Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

What are your thoughts about masculinity and femininity when it comes to sexual attraction and sexual relationships? Do you believe there are any sexual components to socially-taught ideas about gender, namely femininity in women and masculinity in men?

I was talking with u/theory_of_this about an interrupted discussion we were having on the old sub before it was deleted, and I thought it might be interesting to revisit the topic here. I feel like from a GC perspective, masculinity and femininity are pure social constructs. Therefore, they are not natural to either men or women. If we had a genderless world, I do not believe sexual attraction would disappear. People would still be biologically driven to mate with one another.

Put this way, if we took 100 people, shaved their heads, stripped them naked, and deposited them on a desert island, the vast majority of them would not lose their desire to mate with the opposite (or same) sex despite the lack of outward gender cues. I believe sexual orientation is fundamentally about bodies. Minds and personalities are also important, but "gender" seems not to have much to do with it, given that masculinity and femininity vary drastically from one culture to another.

In your personal life, do you find yourselves attracted to masculinity or femininity as a fundamental part of the sex(es) you're drawn to? Or to masculinity or femininity on their own, outside of sex?

top 100 commentsshow all 111
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]theblackfleet 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No. Nothing about gender aka sex role stereotypes are biologically based. They are roles that are imposed upon us. Sex is about, well SEX. You're right, sex is about SEXED bodies, not sex role stereotypes. I'm not attracted to sex role stereotypes.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's exactly how I feel about it. I'm attracted to men and the biological masculinity of their bodies, not the false gendered roles that society has chosen for them.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Mainly the first one, although there could be a part of the second too. How would you separate it exactly?

I’m attracted to masculinity in my partners. That could be a socialized thing, although I know I’m attracted to more masculine looking guys (think things like build, musculature, face shape) than some of my (natal female) friends are. One of my good friends has always liked scrawnier guys and I for my life don’t understand it, lol (no offense to scrawny guys). We could just all be a little different. How guys speak and carry themselves is a part of it too.

I feel like the attraction to men has to be like hard wired, but some of the type stuff could be socialized.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Hard to separate them out. I think the second is something that possibly only happens for people with fetishes. I don't think most people are going to sexualize masculinity or femininity outside of the context of people they're sexually attracted to.

I know I’m attracted to more masculine looking guys (think things like build, musculature, face shape)

I am, too. That's my strongest preference. Does styling (clothes, hair) or behavior play any role in your attraction?

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Okay, I feel like I understand. I don’t think I sexualized masculinity outside of finding someone attractive.

Does styling (clothes, hair) or behavior play any role in your attraction?

Clothes can totally bring out physical features that I find attractive, but I feel like it’s more about the features than the clothes. Don’t be trashy though.

I’ve found guys with short hair and long hair attractive, although I’d be turned off if an otherwise cute guy had a hair style that was really feminine coded. I prefer short hair though. All the guys I’ve dated have had short hair and my husband keeps his short.

Behavior plays a role, although I haven’t analyzed it that much. I don’t like toxic masculinity or guys who feel they have to act macho, but confidence is sexy and I feel like confident guys don’t do those things anyway. I feel like a great voice can really enhance how attractive a guy is too.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As far as behavior goes, I think I'd be sexually turned off if a man had a very feminine voice or mannerisms, although I suppose you could argue those are at least partly biological. But as far as hobbies or something, I really don't care what hobbies someone has. If a man liked knitting, that would not make him more or less sexually attractive to me.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think I'd be sexually turned off if a man had a very feminine voice or mannerisms

Me too.

But as far as hobbies or something, I really don't care what hobbies someone has.

I don’t think hobbies would matter to me in terms of attractiveness. I’m sure some hobbies I wouldn’t be to my tastes, but I feel like that would be different from attractiveness though, more like compatibility or preferences.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same here. It would really only matter to me if he had an immoral hobby. A feminine one would be perfectly fine. I may not be able to relate, but I'd support him.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, people fetishise various things that are associated with femininity or masculinity. But human sexuality has been tied into gender more and more over the last few decades and sexualised femininity.

I don’t think the two can be separated entirely. Our sexuality is influenced by external factors and gender norms are part of them.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It seems like we're living through an era where gender roles are especially rigid and exaggerated. Women and girls are presented in increasingly pornified ways.

I don’t think the two can be separated entirely.

What do you think of my desert island example? Do you think people would "get over" gender if they forced to in a situation like that?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I think they would tbh.

[–]FlanJam 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

As you mentioned, masculinity and femininity changes with time and across different cultures. So I highly doubt gender has anything to do with sexual orientation. That being said, I think people are definitely socialized into having preferences.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Agreed. I also wonder how elastic those preferences are. They may have been socialized into people at young ages, but I find it hard to imagine straight men would stop experiencing sexual attraction to women if femininity somehow disappeared tomorrow.

[–]FlanJam 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They probably wouldn't like it at first, but I think they'd get used to it. Might take some time, and maybe older men would be stuck in their ways, but overall I don't think socialization can totally override underlying attraction.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really don't think it would be a big deal for most. It seems like men are highly adaptable. Hairy women used to be the norm, and now most young men think women's body hair is sexually unattractive. Sexual preferences can change in less than a generation. Some men might be upset for a few weeks or months, but they'd adjust.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my personal life, I can't say I'm attracted to masculinity on its own, at least not in a sexual way. I have adopted a masculine outer presentation because it's how I'm comfortable and what I find aesthetically pleasing for myself, but there is zero sexual component involved in cutting my hair short or wearing clothes from the men's section. I'm quite positive I do not have any leanings in the direction of autoandrophilia.

As for my partners, I've only had one, but in general I am attracted to men with a neutral-to-masculine outer presentation. Short hair, men's clothes. I don't know whether this is a result of my internalized misogyny, but I've never been attracted to femininity on any level for anyone, including myself and other women and girls. I don't believe this is any type of double standard then, when I say I prefer my sexual partner to be at least neutral on the social femininity scale.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is going to sound woo as all fuck, but . . . I've never had a "type," I just know it when I see it. I've dated across ethnicities and varying degrees of neutral-to-masc, long hair, short hair, etc. I've tried to figure out a pattern and honestly I can't -- I just know it in my gut when I click with someone.

Very helpful, I know. 😄 I guess I'm here if you need an outlier to your thesis of attraction patterns.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Thanks for replying. I think that makes plenty of sense. I'm sure there are tons of people out there who don't have a particular type. If you click with someone, you just click.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I wish there were a way to quantify it though. My rational brain wants there to be a pattern -- pheromones? voice timbre? ears of even height? -- but I just have to ride with the woo I guess.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Does your attraction extend to both sexes?

If wonder if bisexuals may be more likely not to have a masculine or feminine preference, yet I've also seen some bisexual people say they have very strong preferences, and that what they like may be different depending on the sex of the person.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, it does, actually.

Thinking about it . . . okay, these aren't physical or sexual aspects, but "basic competence and having one's shit together" is very attractive to me. Doesn't have to be butch/masc, just --- functional. I guess I could say I'm not attracted to flighty, hand-wringing, "helpless" stereotypes of feminine behavior . . . or the hypermasculine extreme, either. I've never really thought it through like this before. 🤔

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I'm pretty much the same. I have a strong physical type, but in terms of personality, I'm not attracted to anything extreme. The feminine stereotype is unappealing, but I have an even stronger aversion to "macho" behavior in men. That puts me off entirely.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

A starting point for me is the overwhelming connection societies make between those social aspects of masculinity and femininity and sexuality. You can browse through high art, pop culture, novels, comics, Literature and see a constant connection between gender and sexuality. Humans always find a way to express them even in societies where the physical gender differences matter less. Perhaps there is more need to express it there.

I have to admit an especially awkward reality is the relationship with "power." The eroticism and gendered nature of power. That might be a separate post discussion. It could also manifest as "status." "Men of status are sexualized." That could be a side issue there are plenty of non power traits of masculinity and femininity.

On this forum, well in the other place, people are often at odds with gender norms, which isn't representative of society where most people are conforming. I don't accept the common gc idea that most people are gender non conforming. It creates an unrealistic version of what most people feel. All popular erotica, enjoyed by men and women, has distinctly sexual forms of masculinity and femininity. Though erotica in part creates culture it is also reflects desires.

To take the tabula rasa island idea, I think erotic forms of masculinity and femininity would simply re emerge. Just as if you took 100 people of different languages, or children raised by robots, over time they would create new forms of language and gender.

You probably can find tiny communities with little gender expression, roles etc. But they are struggling communities not thriving ones, with little resources, small numbers and lacking knowledge larger societies take for granted.

Do gc people here "get" what people sexually enjoy about masculinity and femininity. Do they see what others enjoy? I mean in forms that are deemed acceptable by gc? Perhaps a list of examples would be good. Though when I point to a wiki description of masculinity that's viewed as unreasonable. Though I think it's perfectly banal answer. I'm not trying to present gender as perfectly egalitarian and politically correct. Life isn't as easy as that.

Oh and at a personal level I've found people are obsessed with it as much as it is presented in culture in the media. Lots of examples.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

Well, you always bring up "power," by which you appear to mean BDSM, and I would strongly disagree that BDSM has any inherent place in sexuality. I think it seems that way to you because you have a fetish. But for those of us outside that world, it is irrelevant. Particularly for anyone who did not grow up watching Internet porn. At one point you linked to mainstream romance movies and said the gender roles couldn't be swapped. Out of the examples you gave, I think all but one could have been. There was nothing particularly gendered about them.

I know you have mentioned romance novels, but women in this society are raised in an oppressive culture. We have seen images of sexual violence against women from the time we are young. Huge numbers of women have been sexually abused, and huge numbers of women have grown up in a "purity culture" that says openly sexual women are shameful and dirty and should not have desires. Many young women are also fed images of predatory men as heroes. Some of these women may end up sexualizing violence or violence, but that is not women's inherent state. If I believed that, I'd just go and kill myself now because there would be zero point to anything we are trying to do if little girls are actually born to want to be inferior to men.

Do gc people here "get" what people sexually enjoy about masculinity and femininity. Do they see what others enjoy? I mean in forms that are deemed acceptable by gc? Perhaps a list of examples would be good.

Not particularly. Let's say you don't mean BDSM. Okay, what is it about masculinity that you think appeals to women? I'm attracted to men who are at least neutral on the social scale, but my primary attraction to men is based around the male body. What am I supposed to be "getting?" I'd say some concrete examples would be good. From my perspective, my partner needs to have a male outer appearance in order for sexual attraction to manifest. But I'm not attracted to toxic masculinity.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

Particularly for anyone who did not grow up watching Internet porn.

Which obviously I didn't.

And I definitely don't think we need to reference BDSM here. We just need to look at mainstream and popular things.

At one point you linked to mainstream romance movies and said the gender roles couldn't be swapped. Out of the examples you gave, I think all but one could have been. There was nothing particularly gendered about them.

Again I don't see it.

Do you have examples?

I don't think you can flip genders in mainstream romantic films without arriving at something most people would consider odd, humorous and probably sexually deviant. This is only mainstream films that are mildly sexual.

Work created to be more erotic is more gendered. It hits the buttons.

If you want to say popular romance and erotic novels are the products of an oppressive patriarchy culture therefore they are all the bad things, eroticising bad forms of masculinity and femininity. Then that's a different argument.

You then have to deal with women wanting those works because that's what women want. I doesn't make them bad, helpless people that don't know what's good for them. I think they can detach enough of fantasy from reality and know what to enjoy. But the traits are there.

Let's say you don't mean BDSM. Okay, what is it about masculinity that you think appeals to women?

Ok lets look at the dreaded wikipedia page for masculinity.

Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods. Traits traditionally viewed as masculine in Western society include strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness.

I might add status. But status can come from talent and achievement. Being outstanding.

Let's look at wiki on femininity.

Traits such as nurturance, sensitivity, sweetness, supportiveness, gentleness, warmth, passivity, cooperativeness, expressiveness, modesty, humility, empathy, affection, tenderness, and being emotional, kind, helpful, devoted, and understanding have been cited as stereotypically feminine. The defining characteristics of femininity vary between and even within societies.

I through in beauty too. That seems to play a stronger role. It can appear than "men have to do and women have to be." For all the unfairness of that for both sexes.

It's not that these things are all completely uninfluenced by culture or all completely one sided. It's just a strong aspect of sexual behaviour.

I'm not saying you ought to feel this way, a starting point here is asking you do see what others like?

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Which obviously I didn't.

Fair enough, there were people with fetishes even before porn. But porn makes things worse.

I don't think you can flip genders in mainstream romantic films without arriving at something most people would consider odd, humorous and probably sexually deviant. This is only mainstream films that are mildly sexual.

I don't remember which movies you linked, except 500 Days of Summer. I think you could swap the roles in that without anything becoming a fetish. What about the movie makes you think the female role couldn't be swapped with the male role? It's just a love story about people falling in love. Not anything particularly gendered.

If you want to say popular romance and erotic novels are the products of an oppressive patriarchy culture therefore they are all the bad things, eroticising bad forms of masculinity and femininity. Then that's a different argument.

That's always been my argument. That those things are not natural but a perversion of sexuality. Little girls are not born to want to be abused. And just because some of that stuff has BDSM does not mean that heterosexuality is about BDSM. I know you say this isn't BDSM, but that's what power imbalances entail.

You then have to deal with women wanting those works because that's what women want. I doesn't make them bad, helpless people that don't know what's good for them. I think they can detach enough of fantasy from reality and know what to enjoy. But the traits are there.

I think it harms them and harms society. So yes, some may be helpless in what they enjoy because of prior abuse and trauma, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility for writing books that promote domestic violence, rape, and sexism. And they're responsible for putting this shit out in the world where it can harm the next generation of girls.

Traits traditionally viewed as masculine in Western society include strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness.

Nothing wrong with any of those in and of themselves. That's not toxic masculinity. But it's a problem when it's insinuated that only men can have those traits. A strong, courageous woman can also be applauded, as can a nurturing man. If you're saying men are not sexually attracted to independent, confident women (which I don't believe), that's a problem. That's harmful to women, but it's harmful to men, too.

I'm not saying you ought to feel this way, a starting point here is asking you do see what others like?

Not really. I just don't see what any of that has to do with sex. Let's say you have a handsome man. Let's say he's very handsome, like movie star handsome with an athletic body. Are you saying women will not be attracted to him if he is gentle? I just don't believe that at all. Unless you think women don't want partners who are kind. I don't believe women naturally want partners who are abusive or controlling unless they grow up in unhealthy environments.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

Fair enough, there were people with fetishes even before porn. But porn makes things worse.

I just think there is a bad assumption here that porn is the root of all deviancy. Rather than an expression of it.

I don't remember which movies you linked, except 500 Days of Summer. I think you could swap the roles in that without anything becoming a fetish. What about the movie makes you think the female role couldn't be swapped with the male role? It's just a love story about people falling in love. Not anything particularly gendered.

Let me get back to you on 500 Days of Summer. :) For a more in depth comment on it. A postmodern deconstruction of the manic dream pixie trope might be having it's cake and eating it.

That's always been my argument. That those things are not natural but a perversion of sexuality. Little girls are not born to want to be abused. And just because some of that stuff has BDSM does not mean that heterosexuality is about BDSM. I know you say this isn't BDSM, but that's what power imbalances entail.

Do you think BDSM is a spectrum? Or is all elements touching it wrong?

Nothing wrong with any of those in and of themselves. That's not toxic masculinity. But it's a problem when it's insinuated that only men can have those traits. A strong, courageous woman can also be applauded, as can a nurturing man. If you're saying men are not sexually attracted to independent, confident women (which I don't believe), that's a problem. That's harmful to women, but it's harmful to men, too.

If you believe in abolishing gender you can't have them associated with masculinity. If you specifically enjoy them in men you can be accused of re enforcing gender norms.

Of course I can believe people can be attracted to women with those traits. But that is not the end of gender. Only if there is no relationship does gender end. Which I don't think is possible. In this instance women are going to carry on being sexually attracted to masculinity.

Not really. I just don't see what any of that has to do with sex. Let's say you have a handsome man. Let's say he's very handsome, like movie star handsome with an athletic body. Are you saying women will not be attracted to him if he is gentle?

I'm saying more women will find him more attractive if he is masculine rather than feminine.

All things being equal.

If he has feminine expression, lacks the sexual dominance, that male romantic role, then the masculine version would be preferred. On average.

I think the stats on that are overwhelming.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

I just think there is a bad assumption here that porn is the root of all deviancy. Rather than an expression of it.

I believe it directly causes much deviancy, but there are a smaller number of deviants who would exist independent of porn.

Let me get back to you on 500 Days of Summer. :) For a more in depth comment on it. A postmodern deconstruction of the manic dream pixie trope might be having it's cake and eating it.

I only saw the trailer. I don't watch romantic comedy type stuff, so I'm not really familiar with that trope.

Do you think BDSM is a spectrum? Or is all elements touching it wrong?

Of course it's a spectrum, but all of it is wrong. It's a symptom of a sick, toxic society that hates women.

If you believe in abolishing gender you can't have them associated with masculinity. If you specifically enjoy them in men you can be accused of re enforcing gender norms.

Of course I believe in abolishing gender. I don't specifically enjoy them in men. I think some of the traits are good for women to have, just like certain "feminine" traits are good for men to have. It's harmful for women to be taught that only men are strong and courageous because the flip side of that is that women are helpless, and I believe many women have a learned helplessness that they need to overcome. Anyway, this has got nothing to do with sex. A man doesn't need to be strong or courageous to be sexually attractive.

Of course I can believe people can be attracted to women with those traits. But that is not the end of gender. Only if there is no relationship does gender end. Which I don't think is possible. In this instance women are going to carry on being sexually attracted to masculinity.

Is your argument that gender is going to be difficult to abolish? Of course I agree. However, I think you have an odd idea of masculinity and femininity in that you have sexualized them to an extremely significant degree in your mind. "Sexually attracted to masculinity" is an odd concept that most other commenters in this thread haven't backed up, either.

If he has feminine expression, lacks the sexual dominance, that male romantic role, then the masculine version would be preferred. On average.

There you go back again with the BDSM. Sexual dominance is evil, in my book. This is not natural to women and girls. I refuse to believe any little girl comes into the world wanting to be choked and slapped around and beaten by her future romantic partner. No normal 12 year old girl who hasn't been abused or exposed to violent porn or toxic beliefs is going to want a man to hit her or rape her. To say such things implies that women are sexually inferior to men and are born that way.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

I believe it directly causes much deviancy, but there are a smaller number of deviants who would exist independent of porn.

What's counting as deviancy here?

Anything that isn't anatomical sexual attraction? I don't think sexual attraction is only about the body. As crucial as that is.

A man doesn't need to be strong or courageous to be sexually attractive.

But it helps a lot.

A man being feminine is damaging for his sexual reputation with women.

The same principle acts on both sexes. Though gender is not the same for men and women.

For example. On average a man being a rich, successful, famous racing driver adds to his "sex appeal" with women. It adds to his "masculinity."

All things being equal, the same is not true in reverse. Men generally don't feel the same way about a woman with equal talents.

It might be unfair but women are judged more visually. Were they judged as homemakers more in the past? Perhaps. But that that role has diminished. A woman dressing "feminine" adds to her "sex appeal."

You get why a hypothetical "famous racing driver" would end up with a hypothetical "catwalk model."

You see what the each of those people is getting in terms of masculinity and femininity?

Even if you disapprove of it.

Is your argument that gender is going to be difficult to abolish?

My argument is that it's impossible and that social gender is linked to sexual behaviour.

"Sexually attracted to masculinity" is an odd concept that most other commenters in this thread haven't backed up, either.

This is not an odd idea outside of this subreddit. It is a given reality.

There you go back again with the BDSM.

We don't have to talk about it.

I do think though that power and sex have strong relationship. Again not something you can dismantle only manage.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

What's counting as deviancy here?

I'm specifically thinking of violence.

I find it frustrating to debate with you because you're so cagey about this stuff. I feel like you never say what you mean. You just dance around it, like you expect me to infer it. But it's all so vague. So, no, I don't understand half the stuff you're talking about. I don't know what you're picturing or imagining. I think the reason a race car driver ends up with a catwalk model is because men are taught to find performative femininity sexy, that's all there is to it. A man who can have his pick of women is going to choose ones who are conventionally socially attractive because that's what he's been taught to value. If he's not a completely shallow person, her moral and intellectual qualities should also matter. You can't have a relationship based on looks alone.

What men find sexy depends on the culture they're raised in. If the hypothetical race car driver was raised in a tribe in Africa, he would find women with shaved heads or lip plates or stretched ears attractive. Women, unfortunately, are so beaten down by the patriarchy in America and elsewhere that they're taught their "sex appeal" matters. If women as a whole could be convinced to get rid of it, we'd all be better off, and men would adjust just fine.

We don't have to talk about it.

Again, so cagey. You brought it up. Please define what you mean by "sexual dominance." And please be specific. If you mean violence, then say so. What exactly are you picturing here that you think a gentle man is not sexually attractive to normal women?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

I'm specifically thinking of violence.

But "deviancy" includes plenty more things than violence right?

I've always said gendered sexuality is not exclusively about power.

You don't think masculinity and femininity are exclusively expressions of power do you?

I find it frustrating to debate with you because you're so cagey about this stuff. I feel like you never say what you mean. You just dance around it, like you expect me to infer it. But it's all so vague. So, no, I don't understand half the stuff you're talking about.

You say you are very much into personally expressing masculinity.

You must mean that is different than femininity.

I point to popular romantic fiction has often having masculine tropes as part of the attractiveness of the male figure. I don't see how that is evasive or controversial.

I don't know what you're picturing or imagining. I think the reason a race car driver ends up with a catwalk model is because men are taught to find performative femininity sexy, that's all there is to it.

If men only find femininity sexual because they are taught it then women only find masculinity attractive because they are taught it.

I think the issue there is you are taking masculinity for granted. Men are performing masculinity as well.

For your perspective femininity is unnatural and masculinity is the norm. Everyone should be masculine. Masculine isn't "sexy" because you can't see why anyone would want to be feminine or find it sexual. There is only masculinity as the norm.

But I don't think that's how the majority of people are. Most people would find that unnatural.

A man who can have his pick of women is going to choose ones who are conventionally socially attractive because that's what he's been taught to value. If he's not a completely shallow person, her moral and intellectual qualities should also matter. You can't have a relationship based on looks alone.

You're saying women who are attracted to conventional masculinity are shallow?

What men find sexy depends on the culture they're raised in. If the hypothetical race car driver was raised in a tribe in Africa, he would find women with shaved heads or lip plates or stretched ears attractive.

They still have gender norms deeply linked to sexuality. They never give up difference. The forms vary but there is always a difference.

Possibly some recurring forms.

Women, unfortunately, are so beaten down by the patriarchy in America and elsewhere that they're taught their "sex appeal" matters. If women as a whole could be convinced to get rid of it, we'd all be better off, and men would adjust just fine.

There is no escaping sex appeal as part of human behaviour.

Again, so cagey. You brought it up. Please define what you mean by "sexual dominance."

The usual dominant behaviours in a sexual context.

Expecting control, giving orders, putting themselves first, expecting submission, non agreeableness, taking over others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressions_of_dominance

And please be specific. If you mean violence, then say so. What exactly are you picturing here that you think a gentle man is not sexually attractive to normal women?

An agreeable, gentle, passive, submissive can be attractive but all things being equal, dominant men in the sexual role and out are going to be more attractive to women on average. That's a fairly reliable stat.

You do see what people can find attractive about sexually dominant people?

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

But "deviancy" includes plenty more things than violence right?

I suppose it can, but that's not really what we're talking about here. Or at least it's not what I'm talking about. We may be at cross-purposes. What other specific deviancy are you referring to?

I've always said gendered sexuality is not exclusively about power. You don't think masculinity and femininity are exclusively expressions of power do you?

It depends how you mean. To be seen as feminine in society means to be seen as powerless because the female mind and body are viewed as inferior to the male one. I don't think that bleeds into sexual intercourse in sexually healthy, non-traumatized people.

You say you are very much into personally expressing masculinity. You must mean that is different than femininity.

The opposite of femininity is not masculinity but neutrality. Men are seen as the default, unadorned human.

If men only find femininity sexual because they are taught it then women only find masculinity attractive because they are taught it.

Yes, of course. Especially toxic masculinity. No little girl is born wanting toxic masculinity thrust upon her.

I think the issue there is you are taking masculinity for granted. Men are performing masculinity as well. For your perspective femininity is unnatural and masculinity is the norm. Everyone should be masculine. Masculine isn't "sexy" because you can't see why anyone would want to be feminine or find it sexual. There is only masculinity as the norm.

I think everyone should be neutral. Just be your natural self. To the extent that men feel compelled to perform "masculinity" (ie: not crying or being tough) that's a false and harmful concept forced on them by virtue of their chromosomes and genitals. Compelled "masculinity" is toxic masculinity.

But I don't think that's how the majority of people are. Most people would find that unnatural.

Little boys aren't naturally stoic. Little girls aren't naturally soft spoken and submissive. It's unnatural to take a child's natural-born inclinations and twist and pervert them to fit rigid gender stereotypes.

You're saying women who are attracted to conventional masculinity are shallow?

No, I was saying men attracted to conventional femininity alone are shallow. But yes, women who value conventional masculinity alone are also shallow. And probably have a poor self concept to boot.

They still have gender norms deeply linked to sexuality. They never give up difference. The forms vary but there is always a difference.

How do you know? There are some tribes we don't even know about. There's that one that chases off people who fly by in helicopters and kill people who land on their island.

The usual dominant behaviours in a sexual context. Expecting control, giving orders, putting themselves first, expecting submission, non agreeableness, taking over others.

So you think most women want to be ordered around and treated like fucking slaves during sex? Good God. I strongly disagree that any sexually healthy, non-traumatized woman wants her male partner to treat her like shit, giving her orders and expecting her to follow his command.

You do see what people can find attractive about sexually dominant people?

No, I do not. You seem to think men who treat women like shit and act like women are inferior in the bedroom are more sexually attractive. I think that's a sick and pornified way to look at the world.

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

What I've observed is that generally middle-class men tend to go for the neoteny of women, while working-class men tend to go for the secondary sex characteristics of women. Hence why the former is into Asian women & the latter into fat women.

I don't know what you mean with "femininity". To me femininity is a gender identity, the personification of which would in essence comprise: ornament/status symbol, fetishised masturbation aid, domesticated indentured servant.

Does heterosexuality exist in the supposed numbers that it does though? I've heard a lot of people readily admit they are not physically attracted to entire ethnicities of people. Are we just taught to be heterosexual & if your conditioning only includes one ethnicity then it won't apply to others? The assumption is that practically everyone is heterosexual, the only rival opinion being we're mostly all bi. But I think most people are probably just asexual (by that I mean aromantic i.e. without sexual orientation i.e. without "romantic" orientation).

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

It's very culture-dependent. In some societies, fat women are a sign of status and wealth.

I don't know what you mean with "femininity". To me femininity is a gender identity, the personification of which would in essence comprise: ornament/status symbol, fetishised masturbation aid, domesticated indentured servant.

Basically that. Long hair, make up, jewelry, dresses, all designed to signify a woman's "role" as decorative objects for men.

But I think most people are probably just asexual (by that I mean aromantic i.e. without sexual orientation i.e. without "romantic" orientation).

Really? That seems highly unlikely to me. Sex is what makes the world go round. If people didn't have legitimate sexual attraction, they wouldn't be having sex as much as they do.

[–]uwubunny 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Basically that. Long hair, make up, jewelry, dresses, all designed to signify a woman's "role" as decorative objects for men.

What purpose would that serve? And why do women put so much energy and enthusiasm into decorating themselves if the decoration just subordinates them? And why so little variety in the decoration compared to what could be imagined?

What's wrong with saying that these specific things here make women more attractive to men, and women generally do want to look attractive to men? Just as men generally also want to attract women, but do so in different ways.

The view of reproduction being put forward here is negative. In nature, things don't work like that. The sexes compete with others of the same sex for the best mates, and with members of the opposite sex to establish which is the best mate. Neither sex is intrinsically oppressed by the fact of having to mate.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And why do women put so much energy and enthusiasm into decorating themselves if the decoration just subordinates them?

Because we live in a patriarchy that tells women from the time they're born that their appearance is what matters most about them. It's no accident girls are groomed (literally) from a young age to present themselves femininely. How many little girls have buzzcuts? Almost none, even though it's more practical. Gotta train them early to believe their hair is important.

Women do plenty of things that subordinate them because they're either non-critically accepting what they've been taught or they have fear of social punishment. Lesbians are more likely to reject femininity because they don't care about men's opinions. If you're a heterosexual woman who does, you're considered an oddity who is punished for it. I've rejected femininity, but most other straight women will not because they believe it will adversely affect their lives. And in many cases, they're right.

What's wrong with saying that these specific things here make women more attractive to men, and women generally do want to look attractive to men?

Because it harms women. The beauty industry is toxic and harmful. Women are genuinely taught to believe that their bare faces are not good enough. That their body hair is ugly and repulsive and needs to be removed. That having short hair is a tragedy. None of that is inborn. It's all social. And we live in a world where women can be fired for not conforming to these stereotypes. This harms everyone. That's why GC believes femininity is part of women's oppression.

The sexes compete with others of the same sex for the best mates

One's level of masculinity or femininity has nothing to do with fertility. I'm masculine as hell, but I menstruate and can carry a baby just like any other woman. I'm assuming, since I haven't put it to the test. Why am I considered less of a valid partner than a feminine woman if I can do all the same things?

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One's level of masculinity or femininity has nothing to do with fertility.

Wrong. Long hair in good condition is a sign of high estrogen and good health and fertility. So are large breasts and wide hips and small feet and hands. So is looking youthful and having a feminine face and little to no body hair (low testosterone). The fundamental reason for all of this is mate competition. Women compete for the best men, men compete (to a much greater extent) for the best women. If you go up against a woman of similar natural attractiveness who is doing all these things to signal beauty, you'll lose. Nothing to do with not being a "valid partner"; you just aren't as attractive. Your bare face isn't as sexy as a face enhanced by makeup. Why doesn't it work as well for men? Because men and women respond to different stimuli. Men like high-contrast between lips, eyes and the rest of the face.

The beauty industry exists because women will do nearly anything to be more attractive than other women - exhibits number one and two being, high heeled shoes and plastic surgery. Men aren't forcing women into this. Women inflict harm on themselves with sexual competition. At least you aren't murdering each other like men do over women. None of this is about subordination. Biology doesn't give a shit if you're subordinated. This is a product of heterosexuality. Lesbians don't bother with the immense effort of looking hot for obvious reasons. Young girls are shown how to present themselves in a sexually attractive way - that's why they have long hair and wear dresses. If you don't like the creepy implications, blame their mothers.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are cultures where all women have shaved heads. Long hair is social, not biological.

None of this is about subordination.

Of course it is. The belief is that women are inferior to men biologically, that we want men to be our leaders. That all we're good for is being submissive helpmeets and fuck toys. If I believed girls were born like that, I'd just give up. There would be no point to anything. I'd transition to male or leave society altogether.

If you don't like the creepy implications, blame their mothers.

The girls didn't think of it on their own, but neither did their mothers. I do blame women for perpetuating the patriarchy. Some radical feminists may feel like giving them a free pass as victims, but I personally was taught to believe people are responsible for their own actions. If you perpetuate something harmful, you should be held morally accountable.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are cultures where all women have shaved heads. Long hair is social, not biological.

That doesn't mean there's no biological reason women usually show their long hair as a sex display, especially women from ethnic groups with naturally straight hair. A small number of exceptions doesn't refute the trend throughout all cultures.

Sexual attraction is inherently objectifying. Women are sex objects to men just as men are sex objects to women. Most young women want to look beautiful and desirable.

That all we're good for is being submissive helpmeets and fuck toys.

Women aren't seen as inferior to men at all. Society places much more value on attractive young women than anyone else. Attractive women can pick and choose which men to date. If you were being objective, you'd be talking about the way that male life is devalued. Men will instinctively sacrifice their own lives to protect women. The murder of an attractive woman causes much more shock and horror than the murder of a man. In a rape accusation, a woman's word is believed over a man's. You can't deny that women have certain privileges.

I'd transition to male or leave society altogether.

Funny how you're saying the same thing MGTOWs say. Have you seen r/transmaxxing?

I do blame women for perpetuating the patriarchy.

Doesn't really sound like a "patriarchy" at all, then, does it? It's almost like it's really just sexual competition tips that their moms are passing down, hoping to make sure their daughters attract the best mates.

[–]anxietyaccount8 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And why do women put so much energy and enthusiasm into decorating themselves if the decoration just subordinates them?

Multiple reasons, obviously...some women like dressing up as a hobby, others want to deliberately look sexy and attractive, and some others are just trying to fit in. Women who don't follow beauty standards are looked down upon.

What's wrong with saying that these specific things here make women more attractive to men, and women generally do want to look attractive to men?

Right, but her point is that women are expected to put a lot of time and energy into attracting men. When women are always "decorated" and expected to attract others, doesn't that show an inequality between them and men?

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I hate when people dismiss other people's attraction to what we regard as "fat" women as being all about what wealth means. Every culture of every ancient society found women that we'd today consider fat to be the most attractive. Ours is the weird culture. We're the ones with the ideology that promotes ribs + lean muscle = attractive, hence why people within our culture who are more genuine, like working class people & ethnic minorities still prefer "fat" women, but anyway...

I didn't mean asexual, actually, I don't think most people are asexual, I just mean: without an orientation. Sex & sexual orientation are two different things. I think most people are born without a sexual orientation, meaning, I think most people are aromantic. It's the difference between love & sex. Straight men who have sex with other men aren't homosexual. Whether you desire having sex with someone or not doesn't inform your sexual orientation.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Straight men who have sex with other men aren't homosexual. Whether you desire having sex with someone or not doesn't inform your sexual orientation.

I feel like sexual orientation specifically describes who you enjoy having sex with or desire to have sex with. If a straight man has sex with a man and enjoys it, how is he straight? I feel like there other words for romantic attraction to a certain sex, but sexual orientation isn’t one of them (although usually romantic attraction and sexual orientation line up).

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If sexual orientation just referred to sex then that would mean LGBT rights would all just be based on sex. No one would bother coming up with all these different labels for sexual orientations if they were about sex & not love. Sexual orientation refers to the romantic relationships you want to pursue. No one needs rights to have sex on the down low. If a man has zero romantic feelings for men & has no interest in them outside having sex with them then how can that be the same as being legitimately bi, where you can fall in love & have romantic relationships with both men & women?

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most people want to be in romantic relationships with people they are sexual attracted to. Gay and Lesbians rights have been about being able to have those relationships and not have to hide them from society. I feel like even if people only wanted to have sex freely and didn’t want to form long-term relationships or marry the same-sex, then LGB rights would have still been necessary because things like anti-sodomy laws existed and there weren’t any protections against discrimination.

If a man has zero romantic feelings for men & has no interest in them outside having sex with them then how can that be the same as being legitimately bi, where you can fall in love & have romantic relationships with both men & women?

I don’t think I understand your question. I feel like if a man enjoys having sex with men, he is bi, even if he never has a romantic relationship with a man.

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A straight man who doesn't love or lust after any specific man, but still may have sex with one isn't bi, since a bi man does love & lust after specific men. That's the difference. You can't just group them together. Actions don't define your sexual orientation. If a man can have sex with an object without it changing his sexual orientation, the same goes for when he has sex with men. It's only once he "falls in love" with an object that might justify labelling that as a different sexual orientation.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Well, yeah, it's not just about power and wealth. It's also about the curves of the body. Fat women may be more noticeably different from men naked and clothed compared to thin women.

I didn't mean asexual, actually, I don't think most people are asexual, I just mean: without an orientation. Sex & sexual orientation are two different things. I think most people are born without a sexual orientation, meaning, I think most people are aromantic.

I thought aromantic was when you didn't fall in love or want to date anyone? I can't keep up with all these new terms. Don't you believe people are born with the desire to form couples? To my mind, sexual orientation is what makes you want to have sex with men or women or both. A man who is sexually attracted to other men and enjoys having sex with them is either gay or bisexual. If a man does that and enjoys it, I wouldn't call him straight.

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yes, aromatic means you don't fall in love. I believe there are a lot of those people about who think they are straight. When they reveal that they have no attraction to certain ethnicities they kind of give the game away. Many straight women seem likely demisexual, naturally. Either that, or they're just desperate.

I think women are inculcated with the desire to become part of a couple. Men prioritise sex. They might consider a relationship a good guarantee for sex. Monogamy is in no way natural in humans. Going back millions of years of the human gene pool reveals that all throughout human history people have not remained monogamous (especially men). Our most recent common patrilineal ancestor (mitochondrial Adam), is several tens of thousands of years younger than mitochondrial Eve (that means men have had more baby-mommas than women baby-daddies)

Men in the military & prison have sex with each other. I don't believe they just all happened to turn bi. Men will have sex with anyone, or anything. Most sex from a man's perspective is pretty masturbatory anyway. It doesn't inform his orientation. Love is what makes someone gay, or straight, or bi.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

That's an interesting perspective, but I can't say I agree. To me, sexual orientation is about sex. About the raw, primal desire for someone else's body. Love can go along with it, but it doesn't have to. Even if I never fell in love with a man, I'd still call myself straight.

Men in the military & prison have sex with each other.

True, but that's situational homosexuality. Given the choice, most of those men would prefer a woman. If some are eagerly and fully enjoying sex with other men, I'd say they're bisexual to some degree.

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I couldn't disagree more. A gay man is a gay man because he can fall in love with a man, but not a woman, though he could still have sex with a woman. Straight men suffer from a Madonna Whore Complex. If they truly fall in love with a woman, she becomes a Goddess who he can't sleep with, likewise he can't truly love & respect someone he is willing to fuck (which in his mind is an act of violence). Not sure how it is for women but sex & love are completely different categories in a man's mind.

In a prison or military situation they usually only form sexual relationships with one another, not romantic ones. Men are opportunistic, sexually. Of course they'd rather have sex with someone who they rarely get the opportunity to. Men's libidos are too high to try to label them paedophilic, or incestuous, or homosexual. The person who a straight man has sex with is determined by his libido, his inhibitions & whether the opportunity arises, not his orientation.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

To be honest, I don't think men and women are that different. Sex doesn't have to be divorced from love. Not all men think of sex as an act of violence. I also don't think men are as opportunistic as you say. There are lots of men that no matter how horny they are, they're not down to fuck other men.

I don't know that I have a typical female sexuality, but I look at a hot male body as one that I want to fuck. It's not about love, it's about sex. I desire the man's body. So even if I never fell in love, even if I was celibate my whole life, I'd still want to fuck men and therefore would call myself straight.

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Men & women are completely different. So many women are borderline demisexual & seem to only find a small number of men physically attractive. For instance, would the average woman find the average naked man attractive? I don't think so. Straight women react similarly to straight men on seeing a naked man. Conversely, the average man finds the average naked woman attractive. So they seem pretty different to me.

In addition to that there are groups of gay & straight men who have certain preferences that go outside the norm. For every type of woman that exists there is a substantial number of men who are into her, whether she is tall, fat, flat-chested, saggy it doesn't matter, there will be men who actually prefer that type of woman over the norm. They've made websites dedicated to each type, for appreciators of each type.

Women's attraction just doesn't seem to work that way at all. There is no 5'6 men appreciation society conducted by women who actually prefer when a guy is shorter than them. Whereas there are gay men who actually prefer when the guy is every fat & hairy, like it actually turns them on. Women are supposedly attracted to men, but that physical attraction seems much lower. It may have something to do with the difference in libido.

I think your orientation is more about who you want to kiss rather than who you want to fuck, otherwise men's orientation would be 'opportunist'.

no matter how horny they are, they're not down to fuck other men

Those men don't exist.

Not all men think of sex as an act of violence.

Even the language gives it away. "Getting fucked" outside a sexual context always describes an act of violence. Adding in the sex part doesn't change it. Oddly you seem to describe your own desires as "wanting to fuck a man". No man thinks you're the one fucking him. Maybe you're trying to endow your submission & passivity with something that just isn't there. If your desire is to get fucked, then why not say it that way? Why turn it on its head?

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I think you have strange ideas about male and female sexuality. I assume you're a man, given your user name. Are you a gay man? Do you really believe there are no straight men and every guy is eager to sleep with another man at a moment's notice? I just don't see it. Homosexuality and bisexuality would be far more common if that were the case.

For instance, would the average woman find the average naked man attractive?

Why do so many women lust after men if we don't find them physically attractive? Granted, I prefer men who are on the same level as far as physical fitness, but I can also be attracted to more "average" bodies. There's no point in fucking without attraction.

No man thinks you're the one fucking him. Maybe you're trying to endow your submission & passivity with something that just isn't there. If your desire is to get fucked, then why not say it that way? Why turn it on its head?

I am not fucking passive and submissive. Never in a million years. I'm no man's fuck object. I'm not into violence or power plays. No man controls me. Luckily there are men who don't think of sex as violence. My partner and I fuck each other (have sex, make love, whatever you want to call it) and there's nothing malevolent or controlling about any of it. We're equals. I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.

[–]anxietyaccount8 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For every type of woman that exists there is a substantial number of men who are into her...there are gay men who actually prefer when the guy is every fat & hairy, like it actually turns them on...

I agree that men are more visual/fetishistic than women are.

Women are supposedly attracted to men, but that physical attraction seems much lower. It may have something to do with the difference in libido.

I would argue that it's actually because many straight men don't know how to attract women at all. There are many conventionally not-that-handsome men who are seen as attractive, because of their personality.

[–]uwubunny 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Femininity and masculinity are not coherent as concepts unless heterosexuality is the driving force behind both.

OK, break this down a little more: sexuality means attraction to men or attraction to women. The sexes compete with one another to be the most attractive to attractive members of the opposite sex. That's where "femininity" and "masculinity" come from.

Homosexuals are the same, they just have "swapped" attractions. Gay men compete with each other for the hottest guys like women do. That's why gay men have woman-like patterns of eating disorders.

Without normative heterosexuality literally nothing that men or women do makes any sense.

[–]anxietyaccount8 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Homosexuals are the same, they just have "swapped" attractions. Gay men compete with each other for the hottest guys like women do. That's why gay men have woman-like patterns of eating disorders.

Gay men's sexuality is not the same as women's whatsoever.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, that's silly; of course there are similarities. Gay men are attracted to men like women are, they find masculine men more attractive, like women do, and moreover, gay men are often feminine like women are. Gay men have more sex than women do, in general, but that could be socio-cultural, or it could be that they have a male-typical libido. They are also more visually oriented than women, like men are; gay men like porn more than women do, and aren't into erotic novels like women are. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways we can compare gay men with women. Finally we can get into the neuroscience and point out that gay men do indeed have brains that have some features that are like straight women's.

[–]anxietyaccount8 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are also more visually oriented than women, like men are; gay men like porn more than women do, and aren't into erotic novels like women are.

Okay, that was my point, the sexuality itself is different. But I generally agree with the rest of your statement.

[–]yishengqingwa666 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No.