In a message dated 7/7/2000 2:55:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> The body functions were measured after each picture was viewed. Do
> you know which group of men found their significant other to be more
> attractive?!!! So much for "love". Or are extropian men "different"? I
> hope so!
>
Oh, I doubt it. Read on...
Did they mention women, were they measured too? I bet the same
model/porny-pics turn them on more than ones of their computer programmer
sweethearts. Personally I find images of unknown women much more erotic than
pictures of normal guys ( or girls). I am not sure a candid photo of my guy
would arouse me as much a a good airbrushed penthouse pic - (depending on the
pic) - and I am not a lesbian.
Bottom line, we've been sold a bill of goods. When I think of "sexy" images,
I think of Playboy and Madison Avenue models. I paint that kind of thing too
when I want erotic art, not some guy with it all hangin' out!
I think *that* arousal reaction is a pre-programmed reaction due to too
much exposure to advertising selling women's bodies as sex.
Until recently with Calvin Klien and GAP I rarely saw men on display except
in homo-erotic ways. and those guys are AWFULLY lean, pretty and young.. not
anyone i'd spend an evening discussing architecture and art with.. if ya know
what I mean...If men's bodies were sold as sex items we would have a larger
acceptance of men's bodies and privates, and also men could be viewed as sex
objects without being gay. Perhaps even men would get turned on by other men
and lose some of their homophobic fear of seeing other men naked! ( ...ah, I
can hear the groans of dismay)
If you mean are extropian men more discriminating in who they chose to have
relationships with - then yes, I would say so - in general. They want
conversationss that matter. But they are no more in charge of what gets them
aroused than the rest of us.
Seems to me a healthy libido is a good thing, but it lets us get manipulated
all too easily.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:09 MDT