a penis looks. Enlighten me. I'm really curious.

[Asker]

The way the media presents the male body is the main reason. The media shaped the environment you mentally developed in. And women naturally don't need emotions, there is nothing genuinely scientifically logical that supports it. Go back to the dawn of time, women had to choose muscular men as sex partners because that's how they would be protected from wild animals- emotions don't factor into a mans ability to protect so why would women naturally care? Explain that to me.

[Opinion Owner]

How does the media present the male body in such a negative light? Give me a real example. Sure, I'll explain. Women want the best man in order to be able to produce the best offspring. The best man has to be muscular for protection - true, but protection gives you a sense of comfort and trust. If he's able to protect you, you get hooked on him. You need him for your own and your baby's survival. You trust him to do a good job. You love him for helping you take care of you and your baby.

[Opinion Owner]

Also, the whole cave people example is starting to really irritate me. We have evolved SO much since then, both physically and psychologically, to the point where a lot of the supposed "natural instincts" you claim that we have had are long gone by now.

[Asker]

True about the feelings protection brings, but I don't think that really occurs until after sex because having an orgasm gives you a release of certain chemicals that bonds you to your partner so I think the emotions come AFTER. The orgasms ensure the emotional commitment so there's no need for it to be a motivator to have sex. And the reason I keep using the primal instinct argument is because no they have not gone away, they are genetic and only mutations can alter DNA which I seriously doubt

[Asker]

happened. Do you have any evidence humans got mutated in this way throughout our history at some point?

[Opinion Owner]

Umm how about the fact that our brain has tripled in size in the past two million years? Do you honestly believe that during that time, NO mutation at all happened and NOTHING caused us to think and act certain ways that differ from the ways we acted when we still lived in caves? If you do, then I must say, you're very ignorant. And I'm still waiting for you to give me concrete examples of how women are taught to dislike the look of a penis. And as I said, you need to feel comfortable and...

[Opinion Owner]

protected BEFORE having sex. This ensures that the man will not just leave and not protect you. He needs to show you that he's worthy. Wouldn't it be stupid of a cave woman to be all like "oh hey I don't really trust this guy at the moment and I'm not sure he'll protect my baby, but I'll just go ahead and have sex with him anyway because he MIGHT protect me... if I'm lucky..."? Come on.

[Asker]

You are making claims that have no credibility, when was there some mutation that caused our genes to change into this? Do you not understand how powerful an environmental force must be to cause a mutation? Pretty damn powerful. Doesn't happen just because time goes by, must have a cause. And you aren't understanding what I'm saying. The man ending up protecting the woman is not based on luck, it's based on chemical releases brought by an orgasm which is a very natural easy response in both genders.

[Asker]

There is a part of the natural sex process that ENSURES the man will stay and protect after sex, it just doesn't come before or during sex. It comes AFTER because of the release of chemicals from an orgasm.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm making claims that have no credibility? So the fact that our brain size has tripled in the last 2 million years is all fake? Dude... don't be stupid. I'm not saying anything about environmental mutation, I'm talking about pure physical mutation - the fact that our brains are significantly bigger now compared to 2 million years ago. You're not understanding what I'm saying! Just because oxytocin is released during sex, it will NOT guarantee that the man will stay and protect her. It only..

[Opinion Owner]

depends on his CHARACTERS and whether he's willing to stay or not. That's something the woman analyzes beforehand. That's why she needs to trust him before sex. Understand?

[Opinion Owner]

And since these chemicals are so important for a man to be able to stay, how come so many men today have sex with women and then just leave them? Hm? How has that changed in the last millions of years? How come us women have totally changed because we're suppressing this shit or whatever, but men "haven't"?

[Asker]

I understand, and I think you are being stupid which is why it's a little embarrassing to understand a moron like you. There is no such thing as physical mutation, you are making that up! Only environment can do that. And do you not understand the nature of oxytocin? It's called the cuddle hormone! Damnit fuckin shit girl, you stupid fucktard. Oxytocin influences a mans behavior by making him want to cuddle and experience more lovey feelings and it bonds him to the female emotionally

[Asker]

You made up the idea about pure physically induced mutation and you don't understand how certain brain chemicals work. You just don't get it, you are denying certain facts to keep your argument alive even though facts don't support it. Learn about the effects of oxytocin!

[Asker]

And men have sex and leave nowadays because they are socially brainwashed to suppress their emotions the same way women are brainwashed to suppress their sexual visual urges towards naked men. Humans have the ability to go against their default nature, doesn't mean it's not there as the reaction they would have if they weren't psychologically culturized.

[Opinion Owner]

Resorting to insults I see... that's generally a sign of you running out of arguments. Nice. So you don't believe in the fact that our brains have grown in size since 2 million years ago? Really? And sure, I understand what oxytocin does to your body after sex. But it doesn't guarantee that the man will stay. Face that. Otherwise, men and women would be 100% monogamous and stay with the one person they first had sex with for their entire life. Something just doesn't quite add up there...

[Opinion Owner]

And lol, as if men really were monogamous during the cave man days. They just wanted to spread their seed to as many women as possible to ensure healthy and strong offspring to carry on the genes.

[Asker]

No, I have both insults and arguments at the same time, I'm not lacking either one- just using both is all bitch. Anyway, how the hell do those oxytocin effects not mean the man will stay? They cause everything that needs to happen for a man to stay. You are accepting the fact but then denying what the fact means and translates into. The effects of oxytocin ensure the man will stay, no you do not understand the effects of the chemical if you disagree. And once that bond is created, it can still

[Asker]

be broken by some kind of relationship problem. And no men were not inclined to spread their seed, stupidest theory ever! Multiple sex partners like that can cause STDs which would kill the men who developed them and the women who he would spread it to! Men spreading their seed would have caused the species to go extinct a long time ago.

[Asker]

Men's natural role is to protect the woman and offspring, why would he have a mating strategy that goes against that and have one that contradicts the woman's goal? Hmm? Men and women are complimentary of each other and these mating strategies you refer to are anything but complimentary.

[Opinion Owner]

They didn't know about STDs back then. And humans hadn't nearly even populated the world as much as we have now, thus they had to make lots of babies to make sure that at least one of them survives. It takes 9 months for a woman to push out a baby, and maybe another five years to see if the child will survive. That's a lot of time put in only one baby that most likely wouldn't survive. Also, I'm saying that I understand what oxytocin does. I'm just saying that I don't agree with you on how...

[Opinion Owner]

"strong" it is. It wears off after a short period of time, and after that, the man might as well just leave.

[Asker]

It's not that the oxytocin just wares off and the man can just leave . It is there to create the emotional bond and remains even after the oxytocin is gone. The emotional bond is not oxytocin in of itself, the emotional bond is the product of the oxytocin- the aftermath of the oxytocin release. And exactly, since cave people didn't know about STDs, they couldn't have avoided them consciously, their instincts had to do it for them. They didn't know about STDs but they had to still be avoided

[Asker]

somehow, sure hope you don't disagree there or you are stupid in a very sad way. And with the need to spread the population, the best way to do that was for men to protect women so that our population number wouldn't decrease by animals just killing off the women which would also make it so we couldn't reprodude very well since women are needed for the other end of the deal. Raising one family and making sure they stay alive is a better way to spread the population so that the offspring don't

[Asker]

Get created and then killed instantly. That strategy wouldn't help expand the population.

[letmeaskthis]

"Just like how I think vaginas are ugly" - nah, vaginas are cute...

[Anonymous]

a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

The study, carried out by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis measured brainwave activity of 264 women as they viewed a series of 55 color slides that contained various scenes from water skiers to snarling dogs to partially-clad couples in sensual poses. The researchers were interested in the speed, strength, and location of brainwave activity of the subjects as they viewed erotic versus non-erotic images.

As they hypothesized, the brainwave activity of participants was markedly different when viewing erotic images versus non-erotic images. But a finding they didn’t expect was that female participant’s response was similar to men. In a prepared statement, lead author Andrey P. Anokhin explained:

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."

[Anonymous]

No brainer for this girl...yes. Just reading this question turned me on, got me me thinking of men in general, and visualizing da penis. TY ;)

[Asker]

No problem :P

[Opinion Owner]

:P ty

[letmeaskthis]

no no no...WOMEN ARE NOT TURNED ON BY NAKED MEN...male bodies are ugly..if nature wanted women to be attracted by male bodies nature would have made male bodies better looking...big muscles on men look like huge plastic boobs on women...and its not even healthy...worshipping male bodies and male genitals is a gay thing to do...have you seen a male body..? compare it to a female body...compare a dick to a pussy...if you think a dick looks good your a gay guy in denial...your projecting gay male sexuality onto women...women need touches caresses and kisses all over their bodies...not the sight of a penis...this projection is ruining female sexuality...women hear from everyone that they are SUPPOSED to get turned on by the sight of a penis...since its not true they start to doubt their sexual orientation or their sexuality and sex drive...then they meet a guy who has learned about female sexuality from p*rn or the media...he thinks women are aroused when they see a "hot" guy and they can't wait...he doesn't bother with foreplay...the woman doesn't get pleasure from sex and starts to think she's frigid or something...in order to hide it she starts saying she gets turned on by hot guys and when she sees a penis...such tragedies happen because guys like you can't help their love for penises...

[Asker]

Male bodies were not designed ugly, it's pathetic you think that way. Natural muscularity, strong jaw, v shaped torso, those are all beautiful and designed to attract women. I couldn't disagree more that the male body was made any uglier than the female body. Straight women are naturally intended to do those things, not gay men which is unnatural. The male body was built to cater to natural female aesthetic preferences. No way in hell is the male body inherently ugly, people who say that should

[Asker]

get slapped.

[letmeaskthis]

"it's pathetic you think that way" - no, its called being straight "Natural muscularity, strong jaw, v shaped torso, those are all beautiful" - do you get turned on when you think of those things..? "designed to attract women" - but in fact they dont "I couldn't disagree more that the male body was made any uglier than the female body" - do you prefer the male body..? "not gay men which is unnatural" - are you homophobic..? that's why you refuse to accept your homosexuality...

[janice87]

.WOMEN ARE NOT TURNED ON BY NAKED MEN...male bodies are ugly. Speak for yourself will ya I love the nude male body a lot of girls do too.

[janice87]

You're probably thinking of giant bodybuilders well of course that's nasty and artificial (steroids) that would be like a girl with DDs getting implants no point. I love a decent amount of muscle on my men and no you can't say men are ugly. Gay men aren't criticized by gay men about sex whereas us girls are labeled sluts. Yes I love penis and so do all of my friends. Yes I love the male body and so do all of my friends. Does that make me a gay male? No it makes me a woman.

[sammy67]

I wouldn't be shocked if this person was the question asker

[janice87]

no we just think a like.

[letmeaskthis]

now I'm pretty certain sammy67 is right in assuming janice87 is the same person as the question asker...

[letmeaskthis]

@asker, dude.your deep in denial..your obsessed with male bodies and male genitalia..nobody gives a damn about your strong jaw or Increased muscularity...you seem to admire male bodies yet you aren't interested in female bodies..you know whos janice87..? she's your alter ego..your true sexual identity..shes the "woman" who loves penises...and gets turned on seeing one...you've been particularly rude to the girls on this question..yet quite polite to the guys..it speaks volumes about your sexuality

[janice87]

You gotta have a lot of time on your hands with two accounts, two email addresses, two levels 3s to make sexual question plus mods would i.p ban me if I actually was the question asker. Now then yes women do love a strong jaw line and nice toned arms. You're right I don't have many female friends in real life they are drama male friends are better and I can hook up with them if need be.

[janice87]

You don't understand one key thing we women are WIRED to be sexually attracted to men. What does that mean? Their personalities? No. Physical attraction comes first whenever a girl crushes on a guy its because she finds him physically attractive face/body.

[letmeaskthis]

@janice, you and the asker are so obtrusive...

[Asker]

Not like you and the people are any better. You guys are whining about something you're just as guilty of.

[cavmanier]

This "I don't want to see a naked guy except my boyfriend" stuff. I'm just a little suspicious that it's built into them being so concerned with being labeled a slut or whore or whatever negative way you want to put it. If we could have a culture where women can really think about what they want rather than "don't be easy" ect, I feel like this would likely be different. But yeah we will probably never know. It doesn't really matter though. They are still largely attracted to men. And you can see some women are open with saying they are turned on by naked men. It's possible they weren't affected as much.

[05Jueey]

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with being promiscuous. It's natural and I don't shame those who do. So for me it's not a case of feeling like it's wrong. You can take a guy and put him in ugly clothes and I won't be attracted to him one bit. Put him in clothes I find attractive and spray a good smelling scent on him and I'm like damn

[Asker]

What about just seeing a naked guy who has a good body and just looks good physically?

[Asker]

And wait woops, didn't realize you are the person from above at first. You are contradicting yourself now.

[05Jueey]

I am not contradicting myself now. You make NO sense

[05Jueey]

Read your question: "Are women turned on by naked men?" When in the comment did I say I am attracted to naked men? My God..

[Asker]

You said above that you would basically only go for your boyfriend and now you are saying promiscuity is good and you support it and very much are implying you are promiscuous rather than monogamous.

[05Jueey]

I would basically only go for my bf? Wth are you talking about? Question: "Are women turned on by naked men?" Answer: "No unless it's my man" Maybe if you actually read what people say and use logic instead of making no sense at all, you would be able to contribute to an intellectual conversation. I say I DO NOT SHAME PEOPLE FOR BEING PROMISCUOUS. OK you are hopeless. I can't fix ignorant

[springdragonfly]

Funny, I never thought about it exactly like this.

I've always find men I know with reasonably good bodies extremely attractive in certain moments. Mostly when they are doing something, relaxing, lounging, in some appropriate context. Also when it is partial nudity.

Funny thing is, when you ask the question the way you have, all I can think is of a stark naked man (except for his socks), he's a little too buff, a little too confident, he has his legs a little too far apart and his hands on his hips and his **** is hard. He's probably looking back and forth between it and me and wondering why I'm not so turned on just looking at him that I haven't stripped down and gotten down to blow him.

Somehow without context, a familiarity or some sexual tension, and the right mood, Mr. Random-Naked-Man is just not doing it for me.

[Asker]

Normal women don't care about that,or at least natural women it seems like.

[ChooChooHaha]

If she's hot, yes.

[teasegirl]

Yes, men are sexy when I hide their clothes ;)

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

Only if they are hot, and have a nice body .

[Asker]

What in your opinion is the kind of body you want to see naked specifically? Just curious.

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

I like nicely toned men , muscular men are also good looking , and I also like skinny guys. They have to not be hairy because too much body hair is a turn off but a little bit of chest hair is OK. Tattoos are also hot in my opinion. And they have to like either have a close trim or shave .

[Asker]

With close trim or shave, you are referring to pubic hair right?

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

yes

[JamielovesKU]

As long as theyre not extremely fat and extremely hairy yes I am attracted.

[Asker]

What's ideal to you?

[JamielovesKU]

A little meat on a guy is fine, but when he's so big he can't see his feet then that's bad. I don't mind a little hair on a guy, but when he's so hair he looks like an ape then that ain't good either. cause it would sure be nice to do things without having a mouth full of hair or trying to snuggle up and his hair tickles your nose all night.

[Asker]

So muscular in a natural looking way? Big and buff with definition bust just not steroids?

[JamielovesKU]

as long as they can see their feet and they don't have body hair long enough to braid I'm good with whatever they choose to do

[05Jueey]

No unless it's my man

[05Jueey]

"That's gay and immature, normal natural women don't care if they know the man or not" Are you basically saying you think you're a douche/asshole? You are extremely insecure about this or you would say "Well I guess everyone has their preferences" Read all your comments and tell me they don't scream insecure

[Asker]

I'm sick of many people trying to make these preferences in women seem like a general rule, so fuckin sick of it.

[05Jueey]

Sorry you feel that way. You talk about logic and science... isn't it a fact that women and men are completely different? That men are much more visual?

[Asker]

No, I don't believe there is any scientific accuracy in the idea that men are more visual. I believe men and women have the same fundamental sexuality. That's part of why it's so frustrating, it's purely social factors that make women only seem less visual even though their nature says otherwise. That's why I get frustrated, at least part of why, I get angry about this to the point of going this far.

[05Jueey]

Shows more about you how you verbally abuse others because of it. Not cool

[Asker]

I really could care less about how cool other people perceive it as, not my priority.

[05Jueey]

Don't call people douche bags when you actually need to evaluate your own behaviour

[05Jueey]

Seek help

[Asker]

See... What you're coming back at me with is very simple and doesn't require any thinking

[Dandeus]

You're not helping your case by calling every woman who responds a stupid, immature liar. Occam's Razor, my friend... The obvious reason they all say the same thing is because they mean it.

And you're not very bright if you think female attraction stops at the visual level. Theoretically, the strength you keep railing about, insisting that women are secretly attracted, is indicative of their ability to provide shelter and sustenance. Providership is what women are instinctively attracted to, not looks. They're also attracted to power and status... Something that may have been guaranteed by physical strength and aggression thousands of years ago, but which today comes from less physical behavior. If you can exhibit your ability to provide, you're golden, and in 2014, muscles don't really convey an ability to provide anything meaningful. This is why so many women are attracted to humble looking men who work hard at good jobs and bring home good paychecks and live in nice houses. It's a safe, fertile environment for their offspring to live in, and it's not something that muscles guarantee in this day and age. The human psyche understands this, and that's why women care less about looks.

[Asker]

It's the looks women were attracted to because more of those resources wouldn't come if he didn't have the strength. Women saying this stuff is not based on natural attraction. You act like our DNA has realized the change in time but it hasn't, only mutations cause that which hasn't happened.

[Dandeus]

You don't think with your DNA. Genetics provides predisposition to certain behavior, but does not dictate behavior. The brain learns and is adaptable. The thing that makes the human brain unique is its capacity for symbolic thought. The strength you're obsessed with is merely representational (symbolic) of what women really want. The brain quickly learns that there are other, better indicators of the ability to provide those resources. A rich man provides better than a strong man.

[Asker]

Cave women weren't aware of these better indicators, they didn't know enough yet. More than just a symbol for them. Don't overestimate the human ability to figure things out. Takes time.

[Dandeus]

We aren't cavemen. Not that it really matters. These indicators didn't exist with cavemen, but we've also evolved markedly from stone age humans. I'm pretty sure you're not aware of that fact, though.

[janice87]

Dandeus you don't understand in 2014 we women have our own jobs we don't need men to bring in pay checks (golddiggers do). Part 2 we still have biological instincts which don't go away just because our society has advanced. Women are still wired to want a bigger and stronger guy men want a curvier girl not skinny girl.

[Dandeus]

@janice87 You totally missed my point. There's a purpose to your biological instincts. Big and strong in itself is meaningless from an evolutionary instinct stance. It's what the physical strength historically indicated that women are instinctively drawn to (whether they need it in 2014 or not), which is the ability to provide.

[Asker]

But back in cave people days, women didn't know intellectually that they needed to be provided for or that muscles did the trick so they lusted over muscles just instinctivly to ensure they would end up with those men. You think that cave people had more figured than they probably really did- its the dawn of time, even smart as hell humans need time to understand things more intellectually... You overestimate the power of the human brain. It's strong for sure, but not as strong as you think.

[laseredandpierced]

not as such. There is not much attraction in a naked man, especially not with a small dick anging down weakly. When he is very well proprotioned and it is standing at attention, he might just be able to attract my attention for longer than a nanosecond. When he is extremely good looking and well endowed, even significantly longer.

[Asker]

So a naked man actually does turn you on, just depending on how hot his physical parts look?

[laseredandpierced]

are you a politician? a naked one? thhe sausage one? sorry can't remember him. not important. But no, you are twisting my words. A naked man is NOT, I repeat NOT a turn on. But one or two exceptions might occur.

[Asker]

No, I'm just asking questions which I don't remember ever being wrong. And my point was that it's doable for you to get turned on by a naked man- you are kind of contradicting yourself. I can understand if you think there are exceptions because not enough men workout or tend to their appearance, but if you would explain it any other way I think there's something messed up with you not being turned on by a larger amount of naked men.

[laseredandpierced]

sure. it is my fault that most men look so unattractive and don't pay enough attention to their bodies. And sure, the fact tat I might bring myself to look at a naked man for longer than a nanosecond must mean that men are gorgeous after all. Which they aren't. As we all know. So the rule is not, as you seem to desire so much, that (all) naked men arouse women at all times, but that most men don't and some might. At times.

[Asker]

What are you all fiesty about? I don't think you got my point. What I'm saying is that the only explanation for this that doesn't make you seem gay is if not enough men tend to their appearance and bodies. If men payed more attention to that and it still didn't turn you on, you would either not be straight or sexually immature. Your statement about men not being gorgeous makes it seem like one of those two choices are the case with you. Women are wired to get turned on looking at the ideal male

[Asker]

body the same way men are with seeing the ideal female body. Same basic sexuality. I believe female sexuality is male sexuality in reverse.

[skippertod1]

they are it's just very few men are hot

[bubbletrouble]

I am. I can't speak for all women though.

[Anonymous]

Seriously these American women on GAG and in general are so dang Immature ask European women hell even Asian women say that they do get aroused by Naked men. Now I know why MGTOW is on a High rise in America cuz these women are so immature that they literally despise the male body and make it seem as if they are somehow superior to Males

[Anonymous]

I think you are wrong and should realize that your opinions are not the same as everybody elses

[Asker]

These aren't opinions, they are theories- more of a factual approach which is why I feel qualified to make the assumptions I am. Either read what I've said to other idiots here or we can start our own argument- I'm not worried about anyone proving me wrong because the opposing viewpoints are just BS in obvious ways not many people seem to get which is pathetic.

[Opinion Owner]

Um, I'm female and only a very small percentage of men make my nipples hard. Like show me 100 men and there could be one that I really truly want to have physical contact with him.

[Anonymous]

i am especially if they have a nice body..but more if they're hard

[Asker]

Sorry, meant to post this on the reply above lol

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty interesting how a majority of women answer no to this question and yet they go off the deep end in others trying to prove they are just as visually stimulated as men.

The differences are so starkly obvious, I just don't understand why so many women can't just say so. LOL.

[Asker]

There aren't any basic differences, women just deny how visual they are in certain situations to avoid social taboo and so that they themselves don't feel slutty even though their basic sexuality is the same as male sexuality.

[Opinion Owner]

LOL...OK.

[Asker]

What's the matter, don't believe me? Well think through things in terms of evolutionary psychology and hopefully you will catch on.

[Opinion Owner]

No, I don't "catch on" to bullshit. You are young and naive and have clearly bought into the whole "men and women are the same" nonsense that feminism has been pedaling for years. Don't feel bad as you're not the only fool in town. Brace yourself for some disillusionment though...it's coming. Cheers

[Opinion Owner]

I see some of the ladies here have been schooling you. Disillusionment setting in yet? You definitely need a dose of reality bro.

[05Jueey]

HE'S the one with the emotional agenda? No

[Opinion Owner]

Sure, QA...you tell those ladies what they really think. LMAO!

[Opinion Owner]

LMAO! You're killin me here. Keep it comin!

[Opinion Owner]

Reading through your responses to the ladies here I think it's absolutely hilarious how you think you know better than they do what turns them on. You're utterly delusional and making a complete fool of yourself. Say it with me now...men and women are different. Say it again..men and women are different. Keep repeating that and your head will eventually pop right out.

[Asker]

Lol what's so foolish about using GOOD science to back myself up? Read my responses and think them through wisely... Never mind that's too much to ask of an idiot like you. I'm talking about what turns natural females on, not these brainwashed products of oppressive society you ugly bastards rely on to treat like a come rag. Learn the distinction you retarded asshole! You are my missing my point miserably if you think I'm a fool. Stop laughing and start using your brain, there's a first time for

[Asker]

everything right?

[Asker]

Men and women are NOT different, don't try to take me down to your ignorant level. It won't work, there's this thing called my brain getting in the way of your goal to make me stupid.

[Anonymous]

If a guy is shirtless but is still covered up down below I can easily appreciate his attractiveness--assuming he is in fact attractive. It doesn't necessarily get me aroused or anything though. As for completely nude guys, no thanks, I don't want to see anyone's man parts but my boyfriend's (and even that took a little getting used to).

[janice87]

you sound immature. the male body is a wonderful work out art.

[Opinion Owner]

Okay I can appreciate that it is art. What I don't appreciate is being told I'm wrong if I don't find a particular part of it attractive or a turn on. To be honest I think my aversion to seeing other people's genitals is less because I think they're unattractive, and more because I was raised in a conservative household where such things were meant to be kept private and only seen by a spouse/significant other.

[Asker]

That's understandable, but I don't think you should go around saying things like "they are gross" because people won't know what background you are coming from that causes you to say it and people may take offense to it.

[Opinion Owner]

I never meant to imply that they are gross--if that's the impression I gave I'm sorry. It's really just I think a guy's parts should be his business and not mine, and because of my background it really does make me uncomfortable if a guy sends pictures or takes it out and "broadcasts it" it whatever. I'd probably look away if that happened--again not because I think they're disgusting but because of the mindset I was raised with. Men's penises aren't gross, they're just none of my business.

[letmeaskthis]

@janice87 & the asker, why are you imposing your opinion on others..?

[Asker]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Why are you asking why we're imposing our opinions on other people when you are doing the same thing?

[Anonymous]

No one likes seeing dicks. They're fucked up looking. If you send a girl a picture of your penis and she didn't ask for it, you're basically scum of the earth.

Wouldn't say I am turned on by some random guys body. I can appreciate looking at it but it doesn't get me all hot and bothered.

In order for his body to be appreciated he better be in shape, have muscles, be taller than me, and no to a beer gut. Thin guys are also a turn off. I like masculine men.

Men's problems aren't that their bodies aren't attractive. It's that they don't take care of themselves.

[Asker]

Straight women are supposed to be able to do more than just admire. And I think that only gay women and immature women think that way about dicks- being neutral about a random one is the least a straight woman would do. It's so annoying when girls try to claim they care whether or not the body belongs to a stranger- I just intuitively feel like its total BS.

[Opinion Owner]

It's really not though. I have a fuck ton of sex. I love sex. I'm not immature, and I can assure you I'm straight. I love what the penis can do for me. But if anyone says it's aesthetically pleasing, they're a liar. It's true that we care whether or not the body belongs to a stranger. We are genetically wired to crave sex only with a partner or someone we're emotionally attracted to; the opposite of men.

[Opinion Owner]

Men benefit the most from fucking everything that moves to spread their DNA and reproduce; women benefit from finding a partner to raise a kid with and who will stick around and help/protect her raise her young. It's genetics, evolution, and hormones. It only makes sense, really.

[Asker]

No, women are wired the same as men. Going back thousands of years, women being emotional about their sex partners served no survival purpose- only being turned on by muscular athletic men did. You are still immature if you are like that, no amount of having sex will change that. Something's wrong with you.

[Opinion Owner]

And all the other girls who agree? NO. We are not wired the same, you idiot. Men release hormones during sex that create feelings of lust; women bonding. I don't want to fuck someone just because they're ripped. It is all about survival. It always has been. Even in animals they want to mate with the strongest, biggest male. Why? Better chances of their young having good DNA and a better chance of survival. Please take a biology class.

[Asker]

Women only benefit if the man who sticks around is muscular and physically capable of protection. That's why women have to be visual and not emotional about it. Your concept being true would have lead to early human females being nothing but a free meal for tigers and lions. It's a man's body that determined his objective worth so why would female nature not correlate?

[Opinion Owner]

It does to some extent. Hence why I said we appreciate a fit body better than an overweight one. BUT that alone doesn't make us want to have sex with him. The majority of us need more than that; be it chemistry, emotional attachment, etc. A muscular man who will not stick around is useless.

[Opinion Owner]

We really do care about physical appearance less than men. Men rank looks the highest priority in first seeking a mate; women will more than gladly trade in looks for emotional connection, financial security, and social status.

[Asker]

You are f*ckin retarded. Women only have bonding hormones AFTER they had an orgasm which causes a release of oxytocin. During sex, estrogen makes then lustful towards masculine parts of a male body. Emotions and bonding hormones aren't involved until the people climax. You need to get educated about more than just biology. Women will mate with any man who has the strength to protect her, otherwise she would get eaten you moron. If women were fundamentally any different from men, they would die.

[Asker]

Looks are the first priority for both genders with sex. Women who act any differently aren't acting out of natural instinct at all, they are brainwashed products of society. No natural female is forgiving of looks in regards to sex.

[Opinion Owner]

You keep thinking that. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't just happen after sex either. You don't have to have an orgasm to release oxytocin. Cuddling, kissing, hugging also releases oxytocin. It's not just a sex hormone. You even release oxytocin while cuddling a pet. It's the bonding hormone.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes many "natural" females are forgiving in looks. Most are. You'll see an ugly guy with an attractive woman far more often that the reverse.

[Asker]

It floats my boat and its also reality, unlike your claims. And if those things also release oxytocin, wouldn't men also get that during the actions all the same? Your logic is off. Before sex or contact, no physical actions have happened though so obviously something before that needs to make the female feel desire to engage in those actions, nothing other than looks would do that so good luck arguing against that.

[Asker]

No they are not natural. Women being with ugly men isn't based on natural attraction, she just uses him for money or an ego boost then just gets rid of him. They fake attraction towards him so they can get the gold they dig for or their ego boost and then just blow him off for good. Women are only ACTUALLY attracted if the man has looks.

[Opinion Owner]

Nothing other than looks can make a woman want to have sex with someone? Uh no. Initial attraction is based on looks. But that alone isn't enough. No one looks at someone then goes at it and has sex. Conversation, touching, etc goes on far before p goes in the v. Women release far higher doses of oxytocin than men. Men release dopamine, women don't. That's why there's a difference. It's science. This isn't my personal opinion. It's fact.

[Opinion Owner]

My boyfriend is physically unappealing. I'm not using him for money. It's a three year long relationship. We're madly in love and I crave sex with him so often that he gets annoyed with me. You have no clue what you're talking about at all.

[Asker]

Men and women have the same amounts of those two brain chemicals, your facts are off. Initial attraction doesn't sustain an entire relationship, but it leads to sex because both men and women have dopamine all the same at that stage. Language and words was a human invention which means conversation doesn't exist by nature so why would women be naturally drawn to something not found in nature? That gets rid of the conversation option for you, you're gonna release I'm right if you keep arguing.

[Opinion Owner]

Body language. Verbal dialogue isn't the only method of communicating. We do NOT release the same amounts of those two chemicals. You go ahead and argue all you want. I've taken several biology courses and I'm 100% positive I'm more educated on the subject than you are.

[Asker]

I bet you just have sex with your ugly boyfriend to feel sexy by feeling like you get sex off him whenever you want, sounds like you use him to stroke your ego. Ugly guys are easy and desperate just like ugly girls. I'm not convinced you use him for anything natural attraction related, I'm not an idiot like you.

[Asker]

Either you are lying about taking biology classes or your bio teacher was a retard and taught false content. The two chemicals are the same in men and women you uninformed f*ck. Body language says nothing about a man that is relevant to a woman's survival, only the visual image of his body does.

[Opinion Owner]

My ex was a tall, ripped quarterback with arms as big as my waist. I didn't have sex with him. Why? Wasn't enough attraction aside from physical. Unlike my "ugly" boyfriend. I don't need a guy to stroke my ego; I've got my bank account, degree, car, and looks for that.

[Opinion Owner]

Not all men who aren't physically attractive are desperate.

[Asker]

A lot are and are easy. And you are probably insecure about your own self if a ripped QB didn't make you want sex, like DAMN you are messed up. Maybe you would have felt inadequate next to a stud like that and so you settle for ugliness so you don't get insecure. You may be comfortable with your ugly boyfriend for those reasons, but not natural attraction which is what the QB wouldve provided way better.

[Opinion Owner]

Why would I feel inadequate? I'm the least insecure person you'll ever meet in your life. I have no reason to be insecure. Oh, and by the way there goes your penis theory too. He was massive. Like huge. Still wasn't enough for me to want to have sex with him. Just because I don't throw myself at an attractive guy does not make me insecure. I think insecurity would make me give in and have sex because I could brag about it later. I'm better than that.

[Asker]

You seem insecure about your physical image and would feel bad in comparison to him. How hard you are trying to claim you are so not insecure makes you seem like you are hiding something and trying to cover up the insecurity. It depends what kind of insecurity is going on, not just any kind of insecurity. You threw away a chance to have a better sex partner because you just wanna feel pretty when you don't- that's how I'm sayin you're insecure. You feel ugly and would feel even uglier next to a stud

[Opinion Owner]

How would I feel ugly? I'm 100lbs, fair skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed with C's. There's nothing ugly about me. You're making a ton of assumptions. Not every girl is insecure. I threw away a possible sex partner because is didn't want him. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[Asker]

Idk why, it's just the only logical explanation for why a female wouldn't have sex with a stud purely based on looks. Female sexuality does not naturally work the way you claim it does so your explanation is just as invalid as any other. Men and women have the same basic sexuality, cave women wouldn't have survived any other way.

[Opinion Owner]

See, the thing is; WE ARENT NEANDERTHALS ANYMORE.

[Opinion Owner]

Money and power are now what physical strength were back "when we were cave people"

[Asker]

Times have changed, our DNA has not. How do you not get that?

[Opinion Owner]

*and muscles

[Opinion Owner]

Our DNA literally has changed since we lived in caves, smart one.

[Asker]

Your DNA doesn't know that though, you still have the same primal instincts as cave women because the species your apart of are their descendants. Only a mutation could change the DNA, where in human history were there mutations like that?

[Asker]

Listen you smart ass, in your bio classes you claimed you took you should have learned about mutations. Only mutations create DNA changes which has to happen on the molecular level. It takes a pretty powerful force for that to happen- like strong chemicals from the environment.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, your DNA does know that. Everything we do stems from DNA. Technically it doesn't "know" anything except how to recreate cells. I'm done talking to you. This shit feels like I'm arguing with my mentally retarded uncle, no offence to him. You're allowed to ask a question. You're not allowed to argue with the answers. Bottom line is the majority of women agree with me and for whatever reason you don't like the answer. You're not a woman. You won't ever be. I know what I'm talking about.

[Asker]

as one example.

[Opinion Owner]

True it only happens on a molecular level. But then when we reproduce those mutations are passed on. Simple shit. Yeah, my college profs are obviously idiots. Silly me.

[Opinion Owner]

Like I said I'm done arguing. You think what you want. Doesn't matter to me.

[Opinion Owner]

Using your logic blue eyes wouldn't be passed on or included in DNA because they are a "mutation" yet fucking wow half the planet has them. Wasn't due to an environmental chemical, you retard. If only you were a woman you could answer this question. But you're not. Sorry sucks to be you but you really can't answer this question so you have no right to disagree

[Asker]

I feel like I'm talking to my grandma who had a stroke and has brain damage. Your DNA doesn't change just because of time you idiot, learn about mutations. No woman who is natural in the way she gets turned on agrees with you. I'm not a woman , but it comes down to science when discussing these topics. Not experience because you can't separate out nurture vs nature that way. You are immature and retarded. I hope a tiger eats you just so you understand what a cave woman would go through if she was anythin

[Asker]

Like you

[Opinion Owner]

I'm fully aware it doesn't change because of time. It changes OVER time though. Natural is everything involving humans. There's no such thing as an "unnatural" human unless it's made in a Petrie dish.

[Asker]

Chemicals were just an example idiot. Nothing happened that caused a mutation- don't make stuff up that's just convenient for your argument. Mutations don't just happen because time goes by you idiot. Your bio classes taught you nothing if you even actually took any. Being a woman has no impact on the insight I can give because it's nature vs nurture, experience doesn't separate those out. You societally brainwashed dumb b*tch.

[Opinion Owner]

What a cave woman would experience isn't relevant. We are no longer cave people. We're an entirely different species. Why? DNA. Which has changed or we wouldn't be Homo sapiens.

[Opinion Owner]

I didn't say it had directly to do with time. Our environment changed. Mutations occurred. Society changed. All over time. Not because of it. Get a grip.

[Asker]

It doesn't change over time if nothing ever caused it. And natural means it was there by default before humans ever changed a single thing. What exactly do you claim caused the DNA change over time? Try answering that if you're so damn sure about your logic.

[Asker]

Cave people are homo sapiens you dumb ass! We are the same species, don't be getting any funny ideas. There was nothing that changed our DNA, they are our direct ancestors the same way your great grandparents are ancestors to us.

[Opinion Owner]

Our environments. We haven't had to worry about being attacked by tigers or foraging for food for a very long time. Modern society has changed that. Guess what provides security and protection now? Money. Not muscles. They serve almost no purpose now. Look at bill gates. Skinny as fuck but would be a great provider. Would he be back in time? Certainly not. He'd be eaten alive. So like women before we evolved would seek protection and stability in muscles

[Opinion Owner]

we seek money and emotional stability.

[Asker]

Don't tell me to get a grip when you need to get a brain and do some thinking. Mutations don't occur just because of environment changes, things in the environment have to effect us on the molecular level, I don't think simply living in societies instead of the wild would do that and neither would anyone with a decent thinking mind. Mutations like that never occurred, don't blankly say that they happened without a logical base.

[Opinion Owner]

It is logic. Correct they don't occur just because of environmental factors they're mutations. I did not say that. I'm done. Literally done. You're an idiot and I can't stand this anymore. Jesus fucking Christ dude.

[Asker]

That isn't what you are wired to want though. There is a difference between an adaptation and a mutation. You may know in your human reasoning side that environment is different but your primalness has not changed. You are referring to adapting, not mutations. Adapting to a situation whee money is what provides doesn't change your primal DNA

[Asker]

No it's not logic. You have had to alter the points you are making several times, your points don't form a clear line of logic, the don't connect because you had to alter your logic many times.

[Asker]

Seems like you want to leave because you know you have been outlogiced.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not altering anything. You just don't understand what I'm saying. These aren't my own idea. They're other peoples. It's not MY LOGIC. It's THE LOGIC.

[Asker]

You have altered your logic to back yourself up many times and basically changed your argument. And it's not the logic, it's one of the forms of flawed logic for this topic.

[Asker]

I understand what you are saying and I think it's BS. I'm not confused just because I don't agree

[janice87]

No one likes seeing dicks. They're fucked up looking. If you send a girl a picture of your penis and she didn't ask for it, you're basically scum of the earth. I do you can't speak for all girls and you sound insecure your vagina probably looks like roast beef so you feel better by calling penises fucked up looking. Vaginas look like aliens.

[Opinion Owner]

They do. Hence why I don't send pictures of mine to people. All genitalia is gross looking.

[janice87]

keep the penis in your mouth and you won't have to look at it since you think its "gross looking". easy solution to your problem.

[Opinion Owner]

No one is turned on at the sight of a dick alone. No one. If you honestly think they're beautiful you're lying to yourself. They're attractive because they're attached to men and can do great things for us. Not because they're nice to look at. Simmer down.

[Asker]

Now you are trying to tell her what's going through her own mind and discrediting her perspective. Do you have insecurities or something that make you want to believe no one is turned on by dick? Are you jealous and insecure because of penis envy? There is NOTHING natural about a woman not being turned on by simply the way a penis looks. You only think you care about "who it's attached to" because society tells you to be that way. Cave women could probably get turned on just seeing a certain

[Asker]

kind of looking penis.

[Opinion Owner]

In case you forgot how to read, I said I'm done talking to you and not reading any more of your replies

[letmeaskthis]

@janice87, "Vaginas look like aliens" if that's what you think of your own vagina no wonder you can't orgasm...

[letmeaskthis]

"All genitalia is gross looking" - nah, vaginas are cute...

[Asker]

You're saying that to an actual straight female? Nice use of your time dipshit lol

[Anonymous]

If he's in good shape he's hot. If he's not, he's...well, not. That and male genitalia isn't actually all that attractive. It's the parts that are attached to the genitalia we find attractive :p

[Asker]

What do you mean by the parts? And I think a straight mature woman is at least neutral about male genital appearance.

[Opinion Owner]

The abs and legs are more attractive than the penis. And I am a straight mature woman and I'm sorry to tell you but penises are just not that attractive. They look like baby aliens. It's the man attached to the penis we find sexually attractive, not really the penis itself.

[Opinion Owner]

I can't help it if you have insecurities about your groin area. I'm just telling you that penises are not attractive. Sorry if that rains on your parade.

[Asker]

I'm just giving you a reality check. Women are supposed to get visually turned on by duck so I just think something is messed up with you.

[Opinion Owner]

Well then there must be something messed up with nearly every woman who responded to your question.

[Asker]

Most women are messed up. Since they have never dominated society, they are brainwashed more than men to act like something that is not naturally wo they are. Most women act based on social brainwash, not their nature and it's annoying. The rare woman is good enough to be natural which means naked men make her want sex, period.

[janice87]

you're an immature girl whos insecure real women love the penis.

[05Jueey]

"Janice" I can almost say for sure that you're the question asker who made an account to answer his own question. Real NATURAL women, are people who consider themselves women. Its pathetic to try to tell someone that they're normal and natural over something like their attraction preference

[Asker]

LOL OK jueey, it's not like you couldn't be accused of having multiple accounts so you can make it seem like multiple people think like you when in reality it's only you :P

[letmeaskthis]

@asker, "Women are supposed to get visually turned on by duck" - who told you that..?

[Asker]

Noone, it's common sense really. Unlike you, I don't have to be told these things because that thing on top of my shoulders works properly.

[Anonymous]

Most don't like the male body unless your the top 1% in looks. Us guys evolved to be ugly

[Opinion Owner]

Women evolved to not care about looks so that's why they only paid attention to a guys resources

[Asker]

How did women evolve that way when muscles had to turn them on so they could mate with men who protected them?

[Opinion Owner]

Guys just evolved to be able to physically do stuff and gift off other guys. Then women choose the guy who has the most resources which today is money

[Asker]

At the dawn of time though, what made a man capable of gaining resources was how his body was built because that was the main factor that influenced his hunting ability so women were wired to be turned on by muscles. Our DNA today is the same as theirs even though times have changed. I'm talking about women's instincts, not the way they adapt to a new environment.

[cavmanier]

That's a really negative and naive perspective.

[cavmanier]

Bullshit. Most girls aren't turned on by huge muscles. If you were correct there would be some kind of positive correlation. Why act like you're an anthropologist. Even anthropologists realize they only have theories in many situations like these.

[Asker]

It's not naive. Do you have an emotional bias that makes you not want to believe women are wired to be turned on by looks? Are your looks a disadvantage for you and just want female nature to be convenient for you?

[cavmanier]

I think you're distorting logic in a negative way. I've been successful attracting women so I don't think this is applicable to me.

[Asker]

You've been successful with women who don't act based on natural attraction, more like a social construct.

[cavmanier]

And the vast majority of women have a sex drive. You really think it isn't motivated by a males body at all? Most are pressured from a young age to resist men, even shun because it isn't lady like. That's the big issue. Before the 1960s it was a lot worse but there is still a residual effect built in our culture and it will take years of baby steps and liberalism to get completely away from it.

[cavmanier]

Uh no plenty of them got horny and wanted to fuck and fuck some more. It's just buried under a lot of oppression. What oppression? Society, largely males, scared of female sexuality. What's that mean? That means they didn't want females to express themselves freely because they would have reign to fuck other guys to put it crudely.

[Asker]

Yeah... That's kinda my point, why does it sound like you are trying to argue with me?

[cavmanier]

Look up Hugh Hefner. Before the 60s it was the woman's job to stay home, cook and clean and take care of their guys sexually. Thought wasn't given to try and have her enjoy the sex. That concept wasn't even around. Women served men in this way. Women weren't thought of as sexual beings. That was a huge no no in society. You think those effects still aren't lingering? That's the real issue. It's ingrained in our culture though so it's hard to break.

[cavmanier]

I was talking to the other guy until you said they don't act based on attraction. I don't know it's confusing talking to two people.

[Asker]

I DO still think they linger, what the heck did you think I meant by social taboo? And what does Hugh Hefner have to do with this? He's an old creep who got women into sex they didn't enjoy using insane amounts of money and jump starting a modeling career for them. Not exactly what AROUSES women.

[cavmanier]

He helped advance female sexuality.

[janice87]

Evolved to be ugly didn't know evolution had eyes. LOL. The reason why the female body is thought of as beautiful is because the media shows it off. In Ancient Greece it was the male body. It all depends on the times and society.

[Anonymous]

I can't speak for all women but I can speak for myself and no I am not turned on by a naked men I really don't find their bodies attractive at all

[Opinion Owner]

It's just not for me Darling

[Asker]

What's not to like? Weren't make bodies designed for the female gaze?

[Asker]

I'm asking for specifics though. I'm sorry if I'm a pain in the ass but I'm THAT kinda guy who questions a girl's sexuality when she says stuff like that.

[Opinion Owner]

Well for me seeing a man's body is like seeing a rug on the floor it does nothing for me

[janice87]

I bet a female body does it for you. You're not a straight woman then.

[Opinion Owner]

I never said I was straight

[Opinion Owner]

This site is ver why homophobic and I don't care what you call me I'm a very happy person funny how you straight women always get bi curious a lot

[Asker]

That's such an ignorant misconception, straight females out in the real world pretty much never get bi curious, idiot loser attention hos that fit the Katy Perry mold are fake and not what real world straight women are like who would puke with another woman and don't need to experiment to know that.

[Opinion Owner]

I agree with you they don't need to experiment to know that . I'm mostly judging from what I see on this site and I see lots of bi curious and in real life I think most of them are for attention and some are really interested in women but It's more like a trend now for women to be bi curious and yeah it's very sad . but like one girl said on here they think it's fun to be with other girls .

[letmeaskthis]

"for me seeing a man's body is like seeing a rug on the floor it does nothing for me" haha best description ever...too bad most guys don't understand it...

[letmeaskthis]

@janice87, female sexuality isn't male sexuality in reverse

[Asker]

No no, I understand that gay and asexual women fit that description- its straight females we are talking about here which is what you seem to get. Female sexuality IS male sexuality in reverse, NOW THAT is a good way of describing something. Even though your intent with that was ignorant, I guess your not totally worthless by saying "male sexuality in reverse. I guess I will give you that you little shit. But now figure out that you are wrong, that's the main thing you need.

[Opinion Owner]

Female sexuality doesn't mean every female should be straight there are gay and bi women in the world .

[Asker]

I don't believe that there is anything natural about being anything other than straight, it makes no sense. If things like homosexuality or bisexuality were in the gene pool, it would serve an evolutionary purpose but it doesn't and never has.

[Opinion Owner]

Well you can have your opinion but it's natural for me and I've tried to like guys most of my life but I never could and I'm finally able to accept myself . if you can't accept me so be it but at least I am at a place now where I am happy and no longer lying to myself

[Asker]

K sure do whatever, all I'm saying is the fact there are gay and bi women doesn't change my logical viewpoint because I'm not convinced that nature intended for people to be like that. Take offense if you want, but that's just factual reality that FACTS can support.

[Opinion Owner]

It's your factual reality that your opinion supports

[Asker]

No it's not an opinion because I didn't necessarily assign judgement saying you people are good or bad. No matter what someone's opinion is, it's true that procreation naturally can only happen through heterosexual sex which was needed to keep the species alive. I didn't say gay and bi is bad, I said its unnatural which is a hypothesis and not an opinion.

[Opinion Owner]

Why do you care if a some women are lesbian or bi there are still straight women walking around why don't you worry about them and leave the rest of us who are bi or lesbian alone . why do you care what we do it's not of your business what we do or who we love ?

[Asker]

Well I'm sorry but I do have a strong opinion against non heterosexuality. I think it's a morality issue that needs to be addressed, it's like someone not being OK with people who murder- that's how I strongly I feel about homosexuality and bisexuality.

[Opinion Owner]

Well would you like to marry some one whose not sexually attracted you and fake liking you then behind your back sleep with the same ?

[Asker]

No, but I'm more concerned with morality than I am about non straight people being in relationships

[Opinion Owner]

What about straight people who can't reproduce shouldn't they be considered immoral as well or the ones that choose not to have children ? and comparing it to murder how is loving some one murder explain that to me how is that similar because murder is killing someone loving someone is not . How are they the same ?

[Asker]

With straight people who can't reproduce, their infertility has nothing to do with the gender of their partner so getting rid of those relationships wouldn't address the issue. With homosexual couples, your partners gender is the reason for your infertility so abolishing same sex relationships would address the issue in those cases- well it's only one thing that needs to be done, but it's still important. And homosexual love is comparable to murder because by not being able to reproduce, you are

[Asker]

denying them the right to life. Unborn people are being deprived of the right to be born. Murder takes life away from people, homosexual relations deny people life right from the start.

[Opinion Owner]

You do know gays and lesbians can have kids right just not the same way as heterosexuals , If I want a child I can go down to the sperm back , take my eggs and have it combined with sperm for me to get pregnant and have a baby . Even some straight women do this and some straight couples that can't have kids do this . So is this still murder are the heterosexual women that do this murdering unborn babies are they gays and lesbian as well murdering people ?

[Asker]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to do that procedure you are talking about because when the children are born, their ideal situation as far as parents go is with their two biological parents- the other ideal parent for your kids would be the man who owns the sperm you used as that makes him the biological father. It's not about needing a mother and a father necessarily , it's about needing both biological parents which will always be a man and a woman- no matter what! And another part of the

[Asker]

process of raising kids in an ideal home environment is the two parents being loving and committed to each other to avoid them fighting and causing stress for the kids. In this artificial pregnancy situation applied to homosexuals, they are creating a non ideal situation for their kids. You trying to overcome nature with artificial pregnancy leads practically to child abuse because you can't provide the best environment possible, no matter how good your individual parenting skills are.

[Opinion Owner]

If I did this I would let the man meet his child or the child meet there father I would get sperm from some one I'm actually close with and someone I know but most of the the time some of the men don't even want anything to do with their kid . What about the heterosexual women that take sperm from men to have children why is OK for them ? and since needing biological parents is important what about singles mothers shouldn't also not be allowed to have children as well ?

[Opinion Owner]

really because I know a lot of heterosexual that created the worst environment for their kids with constant fighting and causing stress for their kids I've seen it first hand myself . Also isn't divorce rates and bad marriages high with heterosexual couples there is even data. I always heard a saying from a heterosexual man just because you can have sex and make a baby doesn't make you a good parent , kids want parents that love them they wouldn't care who their parents were .

[Asker]

Even if you let the man meet those kids , you still aren't in a loving relationship with him to raise the kids together and work together everyday to raise them. That sounds just like a divorced situation with split custody which still isn't ideal. I agree with you that all those situation given by straight parents are not ideal and yes, just as bad. It's possible for straight parents to provide a not ideal situation for kids, but at the time straight parents are the only ones capable of

[Opinion Owner]

First of all If I were in a relationship with him to raise kids I still wouldn't love him hello I'm a lesbian . Plus I would have another partner a woman that I love and we would work together to take care and raise our children .being with a man would be more like split custody marrying and having kids with a man I don't love and not attracted to living like that would be like living in hell . Why are straight parents the only capable one is because their male and female explain it to me

[Asker]

providing an ideal child-friendly environment. With homo couples, it isn't even possible for them to provide that. Homosexual parent situations will be non ideal every single time, no matter what. And comparing the success of straight relationships to gay relationships percentage wise is an invalid argument because very few people in our population are part of the LGBT group which means a very small number of homo relationships ever occur. LGBT members make up only like 5% of the human race.

[Asker]

If homo relationships happened even nearly as often as straight relationships, I bet the numbers would equal out.

[Opinion Owner]

Do you live in the LGBT community ? Do you know all the gays and lesbians in united states or in fact the world ? if there are less lgbt people than straight then why are you so scared of lgbt people and say them being together threatens heterosexuals if the numbers of them are so low ? there is data about homosexual relationships raising children and it said homosexual do a far better job raising children then their heterosexual counterparts . also the children are much happier .

[Asker]

That data is being taken in a time where the LGBT community is brainwashing society to see things their way and where it's not "socially acceptable" to present something unfavorable to LGBT people, So yeah, that data is probably factually not accurate because it was taken by people under the influence of the LGBT communities' emotional agenda. They just artificially put that data together for the sake of being acceptable in a society controlled by LGBT facism.

[Opinion Owner]

You could say the same thing about homophobic heterosexual that like to tell people the lgbt population is a low percent but you wonder if that were true by are they so scared about everyone turning gay because as far as I know you can not change someone's sexuality .

[Asker]

K so let me ask you something. What evolutionary purpose do you think homosexuality serves? My main reason for believing that homosexuality is unnatural is because it seems to have served no positive purpose for the human race throughout time. Heterosexuality kepted the population alive with reproduction and everything that is natural goes back to how important it was in cave people times. How would homosexual behavior help anything back at the dawn of time? It it has no purpose pertaining to

[Asker]

that, it is not a natural thing. Natural things for humans serve a purpose that goes back to that time period.

[Opinion Owner]

There are homosexual and lesbian animals are they also unnatural ? and since heterosexuals only purpose in life is to make kids then why do you guys get married ? why don't you guys just make and raise a kid what is the point of marriage then if the only reason people should get married is to reproduce then why not run a test on people who want to get married and see if they can reproduce and if they can't they shouldn't be not be allowed to even if they are a man and a woman .

[Asker]

Messed up things happen with animals to, not like everything about them is purely natural and meaningful. Yes homosexuality and bisexuality happens in nature, but what I'm talking about the traits processes by the individuals who impact the species in a positive way, there are traits that cause the individuals to be a threat or a liability to it's species. And I never said reproduction is the only purpose for relationships, but it's one of the main ones that needs to be there. Never said it was

[Asker]

EVERYTHING, but I'm saying it's substantial. And you didn't answer my question, what evolutionary purpose does homosexual behavior serve? Can you answer that or is that a question you feel the need to avoid?

[Opinion Owner]

But you said lesbians and gays shouldn't be together or marry each other or have a right to a family and only heterosexuals should because they can reproduce . That means marriage isn't about love at all and just the ability for two people to reproduce because it impacts the species in a positive way . So why not ban heterosexuals that can't reproduce from getting married because they are also going against nature and the ones that don't want to reproduce are going against nature as well .

[Asker]

These things may happen in nature, doesn't mean it's supposed to. Harmful interference may cause unnatural things like homosexual behavior to occur.

[Opinion Owner]

Wouldn't heterosexual couples that can't reproduce or don't want to have children also be harmful and unnatural as well ? why not bann them for marrying ? because we all no marriage is all about reproducing and not love !

[Asker]

I'm saying every aspect of what's supposed to happen should be included. Both the marriage AND reproduction. It shouldn't just be one which is all homo couples are really capable of. It's better if they go to therapy or something and mentally fix themselves into being straight. I do believe that is possible with every non straight person because you're putting them back into their natural state.

[Asker]

Being gay or bi is practically an environmentally induced mental illness.

[Opinion Owner]

actually the American Psychological Association ruled that homosexuality is not a mental illness in 1973 so your wrong on that .

[letmeaskthis]

the question asker is struggling with his homosexuality...apparently he is a gay guy in denial...yet he is homophobic and thinks being gay is unnatural, immoral and it is a mental illness...hence all his problems...

[Opinion Owner]

I agree with you . Some homophobic people are struggling with their sexuality and like to act other lgbt for it .

[Asker]

You are making a shallow claim to authority, something isn't true just because a so-called professional said so. They are not right just because they are the APA. @letmeaskyouthis: You are making the most ignorant and immature assumptions one can make. You think I'm gay just because I can realize the male body looks good artistically. There is a difference between admiration and attraction that uninformed assholes like you don't understand. You think being straight means not even being able to

[Asker]

function while seeing a male body. That's just immaturity- learn the difference between attraction and admiration. People many times just say homophobes are gays in denial because that is their way of verbally going back at them. It's nothing but a douchey, unfactual comeback people use to fight homophobia. You are nothing but a dick when you say that, nothing factual about what you are saying.

[letmeaskthis]

haha...you see...he got angry and started telling us how awesome the male body is...ahahah...this guy is hilarious...

[Opinion Owner]

have you studied psychology ? do you have a psychology license ? if not then you don't know much about mental illness and not qualified to judge what is and what isn't . I've learned the difference between attraction and admiration and I can tell you I don't have attraction for men but I do have it for women and yes I can have admiration for a man and think he's cool but we all know thinking someone is cool isn't attraction .

[Opinion Owner]

@letmeaskthis so true lol I was laughing at it when I saw it

[Asker]

Lol you guys are using such a pathetic and obvious verbal fighting strategy. You think that acting like this makes you laugh is somehow going to make me feel inadequate with what I am saying, it's just a dick move and nothing more- waste your time if you want :P I was talking to letmeaskyouthis about the admiration vs attraction thing, not the answerer so don't get mixed up. Anyway, I don't need a psychology license to tell you about common sense on things pertaining to psychology, I need a

[Asker]

You guys are acting like I'm making you laugh just because you think I'll take offense to that, your attempt to get under my skin is just making you look like bigger retarded assholes.

[letmeaskthis]

@asker, ...why do you think admiration and attraction should be kept separate...for my part I am attracted to women and I admire women and I admire female bodies...admiration and attraction were separated by Plato I guess..as you know gay sex among men was common in ancient Greece...they also admired the male body...just like you...since then love (admiration) and sex (attraction) have been kept separate by gay people...gay guys in denial...like you...

[Opinion Owner]

I think he's in denial about his sexuality that's why he hates lesbians and gays so much