Lost_dragon wrote:
I think that so much of what we know has been framed from a very specific perspective. We have lost a significant amount of literature due to certain groups limiting our freedom of information and destroying everything they disagreed with. Cultures that have been forced into assimilation. When we talk about sex, so often it is framed around shame, performance and male desire.
From what I remember reading pagan culture was much more pragmatic (you cited a lot of examples of that in motion) where you followed the god or goddess that you needed or that called you, that anyone who was cosmopolitan knew that you don't laugh at someone else's gods because they're your gods with different names/guises, and as far as I can tell they didn't buy into the myth of human progress - rather they had more cyclical views of time.
Lost_dragon wrote:
Or, as one member here put it, presented as a trade deal. That's why I am interested to know how female directors (film directing is heavily male-dominated) portray men and to learn what it is that they find desirable / highlight in men in comparison to the opposite. How much of that attraction is emotional and how much is physical? I find it intriguing, perhaps that's odd but I do. Further, how does attraction that straight women experience differ for the kind of attraction lesbians and bisexual women experience (outside of the obvious)? That's something I'm curious about.
I'd have to look at the stats but it seems like both genders are pretty hung up on looks. Seems like looks or looks + status is the minimum and what comes after that is acceptable as nuance.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.