«

»

Apr 21 2007

Breaking news: Study shows women are “worse”

Thank the lard for websites like The Sydney Morning Herald. Without them, I might have lived out my days in ignorance of important American sexcientific research proving once and for all that “women are worse oglers than men.”*

Researchers used impressive “eye-tracking technology” to suggest that when men are shown things like “sexual stimuli” or “sexual photographs,” they look at female faces “much more than women.” Women, on the other hand, if they are not taking birth control pills, check out a dude’s package first, before moving on to faces and other contextual elements of the photos. The scientific term for these pornography-generated eye movements is “ogling.”

Because lesbians and homosexuals are a marginalized and immoral minority and have nothing to do with actual humanity, no part of this human sexual desire study addressed same-sex ogling.

The study also showed that men and women look at women’s naughty bits the same. Since women don’t look at naughty bits less than men, and since we don’t modestly confine our gaze to faces, and since we supposedly focus more intently on “photographs of men performing sexual acts with women” than men do, the Sydney Morning Herald is perfectly within its rights to call women “worse.”

Women are worse! Women are worse! Proven again! Thanks, heteronormative sex research academics!

It couldn’t be that men look first at women’s faces because dudes are conditioned from the cradle to appraise a woman’s value according to her objective position in the ugly-beautiful continuum, and that the raw data required for this assessment is contained in the face. It couldn’t be that women’s apparent interest in dude-on-chick “sexual stimuli” (a most asinine clinicalized euphemism) is an expression, in an it’s-hideous-yet-I-can’t-look-away way, of the horror with which any member of an oppressed sex class might reasonably be expected to regard the graphic representation of her own rapeability. No, the only possible conclusion is that women, incorrigible oglers that we are, are worse.

The purpose of the study — which study, for you eggheads, is reported in the April 2007 Hormones and Behavior, a gripping journal I always read cover-to-cover, right after I spend the morning watching paint dry — is, according to another indispensable website, NBC5.com, to add to what is surely a woefully inadequate supply of information on straight people’s sexual desire, with the civic-minded hope of contributing to improved public health.

Hey, I got an idea for improved public health. Hows about the fucking government gets out of my fucking uterus?
_________________________
* Because they are dutiful minions of Male Dominion, the news writers upon whose shoulders it fell to sex up the researchers’ press release omit to mention that in a patriarchy, an ogle can only be as powerful as its ogler, thus falsely suggesting that if women do it too, how bad can it be?

73 comments

  1. Banshee

    “Hey, I got an idea for improved public health. Hows about the fucking government gets out of my fucking uterus?”

    Twisty, you are my hero.

  2. Gayle

    “Hey, I got an idea for improved public health. Hows about the fucking government gets out of my fucking uterus?”

    Damn straight!

    Much applause in this corner for your footnote too, Twisty. I’m so tired of “women do it, too” excuses for sexist behavior.

    We may all emerge from the womb feminists but that predilection is worn down quickly by family, culture, education and the law. Women are not magically immune to the patriarchy.

  3. Random Lurker

    The Sydney Herald article is a perfect example of how the MSM bungles science stories. No statistics are mentioned, which is a bit like trying to describe the Indy 500 without saying the word “car”. How are we supposed to know if women are “worse?” The only information we’re given is that both het men and het women spend the same amount of time looking at genitals, het men spend more time looking at women’s faces (which apparently has nothing to do with the beauty continuum Twisty mentioned or the fact that people tend to communicate their sexual interest in others through facial expressions as well as words), and that het women spend more time looking at pictures of het sex (with absolutely no mention of the triple gaze). They don’t tell us how the experiment was set up, how the researchers defined ‘oggling’, or the stats used to determine this label of “worse”. How big was the control group? What was the median amount of time each gender spent on face, genitals, and explicit sex? The abstract is much more nuanced (can’t get the rest of the article unless I pay for it) and it seems a bit of a stretch to report that women are “worse” ogglers than men based on a study using only 15 men and 30 women. And WTF is up with that graphic? Sharon Stone and Mr. Bean? Are we to suppose these were two of the images used in the study and women spent an inordinately long time oggling Mr. Bean’s beanpole?

  4. kcb

    The study also showed that men and women look at women’s naughty bits the same.

    I would be much more interested in a study that somehow measured whether and how much the viewers felt entitled to judge, harass, threaten or attack the class of people at whose crotches they’d been looking.

    Speaking of looking, I recently took my kids on a field trip with about 50 other families. The next day, one of the moms (someone I don’t know personally) shot an email to the group telling us that her husband had been impressed with what a “good-looking bunch” of moms we were — not just a bunch of frazzled, dumpy housewives.

    She shared this because she thought it was a compliment. Her entitled-from-birth arbiter of hotness gazed upon my friends and me as we went about our lives and upgraded us from frumps to MILFs. I’d like my winnings in cash, please.

  5. ginmar

    I’m still looking askance at the way Kim and Ireland Basinger are being blamed for making Alec Baldwin mad, and thereby ‘being just as bad.’ Ah, ‘just as bad’ the code phrase that lets men off the hook and makes it all better and equal.

  6. Sean

    I’m confused as to how the two experiments are at all related. So the first one finds that men “ogle” more, and the second that women do. Of course, the report picks up on the latter. Anyway, I’m wondering if the explanation is that men are just used to being bombarded with pornalicious images, and so seeing a few more gives them no afterthought. I mean, how explicit were these images? I can imagine the guys looking at the images, thinking, “Eh, this is pretty boring, especially in comparison to what I saw on donkeypunchrapefantasywith17women.com last night.”

  7. kay

    I read this yesterday. I immediately asked myself if this was more about men doing more “social checking” than women. It’s my theory that for hetero women presented with these kinds of images, it doesn’t matter a whit what the pictured men seem to be thinking. These women aren’t wondering “Is he enjoying my gaze” Does he enjoy being objectified? Does he feel worshipped by me? Does he worship me?” No. An image of a naked male body is presented to a woman, so she’s looking at his naked male body. For men, maybe it’s about the social dynamic implied, not just the bits’n'pieces on display. To the male viewer, there is more being presented to him than just a naked woman. It might be more important to check the face to make sure the pictured naked woman is showing all that requisite gratitude, supplication and so on that many men have come to expect from their porn. I suspect men in general might need frequent reassurance of their priveledged position over a naked woman pictured for thier pleasure.

    In my experience an a hetero woman, for all their acting like they don’t care about what women think or feel, men seem terribly worried what women think.

    ~First-time IBTP commenter, long-time devotee

  8. TP

    No word, I guess, as to whether men look as long or longer at another man’s repulsive naked organs. Being inside-out glands with a tube attached, I’ve always found them to be like a train wreck. You can hardly look away.

    Not ogling. by any stretch of imagination. These superficial one-sided proof-less studies!

  9. Fiona

    I’m still looking askance at the way Kim and Ireland Basinger are being blamed for making Alec Baldwin mad, and thereby ‘being just as bad.’

    I know! I was, of course, disgusted to hear the manner in which he spoke to his daughter, and felt sick upon further investigation to find people using the “oh well, the mother’s a flake” defence. Maybe the reason Ireland’s reluctant to answer the phone is that she knows what to expect in a conversation with her dad? It strikes a little close to home. I love my father dearly when he’s in a good mood, but he can be very insulting when he wants to be and I know not to ask him for much emotional support. Still, he’s nowhere near as scary as Baldwin sounds.

  10. Coathangrrr

    It sounds like women are, in fact, *better* at ogling than men. I mean, they skip the whole face looking and go straight to the package. Very efficient. Plus they don’t have the problem of perpetuating the male gaze.

  11. Lesley

    Let’s gather a group of women together, throw some images at them, call how they look at them ogling, then say it’s worse than what men do, so that we can give men the nod to continue behaving like the boorish, invasive assholes they’ve always been. Riiiiight.

    Maybe they can study this crap.

  12. Lesley

    P.S. Don’t know about anyone else, but Sylvia Plath’s description of men’s organs: “turkey neck and turkey gizzards”, has always stuck with me. I think you have to be male and gay to ogle that.

  13. kanea

    “The abstract is much more nuanced (can’t get the rest of the article unless I pay for it) and it seems a bit of a stretch to report that women are “worse” ogglers than men based on a study using only 15 men and 30 women.”

    wow 15 men and 30 women! oh that’s deffinately a good sample pole *rolls eyes* so these 15 men and 30 women who I’m betting are all white middle class get to represent all men and all women’s ‘ogeling’ behaviors. I’ve seen middle school science fair projects that had more reasearch done. and who the heck were these scientists that did this study? do these people even have doctorates?

  14. Sylvanite

    Yeah, I’ll bet the MSM totally have screwed up reporting this study. I swear, do they ever report studies dealing with human subjects well? They only seem capable of dealing with studies of inanimate objects, like space missions or earthquake research.

  15. Random Lurker

    Sylvanite, they’re even worse when reporting about non-human studies. You see, every journalism grad has a rudimentary knowledge of what a human is. Few know about the particulars of geophysics or aerospace engineering.

  16. Chris

    Ugh, science reporting. I’m convinced that the dumbest journalism majors go into science reporting. Anyway, the study is actually pretty interesting, if you read it for what it is (rather than some value judgment about male and female behavior). Also, 15-30 participants in an eye-tracking study is actually a pretty good number. It’d be interesting to do something like this cross culturally, of course.

  17. Feminist Avatar

    Ok I finally gave into my baser urges and read the study. It compares 15 men with 15 ‘normal cycle’ women and 15 women taking oral contraceptives. They run the test three time at different periods based on the women’s menstrual cycles. They then measure the hormones of all the women of the sample when they come to do the tests (which eventually leads to the exclusion of 9 women from various stats cause their hormones are not at the right levels). Interestingly they don’t measure male hormones, despite some evidence that testorone levels vary over the month. Yet after all that, it turns out hormones don’t make all that much difference to the results. (women on oral contracetive slightly less interested in male genitals and more interested in background items than the other women but its not hugely different).

    To be fair to the study they don’t say women ‘oggle worse’. They do look at genitals (they don’t distinguish in any of the graphs whether it is male or female genitals) when first given the porn while men look at the female face first. Yet they do cite a study which suggests that women tend to be able to ‘read’ faces quicker than men so have less need to spend time looking there. Interestingly both men and women are equally interested in the female body and this is where they spend most time looking, followed by genitals, then the female face, while nobody is interested in the male body (beyond his genitals).

    My favourite part of the study is that the sexually explicit images are downloaded from free porn sites on the internet. They then make comments like its strange that nobody looks at the male body when he takes up a large percentage of the space, but show no consideration of the aesthetics of pornography. I don’t know much about this either, but most forms of photography place key images in certain spaces to draw the eye- I am guessing that genitals and the female body would be the key images in porn and this study may say more about the aesthetics of porn than anything else.

    Another interesting observation is women prefer porn selected by other women, while men prefer that selected by other men- quel suprise!

    I would give you some actual numbers but the graphics for the graphs are really poor and I can’t read them. Rather boringly they give no explanation for the results- its just ‘this is what we found and here’s how this differs from similar studies’.

  18. scudbucket

    “No statistics are mentioned… How are we supposed to know if women are “worse?””

    Simple:
    1. More of a bad, like ogling, is worse than less of a bad (which is a good) unless it’s ‘too much of a good thing’(which makes it a bad, naturlich), with the caveat that in some cases it’s good to be bad (which then makes more of that particular bad an even greater good), unless of course it’s TOO MUCH, (which then makes it a bad again).
    2.Ogling of the kind women do is really just inexcusable, and in poor taste, staring at men’s packages and all.
    Therefore, 3: Women are worse!
    QED

  19. Rugosa

    Feminist Avatar – thanks for checking out the original study. I guessed that this was an example of the media sensationalizing the study. One wouldn’t expect a professional journal to use loaded words like “worse”; the language of these articles is usually carefully chosen to avoid that kind of judgement. Of course, practically no one will read the original article or a balanced report on it; lots of people will read the sensationalized story and the “women are worse oglers than men” idea will become accepted wisdom. Although I think women are better oglers – we manage to check out the guys without being so obvious. I bet a lot of guys don’t even know when they’ve been ogled.

  20. Gen

    Five weeks ago, the eye-tracking statistics were exactly the opposite. Perhaps the people in Australia were just looking at the facts upside-down?

  21. kate

    I think men don’t care if women are checking them out or not — they have no need for vigilant awareness of who’s gazing at them. Us women, we learn very early in life that ogling behavior often is a signal for other surprises to come. Most men have no need to fear a woman over taking them anytime soon. Men and woman learn very early in life who has license to steal.

    I’ve found the sight of a man’s packages can get me to thinking thoughts like, “Where the hell is it, is it strangled in those jeans Does it hurt?” or “Good lord, how do they sit down with that junk between their legs? How do they ride a bicycle with that?” or “Does that dumb prick know I see him scratching his balls?” or a couple of times, “Is he trying to show off his erection or is he unaware of it?”

    I don’t have that stuff, so these idle questions come up.

    Similarly, when viewing typical porn, I find myself staring at it thinking, “How long was she working that day? Is it a regular work day for her? Is he hurting her? Is she tired of doing that? Is she feeding an addiction? Is she abused? God, I think I see a bruise on her thigh. She looks bored as hell. Do they coach her behind the camera?” and so on.

    I’d also posit that men look at women’s faces first to judge whether they should pursue or ignore the woman. Since I’ve been overweight the last ten years, I have come to conclusion that men sort women immediately by their facial appearance and body size and if the woman doesn’t gauge high on the sexual arousal meter, they ignore and move on.

    So, since there exists at this time no technology to read people’s minds, scientists are left to make inferences based on external criteria. This criteria of course is prioritized and organized based on existing social biases, so the entire study and others like it prove nothing. Not that the premise had any value to begin with. I wonder who funded it? Advertisers love this type of information.

  22. mearl

    Didn’t somebody post a link to an article recently that did some research involving pictures of male and female sports players and, using infra-red eye tracking laser groucho marx glasses (or something), it was determined that men ogle guys’ crotch areas first and more often than women, whereas women were more interested in the faces? So WTF is going on here? Which set of dependable research am I supposed to believe?

    I’d have to say, as a fairly young and perverty hetero female, that I don’t see enough naked or half-naked men on a daily basis. Or men wearing tight clothes. Or men who even wash their hair, let alone grow it out and style it. Or men wearing any item of clothing that I could actually SEE any part of their body defined in. Or men perfecting their sexy walk and sexy head-turn and sexy way of sitting and sexy bedroom-eye look for my benefit.

    I get all crazy when I go to the gay bar, where hawt guys in tight, stylish clothes are coming in the window. But hetero guys? They’re all running around in giant clothes and shapeless suits. And try the internet for hawt pictures of hetero guys: what a fricking joke. They’re all head shots and they’re all wearing at least two shirts, if not a hoodie or a parka. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO LOOK AT!

    So I can say with certainty that if someone were to hook me up to a machine and then put pictures of naked dudes in front of me for the purposes of research, my eyes would go straight for the package. Then I’d look at the rest of it, gleefully and thoroughly. As Sean said upthread, whatever they put in front of the male participants is probably nothing compared to what they saw on the internet last night. I was sitting with a male friend of mine looking at music sites one day when a sidebar with porn ads came up, featuring a mostly naked woman complete with blowjob mouth, bleached hair and giant knockers pushed at the viewer. I started grumbling about how I can’t even download music without being bombarded by this bullshit. My friend glanced at the sidebar and then remarked that he hadn’t even really noticed the porn woman until I said something. I said, “You’re THAT desensitised to this crap?” He nodded, as though I were acting like it’s a big deal. I DO think it’s a big deal when men have every one of their lousy fantasies fulfilled and women are left with either Fabio (blech), gay male porn (where everyone’s gay, so it just doesn’t work), or the tiny scraps we get out in the real world. Women are visual too, it’s just that nobody thinks we have a sex drive other than to tart up and lure in some slovenly men to tell US how sexay we are (cause that’s what gives us orgasms, right?).

    Then I clued in to the fact that these people were tested on their ogling potential using PICTURES. For as long as I remember, I can say I have noticed guys leering and harassing women, not the other way around. If I am standing across the street and a woman that fits the description of ANY sort of accepted male-defined attractiveness walks past a bunch of guys, their heads look like they are sitting at Wimbledon. Guys on the bus leer at women without caring if other people catch them. I said to my ex once that I don’t see many guys looking at me, and he responded that they are all looking when my back or head is turned, and he sees it constantly. I was shocked when he started pointing out how often I got leered at, even despite the fact that I was clearly with someone (at the time). Women don’t do the same sort of creepy leering that men do, where they check out body parts for as long as they can without the body’s owner knowing, likely for future jerkoff material.

    And of course, gay and lesbian ogling goes under the radar, because 10% of the population with a huge presence in society and in the media doesn’t constitute enough of a demographic to rate for the research. Oh yeah, and women are the REAL perverts here, seeing as how we are funding that billion-dollar industry which demands sexual performance and visual pleasure for money. Right.

  23. Feminist Avatar

    Kanea and Chris: to relieve any worries you may have, I thought I’d mention the study was done among people from ‘multiple ethnic categories’- although I have no idea what that means.

    It was also performed amongst 23-28 year olds, who had some college education (i.e. recruited from graduate schools in Atlanta), who took a test to see if they were heterosexual enough, and that they were sexually interested enough (i.e. have you thought about or desired sex in the last month). From this they concluded that the women in the study were more sexually liberal than women in the general population based on comparisons with sexual attitudes from 1987! Cause nothing has changed in 20 years.

  24. sophie

    It couldn’t possibly be that women have been conditioned against staring at people’s faces because that’s rude?
    Little boys are often deprived of such indoctrination.

  25. Rocket Girl

    Mearle, I have to agree with you. I do not see nearly enough naked or half-naked men. So, if someone were to set me up with some good pics of naked men, yup, I am going straight for the package and my physical attribute to look at (forearms, would you believe, hot arms turn me on). I can look at faces any time.

  26. BubbasNightmare

    Kate:
    ‘I’ve found the sight of a man’s packages can get me to thinking thoughts like…“Good lord, how do they sit down with that junk between their legs? How do they ride a bicycle with that?”’

    Carefully.

  27. Twisty

    OK, I now have to impose a moratorium on sexay descriptions of half-naked men. Here in Austin there is no shortage of the shirtless species running loose over the countryside, and most of those wear spandex bike shorts. The spectacle of their macho vogueing nauseates the spinster aunt.

  28. Feminist Avatar

    I have to wonder about the ‘looking at the package stat’ as the study only used pictures of heterosexual couples engaging in oral sex or intercourse- you have to wonder how much of the ‘male package’ was on view in this scenario- this is probably why they don’t really distinguish between looking at male or female genitals when doing the results.

    I think the interest in the female body is telling though- women did not spend much time looking at the male body beyond the genitals while they spent a lot of time looking at the female body. I wonder if that is because we are trained to examine the female body, we are bombarded with it in magazines, on tv. We are taught to compare our own bodies to beautiful ideals, to examine what about the body makes it beautiful. It occurs to me that I rarely look at women’s faces in magazines and that ulitmately that is because I am not meant to. It reminds me of those films where women find their husband’s porn stash and replace the women’s heads with their own. We are taught as women that we can have any body beneath our own head, so it is ok if men fantasise about another women’s body. It is ok because our bodies are not our own. They are a commodity that can be bought and sold, dressed up in designer gear and made perfect (and for that matter legislated about) if we can afford the cost.

    The female viewer no longer sees a human being when she sees an image of another woman, but recognises it as the commodity it is. I think this may be related to the way that women never look directly into the camera, but tilt their heads etc, which reinforce that women are not human beings interacting with you the viewer but sexualised images to be viewed.

    Men can kid themselves on that these women are real, because that is what they want to believe and for that matter probably what they have been taught to believe real women are. Women recognise that these are representations not human beings and so cannot engage with their humanity. And when we do -as noted by Kate- we can no longer see them as sexualised or desireable, but as oppressed.

    Perhaps the reason that these women could not engage with the male body beyond the genitals is that we are not trained to understand the male body as sexualised (other than the penis which we are taught to fear and worship). There is of course more emphasis towards the male body in recent years in advertising, but to nowhere near the extent of the female body. Sexual desire revolves around the female body, for women as well as men- and here we might posit the example of the women who need to turn the lights off for sex as they don’t want their partners to see their ‘imperfections’. Because our desire is wrapped up in our desireability. This obviously not a problem for men who continue to grace our screens regardless of how well they age, how ugly they are or how fat.

    I am sorry if this is a bit incoherent and not particularly original, but I was trying to figure this out in my head.

  29. mearl

    Feminist Avatar: I think that’s a good summary.

    Twisty: sorry about the naked dude and package rant. But bike shorts? Blech. I’m with you on thinking this is something that no one should have to be subjected to.

  30. Sylvanite

    Random Lurker, I was in no way implying that the MSM is actually good at reporting any science. It just seems to me that being human actually seems to cause interference when it comes to reporting studies about human psychology or behavior, especially when gender is involved. Most news outlets can at least report stuff like “News on the Cassini mission to Saturn: the Huygens probe has landed on Titan,. There are pictures that look like stream valleys.” without too much difficulty. When it comes to studies that touch on gender, the MSM seems not able to even report the most basic elements of the study correctly, and typically get the conclusions completely wrong.

  31. clew

    And will this change any of the socio-evo-bio explanations of the way things are as the neccessary and inalterable result of men being more visual than women? Will it occur to anyone to admit that if women’s attention can be sexual, there’s some other thing enforcing gender clothing codes? I so doubt it.

    Other than that, pretty much what mearl said, although I have a principled non-objection to bicyclists in bike shorts.

  32. mearl

    I switched on my pointed head and thought about it some more. Could it be that, since women aren’t all self-entitled the way men are and we don’t have a history of demanding that men be objectified for our visual enjoyment (which has led to men covering up most of their bodies and not bothering as much as women do with appearance), that women consider men more as people because we deal mostly with their faces and personalities and achievements rather than their sexualised bodies? I know that power and privilege have a lot to do with that as well, that in an hierarchical system of oppression the exploitee is always deferring to the exploiter. But if women weren’t all clamouring to be Queen Hawt Shit in addition to achieving other things, and did a minimum of grooming and wore comfortable clothes that flattered but barely showed off our bodies, would we not be taken for people rather than for parts? Naturally, we’d have to turn around the whole male entitlement thing where guys desperately want to see women naked. I am wondering if that is possible in our society where women have more power, money and choices than we have in the past. How does it work in the countries where women wear chadors? I know males are ridiculously patriarchal there, but is there a difference when only the one guy you’re having relations with gets to see your body? Or will the sexay Western aesthetic loom over guys from here on in and make them all surgery-crazy and anorectic as well?

    Just some thoughts.

  33. kanea

    “I switched on my pointed head and thought about it some more. Could it be that, since women aren’t all self-entitled the way men are and we don’t have a history of demanding that men be objectified for our visual enjoyment (which has led to men covering up most of their bodies and not bothering as much as women do with appearance), that women consider men more as people because we deal mostly with their faces and personalities and achievements rather than their sexualised bodies? I know that power and privilege have a lot to do with that as well, that in an hierarchical system of oppression the exploitee is always deferring to the exploiter. But if women weren’t all clamouring to be Queen Hawt Shit in addition to achieving other things, and did a minimum of grooming and wore comfortable clothes that flattered but barely showed off our bodies, would we not be taken for people rather than for parts? Naturally, we’d have to turn around the whole male entitlement thing where guys desperately want to see women naked. I am wondering if that is possible in our society where women have more power, money and choices than we have in the past. How does it work in the countries where women wear chadors? I know males are ridiculously patriarchal there, but is there a difference when only the one guy you’re having relations with gets to see your body? Or will the sexay Western aesthetic loom over guys from here on in and make them all surgery-crazy and anorectic as well?

    Just some thoughts.”

    women would be opressed with close on or with out. remember the victorian age? we were pretty much covered up head to toe. if you don’t see somthing it makes people want it see it more. most hetro men aren’t that excited when he gets to see an ankle. if we were to wear chadors or abayays it would probably make hair sexy. from what my anthro professors (the ones who specialize in the middle east) hair is (or was in the countries where women don’t have to wear head scarves like egypt iraq turkey) concidered very sexy. the problem isn’t what we wear but the meaning attached to it.(with the exceptions of corsets steletos and other things that will hurt you not matter how much patriarchy you live with)

  34. Shabnam

    Quoting Mearl:
    ” But hetero guys? They’re all running around in giant clothes and shapeless suits. And try the internet for hawt pictures of hetero guys: what a fricking joke. They’re all head shots and they’re all wearing at least two shirts, if not a hoodie or a parka. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO LOOK AT!”
    /
    Mearl, sometimes, I think you and I are unconsciously telepathic!
    /
    In answer to your question “How does it work in the countries where women where chadors?”:
    /
    Having lived in one of these countries as a child, I reckon, in a nutshell, the difference is essentially a question of communist sexploitation vs. capitalist sexploitation. In this instance, the Americans are bunch of commies. Women are regarded sex objects in both instances, but in conservative Islamic countries ownership is important – you are the sex object of your husband, and if unmarried, your male relatives. You can only be viewed by your owner(s). The Male Gaze is restricted in that sharing is not allowed. The value of female objects depreciate with each viewing by a male who is not an owner. Families manufacture their own female objects. If a family’s female objects become too damaged by repeated viewings, voluntary or otherwise, sometimes it is better to just get rid of it through an “honour killing”. Best to destroy a defective product – otherwise ruins the company’s reputation.
    /
    Meanwhile, everywhere else the sexbot mandate ensures that heterosexual men everywhere have their gazing needs satiated for free or at worst cheaply. Porn is, of course, industrial mass production to satiate the Male Gaze.
    /
    The difference: Sexbots vs Covered virginal sexbots. What is the same? Femininity.
    /
    The Female Gaze is akin to the gaze of a dog staring at its owner. Who cares what the dog sees? The owners aren’t about to start grooming for their dogs.
    /
    How the fuck do we change this? Women are still looking at themselves being looked at by men. Another big problem is that fact that in our Rape culture, male genitalia has a dual role as weapon. A woman typically feels uncomfortable and threatened when a random male stranger flashes his genitals at her. Men might, at worst, feel embarrassed if a random woman did the same. Male genitalia can induce fear, attractive or otherwise. I think “naked men” equals “threat” to many women. I can imagine this might considerably dampen female heterosexual desire.
    /
    We need a revolution.

  35. mearl

    Kanea, I think you missed my point, and that would likely be because I didn’t make it all too clearly. The point is not to look into the past at manners of dress in those eras where women did not have at least some of the rights we have now, nor was it to do a complete comparison to the cultures where women are FORCED to dress modestly but are still disrespected. The point of my musings is that I am thinking about the FUTURE. We have our rights in this culture, can we keep up the fight and throw off the shackles of looks and self-consciousness and sexayness and being squished into the category of “baby-machine?” Can women take on this new form of oppression that has to do with convincing us that DESPITE our ability to vote, get educated, own companies, work at whatever job we want, play competitive sports, decide where and when we have kids (I know, I know, it’s not a total victory, but there have been some advancements), etc. we still have to be hawt and sexay and visibly different from men (in lousy ways that hinder us and suck back our money)?
    We’re dupes of the fashion, diet, makeup, and porn industries, and people are making millions off our insecurities. We still don’t have the power in the world. And I refuse to get on board the stupid current trend that says you can have money, fame, status, power, etc. but ONLY if you fit the looks mold. I’m also tired of seeing people exploit this need for women to be hawt and make a load of money while sitting back behind the stage looking however the fuck they want. It would be wicked to see women in positions of power who got there without having conformed, without having spent their lives striving for this concept of “feminine perfection.” It would be cool to live in a world where women’s looks aren’t shoved down my throat 24 hours a day while what’s in our heads is pretty much ignored. That’s what I meant.

  36. Shabnam

    I forgot to add that in societies in which “good” women are covered up, men feel even more free and entitled to ogle. The burqa is a Ogling Mandate for men – if a woman is uncovered, you can do what you like to her – she is not worth much and her owner doesn’t particularly care for her.

  37. Shabnam

    Quoting Kanea:
    “women would be opressed with close on or with out. remember the victorian age? we were pretty much covered up head to toe. if you don’t see somthing it makes people want it see it more. most hetro men aren’t that excited when he gets to see an ankle. if we were to wear chadors or abayays it would probably make hair sexy. from what my anthro professors (the ones who specialize in the middle east) hair is (or was in the countries where women don’t have to wear head scarves like egypt iraq turkey) concidered very sexy. the problem isn’t what we wear but the meaning attached to it.(with the exceptions of corsets steletos and other things that will hurt you not matter how much patriarchy you live with)”
    /
    Yeah, European sexploitation culture used to be more capitalistic like the present day Middle East, but during the 20th century, the Western Male Gaze had a communist revolution – “free sex-bots for all”.

  38. mearl

    Shabnam: the feeling is mutual! But I am sure you already received that thought telepathically.

  39. kanea

    to shabnam, yes from what I’ve learned from various anthropology teachers, at my school the middle east has alot incommin with pre 20th centuary europe/north america…in relation to men’s ownership of women…ect.
    just another thought but what if women just started dressing like men…I mean wearing suits, men’s genes…not drag presay but just wearing their clothing but not trying to make people believe your a guy….I wonder what’d it’d do socially if all the women in america woke up tomorrow and started dressing like men and refused to wear women’s clothing. would men everywhere cry? would they have a mental overload? hmm…opinions?

  40. mearl

    Kanea: EXACTLY!

  41. mearl

    Men’s clothes are comfortable. They fit properly. The underwear doesn’t go up your ass. The socks don’t ride downwards in your shoes. The jeans don’t reveal plumber’s crack when you sit down. The shirts don’t ride up and they also don’t feel like glue. The shoes are sturdier and you don’t have to totter around in them trying to keep your balance. The items are not cut to emphasise your boobs, waist, hips, thighs, neck, crotch area, or make your arms look longer and thinner. When you buy men’s clothing you aren’t paying 60 bucks for a tiny slice of cheap material and a few strings that will be out of style in three months. Most of men’s clothing doesn’t assume that its wearers could be four years old: you don’t find an abundance of butterflies, flowers, cherries, kittens, hearts, ruffles, rainbows, sunshines and cartoon characters. And best of all, most of the time, men’s clothing COSTS LESS. Just saying.

  42. kate

    “The Female Gaze is akin to the gaze of a dog staring at its owner. Who cares what the dog sees? The owners aren’t about to start grooming for their dogs.’

    Very well said. Now excuse me, I’m damn dog tired laboring for a living all week and through the weekend because I refuse to be forced to give anyone a hungry gaze in order to survive. Today a woman resident of the building we’re working on glared at me suspiciously. Sometimes I think women hate my defiance of role play more than many men.

  43. Random Lurker

    Mearl, you’re right for the most part. Unfortunately if you have large hips or a prominent bust men’s clothes are damned uncomfortable. Of course, it only takes about an hour to sew your own pants.

  44. Serpent's Choice

    Terrible science. Not because research into how men and women react to visual sexual stimuli isn’t appropriate as a sociobiology topic, but because this the quality is crap. Poor controls. Conflation of inappropriate variables (that whole hormone tangent needed to either be axed or examined seperately). Failure to define the central terminology and methodology of the study. Failure to cotnrol against or compare to fundamental, well-established studies of how people look at images in general.

    With that said, even worse reporting. Referring to the results of a presumably bias-neutral study (even a lousy one!) with moralistic judgement phrasing (“worse” … where did this reporter study journalism?) is indefensible.

    This got press because some reporter decided to spin mediocre science into yellow-journal sensationalism. That’s dismal, but sadly expected. Its not really representative of sociosexual research — or at least, not of the quality of that research that gets published in major journals and reviews, rather than relatively minor, low-impact outlets like Hormones and Behavior.

  45. DonaQuixote

    Gah! This study is one of the rare ones where they didn’t actually prove anything and got it published anyway. Good for the researchers, I bet that was tough to swing. So they set out trying to prove that women’s hormone levels influence their visual behavior (an interesting hypothesis), and they didn’t get the stats they needed to prove that. So this is really a media report on a failed experiment. Way to do, news!

    As for the fact that women looked longer or at different parts than men — the study can’t support any claim about that at all, except that it happened. As many have pointed out, it is a fairly small study and not likely to be a representative sample that can be generalized to an entire gender (!). Also, there are so many variables that may have influenced the behavior it is mind boggling to try to imagine how the study could purport to be conclusive about much of anything (which, from what I gather, it doesn’t try to do, since they did not get supportive data for what they were trying to prove).

    Let’s see, what could be some confounds … hmmm … off the top of my head even:
    - Women’s vs. men’s familiarity with and social conditioning for the use of pornographic images.
    - The behavior of the researchers towards the subjects (even with a script, there can be different, potentially confounding, behaviors towards male and female research subjects).
    - The social role of women vs. men as research subjects (e.g., were women more eager to please, were men more uncomfortable/defensive about being confronted with pornography by an authority figure, etc.)
    - The relative experience and familiarity of the subjects with images of genitalia (how often do we see naked men vs naked women, and how much of a novelty were the images of genitalia for women vs. for men)

    This could go on and on and on and on.

    This is why research projects that purport to prove differences between men and women have to be very very careful to set up some clear controls and isolate variables to a reasonable extent. This project sounds like it did not do that, but that wasn’t really what it was trying to do anyway.

    The media sometimes makes me want to puke.

  46. DonaQuixote

    Serpent’s Choice – I totally agree with you, except I think the inclusion of men in the study was the tangent. The point was the hormone changes. Why were men thrown in as a “control” when the issue being compared was the presence/absense of certain hormones? Perhaps they wanted to compare women to men-as-baseline (wouldn’t that be a loaded notion!). So the idea would be to see if hormone changes made women less or more like men in their visual behavior. As another poster has pointed out, though, there was nothing in the study measuring /men’s/ relative hormone levels. So it really seems like men were being taken for granted as an a priori baseline to use for measuring changes in women. Double gah!

  47. Feminist Avatar

    DonaQuixote: I think your are absolute right. Whether or not it was a conscious decision (and I think there is enough bad science here to think that may not be) men were the baseline throughout this study. Male hormone levels were not tested. The women’s sexual attitudes were described as more sexually liberal than the rest of the poulation but there is no indication of how male attitudes compared. The concept of splitting women into two groups to compare with the singular group of men- all points towards this.

    Kanea: in britain women dressing in suits like men was called the 80s and we have been running screaming from it ever since!!

    Seriously though, women wearing men’s clothes didn’t desexualise them- it just started off a huge and scary fashion trend. The destruction of the male gaze needs to be a lot more revolutionary- perhaps a spoon and a gouging motion.

  48. Luckynkl

    The study doesn’t mention what women were *thinking* when they looked at those packages, as compared to men. I mean, how do we know the women aren’t thinking, “OMG, don’t come at me without that thing being dressed?” It’s being assumed that men and women think alike and view each other the same way. Men held to be the standard. Then it’s just assumed that women look at men the same way. But how could we? When we live in a woman-hating, rape society and the sexes are raised, conditioned and treated so differently?

    Personally I find men’s packages downright ugly and threatening. So damn right I’m going to look. Same as I’d look at anyone armed with an AK-47. To make sure that thing isn’t pointed and aimed in my direction and locked and loaded. Interesting how this study would just assume I’m oggling tho, no?

  49. Calidor

    Pockets!

    If you’ve ever worn real men’s clothing (rather than feminised versions) you’ll know that the major difference is that men’s clothes has much, much better pockets than women’s. Because men are not routinely judged by their shape, there’s space to build in much roomier and more robust pockets. This of course is also why men don’t need handbags.

    I once had a second hand man’s winter coat and it had the best pockets ever. You could fit a whole bottle of wine in each pocket.

  50. Antoinette Niebieszczanski

    This may be a small quibble, but I don’t think “worse” is scientific language. As an aside, I personally do not think the genitals are the most attractive feature of either gender.

  51. lawbitch

    Pockets are the difference, huh? I’ve been trying to figure that out for years. I’ve been told that the difference in women’s shirts is that they button the opposite way. I thought that patriarchy created the buttoning difference so that the dry cleaners could charge more for women’s shirts (even though it’s the exact same kind of garment!) Blam-o-rama!

  52. Twisty

    Feminist Avatar: “The destruction of the male gaze needs to be a lot more revolutionary- perhaps a spoon and a gouging motion.”

    Ha!

  53. saltyC

    Men look more at the women’s face and women look at the men’s penis? What if they’re in the same place? We’re talking about porn here. I wonder how they determine whether spot X is a woman’s face or a man’s penis.

  54. Cass

    It made Oedipus wiser. And it probably helped also that he spent his last years in the company of Antigone and her sister, as opposed to his two dipshit sons.

  55. kanea

    “Kanea: in britain women dressing in suits like men was called the 80s and we have been running screaming from it ever since!!

    Seriously though, women wearing men’s clothes didn’t desexualise them- it just started off a huge and scary fashion trend. The destruction of the male gaze needs to be a lot more revolutionary- perhaps a spoon and a gouging motion. ”

    I was wee during the 80′s and don’t remember exact trends. I was kind of thinking the whole dressing as men as more of an anti fashion thing…it doesn’t really work if it becomes the new high fashion society. dumb idea. the spoon and gouging motion is good, but I would like to add an electro shock therapy motion. every women gets a buzzer every man gets eletrodes attached to his gonads.

  56. thebewilderness

    It was the Annie Hall look. Instead of letting women buy mens clothing for the better quality and price, the fashion industry scuttled out in front of the parade and offered low quality high priced look alikes that did not wear alike and were always more expensive to have cleaned. I have been buying some of my clothes in the mens dept since the seventies and no one has ever noticed the difference. Well, except for when they ask me where I found that particular whatsit, then they get a bit of a surprise, and a gleam comes into their eye.

  57. Bird

    Fashion always steals the image of any movement. Grunge and punk, women in menswear and women with no makeup and no bras, urban primitives and indie kids, shaved heads and waist-length hair, any image you can think of is fed upon by the fashion machine, and our own culture is sold back to us in megastores and haute couture boutiques. Cool hunters go out into the streets to find the next thing to co-opt and sell back to the masses.

    Pop culture keeps real people hidden. By stealing the personal expression of individuals, the individual becomes part of the faceless mass of consumers. Cool hunting is really about taking one person’s creative self-expression from them and making it a commodity. It feeds on the souls of those who don’t toe the fashion line by making them the new trendsetters represented by another feature in Vogue.

    I fear that any attempt that women make to break out of the fashion box will inevitably end up the same way. They’ll just find a way to make that the new femininity.

  58. kanea

    thebewilderness, yea I buy stuff in the men’s department too, I was always tall as a kid so it just made sense… their sizing makes more sense at least. I can’t wear girls pants…the legs are too short. but no one usually can tell the diffrence. but that’s kind of what I was thinking when I said women wear men’s clothing…cause their stuff is cheaper and not to wear what ever they try to sell women…but it wouldn’t work. like bird and others have said. the fasion industry would comin in and market it. I suppose the real thing is to get women to ignore the fashion industry. and other things capitalism tries to sell to women….how one would go about doing that I don’t know.

  59. mearl

    I wouldn’t give a fuck if capitalism sold me comfortable clothes that didn’t fall apart inside of two weeks from the purchase date. A few years ago there was a trend with drawstring-waist cargo pants for women. Every woman I knew LOVED them and the trend victims were breathing a sigh of relief. But it was obviously unacceptable to have women buy something they like in large numbers and then stick with it, instead of obediently razing the shops clean every two months and keeping all the fashion meatheads in the gravy. Naturally, the drawstring pants have gradually been replaced by the micro-mini, the skinny jean and the cute cinch-waisted audrey hepburn dress. Everyone is back to work.

  60. Luckynkl

    I’ve dressed the same way since I was a kid. I haven’t changed but the labels have. Oh, if we call it something different, does it change what it is? If we call women wives, instead of slaves, does it change what it is? If we call it erotica instead of porn, does it change what it is? If I call a duck an elephant, does it now make it so? In this day of identity politics, or should I say, label politics, a lot of people sure seem to think so. Which just makes want to scream, “Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here.”

    Over the weekend, I watched a movie called “Inside Man.” I’ve seen the movie before, but this time around, it really got me thinking. No, not about bank heists! But how the patriarchy dresses us up in order to separate us from them and make the target more easily identifiable.

    In the movie, the bank robbers removed all means of identification, from wallets to cellphones, and then had everyone strip down and put on the same exact clothes. Hoods, sunglasses and masks prevented even hair or eye coloring to be discernible. Which created a real problem for the cops. Who couldn’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, or even the boys from the girls, because everyone looked exactly alike. And it struck me how the patriarchy uses fashion, among many other things, in order to separate us from them and make us easily identifiable. So it can zero in, pick us out and target us from a mile away. We all might as well just be sitting ducks.

  61. slythwolf

    You know, I wonder if both genders’ reluctance to look at the male body beyond the penis has anything to do with how freaking UGLY the men in mainstream porn are. Creepy-looking dudes, I tell you what.

  62. Mandos

    Inside Man was one of those movies that started out so promising and then turned out to have a completely banal gimmicky trick. I was disappointed.

  63. Mandos

    This of course is also why men don’t need handbags.

    Only men who have nothing interesting to do don’t need handbags, if by handbag you mean a giant black floppy thing with a shoulderstrap and handles.

    Or were you talking about the infamous “tiny handbags”?

  64. Bird

    Mandos, I have to agree with you on that one. There’s a big difference between the teeny little purse and an actual, functional bag.

    I actually like my reasonably sized, satchel-style handbag—you know, the square/rectangular type that slings across the body. As well as my wallet, keys and cellphone, it usually contains a small flashlight, a Swiss army knife, a collection of pens and highlighters, a small notebook, a protein/energy bar, a bottle of water, and a paperback book.

    It’s more of a survival kit than a purse, I guess. But I don’t think that’s what Calidor meant by the term “handbag.”

  65. octopod

    mearl says: “I’d have to say, as a fairly young and perverty hetero female, that I don’t see enough…men wearing any item of clothing that I could actually SEE any part of their body defined in. Or men perfecting their sexy walk and sexy head-turn and sexy way of sitting and sexy bedroom-eye look for my benefit.”
    Word up, dude. When I find guys actually doing that, I try to give them lots of positive verbal feedback. You’d think more of ‘em would’ve caught on that acting sexy is a good way to get laid, wouldn’t you? I mean, it works, after all, in that guys who play up the sexy seem to get laid more. One might think that this would be enough to overwhelm any perceived problems with it.

  66. S-kat

    Ahem, we do all know that women were prohibited from wearing pockets back in the day, right?

    With that in mind, I’d like to share a sweet little piece I found in a “humor” magazine from 1916.

    “Ifs for Women”
    (based on the poem “Ifs” by Kipling)

    If you can lose your head when all about you are wagging theirs while listening to you;
    If you can make your speech though all men flout you yet make arrangements for their speaking too;

    If can bluff and not get caught at bluffing
    If you can lose your nerve and naver tell;
    or oft being rebuffed, don’t mind rebuffing; and yet don’t look too smart, nor dress too well;

    If you can be pugnacious as an ogress
    If you can be as haughty as a dame;
    If you can meet with politics and progress
    and treat those two as imposters just the same;

    If you can hear the truth about suffrage twisted about by the antis in defense
    While you anew in acrimonious huff rage and use the the same worn out arguements;

    If you can make one heap of all your home-life and lose it in this game of pitch and toss;
    And lead a sort of circus-hippodrome life and never care about your loss

    If you can lose your grace and charm and fancy and all the traits adorning a woman best Prefering to go in for militancy, achieving a spectacular arrest;

    If you can march with crowds in straggling manner or ride a horse, or perch upon a float
    If you have “votes for women” on your banner if nothing counts with you except the vote;

    If you aquire a latch-key and a pocket
    If you can learn to smoke a cigarette;
    You’ll interest the public though you shock it and what’s worse, you’ll be a suffragette.

    -Carolyn Wells

    Ah, pockets and cigarettes for the women-folk. We’ve come a long way, baby!

  67. clew

    So, when did Lucy Locket lose her pocket, exactly? (And who did Kitty Fisher have an in with?)

  68. RadFemHedonist

    I wear men’s clothes most of the time, only recently I’ve been visiting larger size stores (one specifically for women’s clothing), looking into my minimalist (I mean I only have the clothes I need) wardrobe I can see jumpers, sweaters, T-shirts, shirts, sweatpants, jeans, boxer shorts for undies, bras, socks, slippers, flip-flops, trainers, sun hat, warm hat, scarf, gloves, sunshades, swimming costume, goggles, rucksack, bumbag, walkman case, pyjamas, one sarong, two belts for the serious purpose of not having my trousers fall down, winter coat, raincoat, watch, hairbands (the ones that are like elastic bands, not the ones that look like earmuffs with the muff part removed) and one bandana that was free with an anime series box, I’m planning to cut my hair because it’s unnecessary in the summer (and I can wear a hat in winter), I never groom, I keep my hair non-tangled for comfort and shower regularly, but neither of those are appearance related. I never act sexy, why bother? I don’t ogle, and am objecting to this whole spoon gauging and electrodes idea, just say to men “stop with this objectifying bullshit, you wanna be a nice person you don’t do it, got it?”, this repeated often enough ought to work on some men in conjunction with:

    “I know males are ridiculously patriarchal there, but is there a difference when only the one guy you’re having relations with gets to see your body?”

    Ugh, monogamy, fidelity and all that other crap are part of the basic problem, the whole notion that somehow someone has exclusive access to your body is as bad as expecting someone to have no other friends, it’s despicable, that’s what it is, and women confound me when they say how they don’t like men looking at porn because they think it’s “unfaithful”, well gee of course you couldn’t possibly object to the patriarchy and the male gaze and all the stuff that actually matters, why is everyone so keen on trying to own someone else’s body for crap’s sake, actually this is making me wonder, do some women use the “cheating” argument to avoid having to say that the degradation of women actually angers them? Or has it really got around somehow that it’s acceptable to be hurt by someone not acting as if they were yours or something, men are terrible about this, whining as if they were somehow meant to be the centre of your life and shit, sorry I am angry at the moment, this is about as coherent as… crap no analogy, I reckon I might start my own blog, then I’ll have a place to voice this kind of thing only when I really am sure what I’m going to say, I kind of rush when I’m posting on these sort of things.

  69. mearl

    RFH, in reference to the comment of mine that you responded to, I was sort of just thinking about a world where women went around with the same rights to look how we look as guys do with their baggy, comfortable-but-acceptable clothes. To me it’s not about keeping myself or other women covered up and owning bodies, it’s about women claiming the right not to be stuck into the “evil and tempting” category, whether we are covered or not. In my utopia women wouldn’t be encouraged to dress with reference to men’s desires or the fashion industry. When I imagine women having the same freedoms that men have given themselves, I just replace women’s habits as a group with the beneficially autonomous habits of men as a group (note: not the lousy asshole habits of men as a group), and then make slight modifications to allow for the physical differences between men and women. For instance, why don’t many women wear boardshorts that go down to our knees when we go swimming, like men do? Why can’t female figure skaters wear pants, like the men do? Why can’t women have tailored suits as formal wear, why must we squeeze into limb-baring dresses and heels? Why is it that guys don’t have to wear hot pants to the Oscars and shave their legs to get rid of the “unsightly” hair? (To answer my own question, I think this has to do with women being low on the “adult” continuum and the fact that we are infantalised and lumped in with hairless children, but that’s another post). Why can’t manufacturers make jeans for women that aren’t skintight in the ass and thigh area? Why don’t male waiters wear sleeveless tops with deep V-necks the way hostesses at chain restaurants do? I always go around picturing men wearing the male equivalent of female dress and vice versa, and that’s my biggest question: why does there have to be a difference, whether everyone is half-naked or not? It’s the standards of differentiation that I loathe.

    I still think about what would life be like if men were all sexed up to the extent women were and it wasn’t considered ridiculous. Everyone says “Men look silly and their bodies are ugly, so who wants to see them?” but I disagree and I think that’s just what everyone has been brainwashed into thinking. I know there are plenty of guys who try to dress “sexy” for women within the parameters they are given by the culture, I know there are guys who are vain as hell. However, in the end I always come back to my own opinion that anyone looks ridiculous when they are making themselves obviously uncomfortable for the purpose of attracting someone. I just think that when looks and physical attraction are the focus of the culture, it starts to become a mandate rather than an option.

  70. Mandos

    Ugh, monogamy, fidelity and all that other crap are part of the basic problem, the whole notion that somehow someone has exclusive access to your body is as bad as expecting someone to have no other friends, it’s despicable, that’s what it is, and women confound me when they say how they don’t like men looking at porn because they think it’s “unfaithful”, well gee of course you couldn’t possibly object to the patriarchy and the male gaze and all the stuff that actually matters, why is everyone so keen on trying to own someone else’s body for crap’s sake, actually this is making me wonder, do some women use the “cheating” argument to avoid having to say that the degradation of women actually angers them?

    Reproduction and resource allocation.

  71. RadFemHedonist

    Mandos, you are quite the evo-psych jackass aren’t you.

    What I meant to add to my post is that it shouldn’t matter how you look at all ever, I flat out cannot see the point in all these silly suits, jeans are as comfortable as any other clothes so why bother, hurrah for being dressed comfortably in five seconds I say, and three cheers for not bothering to look in the mirror (I never do this unless I haven’t for so long I need to check incase I have to send my old friends a picture of my ever-changing visage for easy recognition).

  72. Worstcase

    It’s useful and practical for a woman to assess the arousal level of a man as quickly as possible. The next practical step is to assess his level of entitlement, as expressed by his face. This is a survival skill and has nothing to do with orientation.

  73. ElkBallet

    Well at least they can’t claim it’s hardwired only for men anymore. Even though all of us knew evo psych was a load of crap, now we finally have the one hundred and tenth study to back us up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>