Why are women grossed out by the male body?

Post Reply New Topic

I could be wrong but my understanding is the generally accepted theory is that evolution is male driven, and this idea is substantiated genetically.

Human Evolutionary Genetics, Second Edition Page 240



At current time I would agree that women have far more mate selection power than in the past. Human cultural variations allow for this. However throughout the mammalian kingdom, with few exceptions, and across human cultures and throughout known human history, it's the males that more actively seek out and mates, and take an active, rather than passive role, and even if that ceases to exist in modern times, it does not change the fact that the state of modern humans is a direct consequence of it.

Even in situations where a female can say yes or no to a mate, the female has less influence on evolutionary paths for the mere fact that she can't reproduce as much as a male. She's limited to one pregnancy every 9 or 10 months maximum, whereas a male can impregnate as many females as he can have sex with.







Exactly, context. But the OP was asking why women don't find male genitalia attractive in the same context that men might find female genitalia attractive. Women need a reason, men need a place. Male genitalia, on it's own doesn't often carry aesthetic value to women. Nor is a woman likely to become aroused at an unsolicited display of it. Not to mention the fact that most women find such unsolicited visual intrusions disrespectful.



You are probably right. Among non-human primates female genitalia often becomes very prominent during times of estrus and becomes a point of attraction for males. However this display is not an attribute of the modern human female. Human females, however, have permanent full breasts, and more prominent hip to waist ratios compared to other primates, and these traits likely now drive mate selection in humans, thankfully.

There's an Island called North Sentinel Island, in the Indian Ocean. It hosts a tribe of "uncontacted" people who have historically been hostile to outsiders, and continue to be so, so not much is known about them except that they are related to the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, but have been isolated long enough that their language is unintelligible to other Andaman Islanders. The extent of the non-hostile contact consisted of the gifting of food and other items at a distance, which the Islanders accepted, but warily so. After gathering what they wanted, as researchers watched from a distance, one of the male Islanders turned to the researchers and made what the researchers interpreted as a hostile gesture, indicating his desire that they leave. That gesture was that he grabbed his penis and pointed it at them.

That's pretty funny.

Well, that is another common misunderstanding of flashing prevalent in our culture. The objective of flashing is not to arouse a female(s), or to engage in sexual intercourse with willing spectators. Flashing is all about getting interest reactions from females. And that is the way it has to be when it is part of an evolutionary "baggage" related to female choice.

Umm...this is about cell divisions and mutation rate in Y Chromosome vs X Chromosome; how is that even related?|

But in your wording, 'male driven' means that males chose their mates.

I think male driven mate choice, at least in humans, has been heavily debunked. Which is not to say that males try to circumvent female choice in various ways like with rape and threats of violence, but then that is not free choice anymore.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree on that one. Look what's happening in America, and Europe before that with gay marriage. Back in the 90's it wasn't even seriously up for discussion. Two decades later it's the law of the land.

Or how about those returning WWII GI's? Massive population explosion. The boomers had barely come of age when the pill became ubiquitous and abortion was encouraged. Now you not only have a reversal in the birth rate, you have women not even STARTING to have kids until their 30's.

The culture is drastically different than it was a mere DECADE ago. If culture hasn't affected gender and reproduction, it most certainly has affected our openness with it. You have to at least consider there might be some interaction between culture and shifting sexual norms.

I obviously won't deny this, but I see it differently. I see it as our biological nature responding or reacting to the surrounding culture.

Something I read recently that thought was very interesting: In the countries that have pushed women's rights the most(countries like denmark and sweden), the difference in choices men and women make, becomes LARGER.
So what we see there is that if we flatten out the "cultural programming", and give men and women equal rights and freedom of choice, women will make choices that are more stereotypically female, and men will be more stereotypical aswell. Imo this shows that our biology is what influences us the most.

Biology is too inconsistent. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you would have to say homosexuality is a disability or a mental illness. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. But it has followed a path of criminality, to mental illness, to...well, not QUITE full acceptance and tolerance, but defo a much easier and safer existence, as opposed to burning at the stake. From people snickering behind someone's back to "oh, THAT guy. Yeah, he's cool...he just doesn't like girls is all."

Abortion, same thing. You'd think the maternal instinct would kick in and all women would be freaking out over the suggestion she could legally kill her baby if she didn't want it. But, no, you have too many women screaming that it's HER body and she can kill a baby if she wants to. I won't deny that most guys are straight and most women aren't murderers. But cultural shifts have allowed coming out and infanticide when they'd have been unthinkable in the previous generation. Biology is only a small part of it (I do believe a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is plausible, for example). Culture has been more responsible for bringing these and other significant behaviors out, even among those who might not otherwise be participants had there not been a cultural/environment impetus for it.

A certain percentage of most animal species are homosexual, so that would be biological aswell.
I respectfully disagree. I think the cultural theories you believe in are alot more inconsistent than the biological ones. But each to his own, I can't really be bothered to get into long discussions anymore.

Now I resorted to stalking you to get an answer , If your avatar is not Eric Draven who is it?

The question contains a false premise. Men and women react broadly similarly to displays of genitalia when they feel sexually receptive, and when they don't feel sexually receptive. Culture affects both the perception of beauty/ugliness and receptivity/avoidance of sexual feelings. Biology has made male arousal apparent and hidden the physical signs of arousal in women, and Biology has also made men more sexually receptive to some extent. In order to sort out the two, a researcher would have to apply lots of sensors. Psychologists actually do this research. I have to wonder about the effects of self-selection on the sample.

Even when looking at porn, I have to go through a bunch of ugly stuff just to find good stuff. Internet porn has no quality control.

Maternal infanticide happens in animals too.

I find it surprising that males report more negative attitudes towards flashing. I would imagine there would be a difference between a male flashing a group of women to that of a male flashing a woman by herself since a group of women would have support from others to make them feel safer about the encounter while a singled out woman might feel much more vulnerable to the encounter. I would also imagine the individual's personal reward system would come into play as well and play some part in how they feel about this type of behavior.

Not surprised that culture has a significant impact on how this type of behavior is ultimately viewed as primitive humans wouldn't have as many stigmas and social expectations to deal with. I would imagine covering up was more about survival than aesthetics and social expectations developed over time and throughout different cultures. Thanks for posting the study, I will check it out.

It seems like a lot of people have never seen a bachelorette party in action, or a group of women watching male strippers, or the women in the audience at Cassa Rosso. There are more things in heaven and earth than you've seen, everyone.