Saturday, November 21, 2009
The same is true for media displays of male nudity.The biggest fans of nudie magazines and internet porn sites featuring disrobed men are not women. Rather they are the homosexual male population.
Finally--and this is important for women to know--many heterosexual women would actually prefer seeing a fully exposed woman over a fully exposed man. The male anatomy simply isn't as lovely as that of the female. It lacks the graceful, compound curves. It has reproductive organs that, although functional, look like they were installed aftermarket as an afterthought. The sperm and testosterone producing testicles reside in a sac that is about as pleasing to the eye as its name, scrotum, is to the ear.
In contrast, the sight of another woman exposing herself can sometimes evoke stimuli that can trigger common sexual fantasies such as that of being with another woman, or of herself being the exposed woman on display, at once vulnerable and yet passively empowered (exhibitionism, not voyeurism). However those fantasies would likely be more vivid had she read a naughty novel relating to them because her imagination would create imagery more exciting than any visual feed.
Normal males like to look at the females' charms. We're not talking just about Peeping Tom's here. By definition, both legally and medically, only the Peeping Tom's are true voyeurs. Voyeurism is a paraphilia (the word combines two Greek words, "para", meaning "besides" or "outside of" and "philia", meaning "love"). A paraphilia is a deviant obsession that could include inanimate objects, children, non-consenting adults, or humiliation--stuff that most of us would view as disgusting rather than exciting.
A voyeur's method of operation typically is to stealthfully spy upon an unsuspecting woman (usually a stranger) undressing or having sex. The hallmark of true voyeurism is secret (non-consenting) observation. Normal guys, for whom privacy invasion isn't a hobby, enjoy viewing gals who are in some manner putting themselves on display at home, on the beach, at the club, at Mardi Gras, on the internet etc.
The female tendency is exhibitionism. She is more prone to wear revealing clothing than is the male. Plunging necklines that exhibit copious quantities of cleavage, miniskirts that display her thighs, short-shorts and Daisy Dukes that draw attention to her derriere, bras that showcase her endowment, loose peekaboo clothing, tight clothing that reveals every contour, diaphanous clothes that leave little to the imagination, beachwear and underwear-that-almost-isn't, such as thongs and g-strings, are all very popular and thus support the assertion made in this paragraph's topic sentence.
Sure, those who are arrested for indecent exposure are predominantly males who practice a nasty and aggressive sort of indecent exposure. These clowns get off on the perception that they have surprised, shocked, or impressed their unsuspecting target. The shock that they see in their victim, often a woman or a child of either sex, is their kinky payday. Yes, it may be exhibitionism of a nasty and aggressive sort, but it's arguably also a bizarre form of voyeurism when these perps get their jollies seeing the shock in the faces of those whom they have targeted.
Flashers and weenie waggers have a compulsive sexual disorder that also falls under the category of paraphilias because it involves non-consent. Sure, one could argue that non-consent can also be involved when a woman exposes herself, but let's not be silly. You show me a guy who wouldn't grant his consent (just to avoid hurting her feelings, of course), and I'll show you either the gayest guy on the planet or a woman whose picture has been featured more than once on those ubiquitous People of Walmart emails.
For the most part, if a woman exposes herself with even the slightest bit of discretion she can be confident that she has implied consent on her side. Please allow me to share a true story with you--one of many that supports this point. I was manning a Lincoln-Mercury booth some years ago. I had strayed from my booth to resume a conversation with a cop (on duty) whom I'd befriended earlier in the day. We picked up our conversation from where we'd left off when we saw a couple pass through the turnstile that caught our attention. The gal was wearing Daisy Dukes that she had taken to the next--and final--level. She had trimmed them up to the belt loops. When she sat upon a bench and raised her knee to make some adjustment to one of her shoes, her mons was on display. While walking, her derriere was completely exposed. The vertical seam was all that remained of the back of her "pants", but it was so entrenched in her lovely furrow that it was rendered invisible.
The twosome bought a couple of Memphis Dry Rub Ribs when she dropped a napkin and bent over to pick it up. At that very moment a big drunk guy, who had been spilling much of his beer, crouched down behind her for closer inspection and exclaimed, "Hey lady, your butt ate your shorts!" Daisy Duke turned to her guy and fumed "Beat him Up!" Her guy just shook his head and resumed walking. The cop started towards the couple and I asked him "Are you going to bust her?" He replied, "For what? Indecent exposure? She looks pretty decent to me! I just want to make sure that a fight doesn't erupt here."
Had it been a guy exposing as much of himself, well, what do you think? I think that busting him or booting him would have been imperative.
The female is programmed to be an exhibitionist of sorts, whereas the male is programmed to be a "voyeur" of sorts.
When you really think about it, the design is immaculate.