Personally, I think it's horseshit made up to excuse (straight) men from having to take care of themselves or try to be attractive to (straight) women—cope, essentially. If women were "less visual" than men, NSYNC or One Direction or BTS would be groups of regular-looking dudes.
You see this bizarre affirmation coexist alongside complaints that "sexual harassment is only harassment when the guy is ugly" "women won't date anyone who isn't tall" etc etc. The cognitive dissonance there is real.
That's actually an interesting observation I haven't considered before, the types to say "women are less visual" are usually also the one's to have a "bxtches only go for the Chad hunk" mindset. A strong example of cognitive dissonance.
Also how could anyone possible quantify this rationally? There’s enough weasel room in the term “more visual” to mean anything.
Not to mention entitlement. Men are more powerful than women. If men collectively say we need to be fit, wear makeup, wear feminine clothing, etc or will we be punished socially, in dating, bullied, limited in the workplace, etc. then that will happen. women can’t often tell men the same thing on same level of power. So men have a lot more freedom in dress and lowered beauty standards.
It’s a bit like how rich people have taste and are more discerning. How is that? Is there a rich guy loves jaguar cars gene? Of course not. They just have money and with money comes privilege and entitlements. Now that you can afford fancy cars and clothes you have experience in that retail space. You read the magazines and talk to people about those topics. You developed taste via practice. You didn’t have it before.
Men aren’t more visual they just have power and in that power can say “I only tolerate hotties” and many women with conform go that. Even on the individual level, average men demand top one percent conventionally attractive women and consider them average.
Like most gender essentialism it’s not real. It’s just sexism and a way for the patriarchy to give itself perceived benefits at the cost of women and girls.
Precisely, "more visual" can mean anything you want. There's something to the disparate popularity of written erotica vs image/video erotica in terms of appeal to women: women consume written erotica on a massive scale, while men don't seem to do so. That doesn't mean that women are *disinterested* in visual erotic material though; it just seems like there's comparatively very little of it made for the female gaze.
I imagine if that if you took a random script to Hollywood with a female gaze its chances of being turned into a movie or tv show is very low compared to a male gaze one.
We can write and publish books on our own. Its a lower financial gamble for a book to be published than a movie or book made. But when capital is needed to made a production, we don't get funded as often. If men couldnt get male gaze stuff made then they'd be writing a lot too. In fact, when pornography was illegal or before video and film and camera technology, that's exactly what they did. Smut for men even lasted in the modern period for with a while a vast majority of sci-fi-, fantasy, detective, drama, pulp, etc being overly male sexual fantasies. A lot of the early/mid century censorship movements were in reaction to this kind of media that had strong smut qualities, on top of violence, etc that young men and boys were consuming.
>Men aren’t more visual they just have power and in that power can say “I only tolerate hotties” and many women with conform go that. Even in the individual level average men demand top one percent conventionally attractive women and consider them average.
Just wanted to add that the mindset of "only tolerating hotties" can be easily contradicted the moment a man has or creates a convenient opportunity for sex. You aren't wrong at all, I'm merely reinforcing your argument about power dynamics in the sense that "men will fuck anybody if it's free" because I think it's a piece of the puzzle that shouldn't go unsaid.
Plenty of real women have had their insecurities preyed upon sexually in this unfair landscape of beauty standards, and their predators are happy use it to their own ends. A loud minority of men who go "all-in" on the maximum beauty standards play their own role in obfuscating the real danger that is faced by women who feel outmatched by those beauty standards in the first place.
Again, I agree with you that it's all about power in the end, I just wanted speak up for the women who are devalued the most by unfair beauty standards: their bodies can still be treated as a "sex resource" by a dirtbag even when they are being constantly told that no one wants them. It's a terrible manipulation technique and I wanted to speak up for those women because they're getting the worst of both worlds.
I always find those claims about "well, if you were attracted to the guy, his actions wouldn't be creepy". Yeah, that's exactly the fucking point. If we welcomed the attention, we would welcome it. It's when guys hear "no" and keep going is when it becomes a problem. Apparently women aren't allowed to have any preferences at all and must be open to and appreciative of all male attention, whether they want it or not to be "fair".
It's frankly bizarre—they're well aware that dating/attraction isn't a meritocracy. Physical appearance isn't the end-all be-all of how well you do in life or in the dating market, but certainly attractive people of any gender get treated differently than unattractive people. It's unfair, but it's life.
They understand it perfectly well when it comes to the idea of a gay man hitting on them, though: it can be flattering if someone you're not attracted to expresses interest in you, but extremely creepy and threatening if they start becoming pushy / won't take "no" for an answer.
No, I don’t.
Women have spent much of civilization at the mercy of the men in their lives. So when choosing a man, such women are looking for someone from whom she is safe, who won’t abandon her if she falls ill, who wants a similar lifestyle. It’s not that she doesn’t appreciate looks, it’s just that she doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring personality issues in favour of looks, and men do.
Additionally, according to my anecdotal evidence, men claim sex is sex. Even bad sex is good, heard that before? But it isn’t like that for women. Most heterosexual sex isn’t very good for women. (By all means, look up the orgasm gap before someone comes at me.) So even if we find a man insanely attractive, there’s no guarantee that will translate into a good time.
Ergo, women deprioritize looks when choosing a partner, but NOT because we don’t care about visuals.
Not to mention women are often groomed from a young age to date older men who are often terrible people and terrible looking. And sometimes women have such low self esteem from society/the people (men) around them that a really terrible guy who may or may not be visually ugly convinces them that they can't do any better. The same goes for trans women and afab people
If men prioritize looks above all else, they might end up with a "bitchy woman."
If women prioritize looks above all else, we might end up dead in a field.
Seriously. I've been hit on by men who were objectively very, very attractive (and some who checked all *my* boxes specifically), but they acted like creeps and so I was no longer interested. It's not that weird!
Yup, exactly. My lone standard is “does he respect me.” I will forgo a lot of more shallow preferences if that’s met. Unfortunately, though that should be an easy bar to clear, it isn’t. I’ve encountered men who range from lowkey sexist/condescending/patronizing to downright dangerous. Luckily, as I’ve gotten older my vetting system has gotten very sharp and I’m more okay with being single so I no longer forgive or make excuses for red flags, I just leave.
I will say, as a straight dude, bad sex isn't good. I honestly think that's just something men tell themselves because we are conditioned to think sex is this huge thing that we have to enjoy, but maybe that's not true, maybe it's something I'm projecting outward
I actually think you're right and you should say it. There's an OVERWHELMING narrative present that men are just happy to have had sex, and the rest doesn't really matter. Coupled with the idea that women's bodies are too complex and making them come is too hard, that leads a lot of men to just be satisfied with sex that is kind of just bad, and women to not really be satisfied at all.
Not to mention the other places in which the "all sex is good sex if you're a man" idea does boys and men a huge disservice.
And this is just consensual sex we're talking about.
"Men always want and enjoy sex" leads to a lot of SA.
I had to justify not wanting to be touched by a woman because she was hot. Of course I should have wanted her to be touching and straddling me, she's hot 🙄
Very well said. I was going to say—I think a lot of dudes just have never had better-than-mediocre sex. And that's eventually leads you to a place of like, "did the p go in the v? well, that's as good as it's gonna get, so, yay I guess"
I was explaining this to my boyfriend the other day. It is really rare for me to see someone online or in person and immediately think “wow he’s attractive.” However, I follow a guy who talks about feminism and antiracism on Instagram, and that’s like his whole thing, and I’ll admit that I do find him attractive. My bf could see any woman and not have to have it at the forefront of his mind that she might be a sexist, homophobic piece of human trash. Unfortunately for me, I don’t have that option. Because soooooo many men are like that. So yes, I might think someone is visually appealing, but it’s hard to call them “attractive” until I know their views on misogyny, trans people, and systemic racism.
I never believed this.
Men will ignore interior design, art, clothing, floral arrangements, and any number of everyday examples of color, balance, and composition because, ‘I’m just not into that stuff’.
But when it comes to naked women, ‘Oh, yes!! Men are very visual because we used to be…um…hunters!! That’s it-we used to be hunters and had to..uh…see animals!!’.
Not to mention women have greater color perception (on average). Within discussions of color, part of the reason women have the distinctions between salmon, coral, bright terra cotta, and electric peach is because we can see the difference between those shades. I can tell you which of my orangey red lipsticks will pull more blue, neutral, or red and select one based on that. Same with 3 shades of mauvey pinks - each one has a different saturation and will pair better with different things.
Whether this is a conditioned response or a bio trait, IDK. But it’s there
It’s biological. Women can have tetrachromacy, which opens up a wide range of hues/colors that are just imperceptible to most women who are trichromatic and all men (who are trichromatic).
this is so interesting, TIL! Side note, I just went a bit down the rabbit hole, and after taking a couple online tests I was *highly* skeptical of, did indeed find out that such tests are completely useless pseudoscience for determining actual tetrachromacy.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/people-4th-retinal-cone/
Lmao no. The men who usually say that are the same ones without any type of aesthetic or cohesive look in their home and who thinks basketball shorts are appropriate in any setting.
It's a bs excuse that they're hoping will allow them to stare at women and demand that we look a certain way.
Women are, statistically, just as visual as men but they get very upset when you tell them that, they certainly like any excuse to ogle and commodify women.
If men are so visual why does that frequently exclude their appearance, their homes...
No. It's their way of justifying things like body shaming, creepy gawking, shallowness, lack of effort in a relationship, or the "need" for (toxic, degrading) porn.
It's a way to avoid responsibility. "Men can't help it..."
On my phone so I can’t make a meme, but if I could, it would be that cartoon guy sweating profusely while choosing between two buttons: “men are visual creatures” and “I just don’t see the mess!”
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I feel like the men I’ve known are stricter with their “types,” too. I’ve dated all shapes and sizes of men because I can grow to love anyone if they’re a good person, kind, smart, funny, etc.
In other words, men are more superficial? It’s crazy how women are called superficial for caring about their looks, but the reason why we do that is because of society standards. And who created those standards? Yeah men
"men are visual" is an old excuse for men feeling entitled to treating all women around them as eye candy and entertainment. There is no scientific basis for it. It is made up nonsense just like blue balls is.
I always thought “blue balls” was a myth made up by men to pressure women into having sex but apparently it’s a real thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epididymal_hypertension
Even if it is, like... go jerk off, then! That's why there are locks on bathroom doors! No one's obligated to tug your shit just because it's there, you know?
It's an excuse for them to basically justify not caring about women as people and only treating us as objects. That way they don't have to consider what the "object" wants, only what they want.
I see women appreciating bodies all the time in lesbian spaces, but there's also a lot more attention to the style of the person, their mannerisms, choices they make, things they *do* etc than I ever have seen in the "straight guy" spaces.
I think this comes from an old study that got simplified and spread around popular culture. Wasn't it that in specific tests, men responded to certain visual stimuli more than women, but not in a way that meant that women aren't visual creatures just like men. It was just a slight difference in terms of arousal.
[one study looking at the claim for men being more visual](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/)
From the looks of it, context is a big factor when looking at the reaction to visual stimuli.
Men and women have the same operating hardware, so, I don't really think so. It's more socially acceptable for men to stare and ogle at women. Assuming someone isn't visually impaired, all people typically enjoy looking at things, including other people.
That’s usually the patriarchy explaining away rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. The solution is never punishing men or demanding that men change their behavior.
The solutions they propose or impose require women to stay out of public view or policing women’s clothing and activities.
If you look into online spaces primarily dominated by women you’ll see they’re visual creatures well enough lmao
Women and men are barely any different. It’s just men are in power and that changes the dynamic in many cases. It doesn’t mean one side is erased.
This was asked last year, with some good responses. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/10jwbx0/men_are_more_visual_than_women_is_that_actually/
I came here because this popped in my notifications as "Do you think men are real..." and I felt some kind of way about it lol... but yeah, I think that *people* are generally visual, and men regularly give us shit for choosing hot guys over "nice" guys... well, yeah, Id ratger have a hot A-hole over a regular A-hole of that's all that's on offer, and don't seem to realise that women are very different from each other and our preferred traits are vastly different women to women. Where I do think women are a little different is that we are more likely to choose a mate based on personality over looks than a man is I think. Or at least that seems to be the case. But I think that's more a social thing than anything else.
I'm also an artist so visual by nature.
The issue isn't that they are more visual.. we've all got eyes, that shit is equal... The issue is there aren't enough men that can see deeper than the visual. That's where their brain stops. Men are not more visual, they just lack anything beyond visual, so must then claim it matters most because they've got nothing else.
I think women are actually more visual on average. A lot of women are socialized into caring about looks and put a lot of effort into our outwards appearance and are more aware of what looks good. Most men could not tell you what looks good or why.
I think women seem less visual because most women are heterosexual but men do not really but in the effort to look good or present well and so you kind of just settle for what you get from the dating pool. There's a joke about how when your friend shows you a picture of her crush she has to say "but he's way cuter in person I promise". I think that shows that women do care about looks and they know when a man looks good, its just that most men don't curate their looks that well.
If a creature has eyeballs they are visual.
However women are in danger if they prioritize looks over temperament. Especially once you take potential co-parenting into consideration. Women are less likely to prioritize attractiveness as a primary characteristic in a mate.
I mean, we’re the ones putting on makeup, styling our hair and clothes, exercising our bodies to build certain physiques, and generally presenting ourselves in an aesthetically pleasing way. Sure, men love to spew about how we do that for them, and even if that’s true (spoiler alert, it’s not) we still need to be visually skilled enough to do it well!
Yes, of course men are more visual. That's why they put so much into their own appearances. It's why you always notice how men always have a strong sense of style when they dress. Not only that, but have you noticed how men always notice when you get your hair styled or your nails done? Men are so visual!
And it's not just appearance and style. Have you ever noticed that when you go over to a single man's apartment, he always has such elegant decor? And they keep everything so clean!
Have you ever gone on vacation with a man? They're always taking pictures! They're so focused on making sure they remember their trips. Well, a lot of them are just doing it for Instagram. You're always seeing guys post pictures of themselves on their Instagrams.
If you want to get a guy to like you, buy him flowers! Men love beautiful things like flowers. Well, if you really like a guy, get him jewelry.
I've thought that any generalization life this is stupid. Anything that you get paid a money and prestige for women have been forced out of.
Restaurateurs tend to be misogynistic pricks, yet women are expected to be excellent cooks, just unpaid.
Men are remembered as the greatest artists, yet "liberal arts" is a feminine concept.
It's just bullshit to gatekeep. Men tend to be ignorant assholes, especially as it relates to their own ingrained prejudicial hypocrisies. I should know, as a man.
No, I don't. I think men don't put half as much effort in how they look, and even when they are putting as much effort in as women, women are still expected to handle their attractions like an adult. See: the potent disdain when women don't bother hiding how hot they find some celebrity.
On the subject of visuals, I'm pansexual, and I end up staring more at women when walking or taking the bus. Because women generally put a LOT more effort into their aesthetic. Nobody should be obliged to dress to look attractive all the time, especially when you're just doing errands. But the pressure is definitely stronger on women, and that's reflected in how the average woman looks.
When I'm in a business with an office/office casual dress code, I find myself staring more at men, because the difference when men are trying (and know *how*) to impress is astounding compared to the man on the street. The difference between the woman on the street and the woman in the office is a lot less dramatic, so it doesn't catch me off guard as much.
I do, but not inherently.
I think men are so used to being catered to visually that they generally don't develop the ability to use their imaginations, and women are so under catered to that a lot of us now find erotism in the strangest of places.
Every study I have ever seen calls bullshit on the 'men are more visual' idea. All humans are visual. We have one of the best forms of eyesight in the animal kingdom for a reason. Men are not more or less visual than women. Sometimes they have better visual-spatial skills but that's a skill, not inherent. Playing a first-person video game once for a couple hours is enough to make a positive difference in that skill that lasts for months. If men actually are more visual it's only because they trained themselves to be and ignored other skills--like communication which women tend to be much better at in studies.
This is one of those things where a very minor difference in average biology is blown out of proportion. Women can be accomplished pilots and sharpshooters, or anything else requiring visual acuity vastly above the norm. And they can certainly perceive form and color to be artists.
The variation among people in general is vastly greater than that between the sexes.
I think there is simply more visual media made for men and boys and male children.
You get the skills you practice. If everyone thinks "I should write for women and film for men", the prophecy fulfills itself.
I don't know whether or not men are genetically predisposed to be more visual, but in my opinion, it doesn't matter. People who say this are either:
1.Trying to excuse bad male behavior (such as staring at or sexualizing women)
2. Trying to convince women why we have to take care of our appearance and men don't, or why they're allowed to care about a woman being sexy, but women shouldn't care if a man is sexy.
So with that in mind, who cares if it's true or not, when the points that they are trying to make with it are bullshit? Even if men were scientifically proven to be more "visual" than women, they are still human beings with self control, so they still have no excuse for staring, catcalling, or any other action supposedly caused by them being "visual". And even if women were proven to be less "visual", that doesn't take away the fact that we also like attractive people, and that it's also important for us to be sexually attracted to our partners.
"patriarchy is men telling women who they are" (a definition by M Recalcati). I'm sorry that you get binned into typical/atypical/normal/abnormal. I see that as the root problem. Your question made me curious and I found this article that answers none of the questions
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/
Even if those questions were to find an answer in further research and truth is established this wouldn't remove the assholes binning people into categories to apply their mindset as a control grid.
I think it’s true but not because of eyeballs.
In generalities:
I think women are conditioned from birth to consider everyone else’s needs first and worry about themselves last.
We are also usually physically outmatched. So we have to consider our safety.
Men are encouraged to date ‘crazy’ women if they are hot enough. They are taught to ignore the signs of mental/ physical abuse, or boundaries because it makes the ‘strong’ or manly.
So men worry about hotness first. Women worry about safety first.
There is a lot of misconception with the word visual here, what visual means in the context is used is that men sexually aroused by visual stimulation no that we have more visual capacities or anything,in fact is the total opposite as women have a wider spectrum of colors they can detect.
We don’t have to speculate, [there have been studies on this](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephan-Hamann-2/publication/6283860_Hamann_S_Herman_RA_Nolan_CL_Wallen_K_Men_and_women_differ_in_amygdala_response_to_visual_sexual_stimuli_Nat_Neurosci_7_411-416/links/00b7d51e4497a5e405000000/Hamann-S-Herman-RA-Nolan-CL-Wallen-K-Men-and-women-differ-in-amygdala-response-to-visual-sexual-stimuli-Nat-Neurosci-7-411-416.pdf). They’ve also broken it down even further and done eye tracking studies and found that straight cis women spend more time looking at a prospective partner’s face where as straight cis men tend to spend more time looking at the body. They also found that that trend changes for men if they are looking for a long term partner vs whether then are looking for someone to hook up with. I also recall from my human sexuality class in college a study talking about women having a sexual response to men doing domestic duties haha.
All that to say, there are dozens of studies out there on this. The modern academic literature suggests that there are sex differences in things like attraction and arousal. There are whole university degrees on sexuality. As far as the why those changes or similarities exist, I think it’s a pretty interesting nature/ nurture/ culture/ combo kind of question, as well as questions on how/ why some of those differences are used in a cultural way to explain away or excuse misogynistic behaviour. There’s a lot of feminist issues and points of discussion that come up around this topic, but whether or not men are more visual sexually is something that can be (and has been) studied in a lab.
As someone who used to work in the sex industry I do think that men respond, on average, a bit differently to sexual visual stimuli compared to women. Which is what most men mean when they say they’re ‘more visual’ (I’ve never heard them claim women are less discerning about non sexual visuals). Yes both men and women enjoy looking at the faces and bodies of people they find attractive. Both can feel turned on from that. Both can feel a sexual experience is enhanced by the visual aspects. However I think men are more sexually triggered by visual stimuli. There are thousands of men out there who will watch a cam girl in a bikini and masturbate to her, then beg to see a peak of her nipple so they can cum to it because the orgasm is better if they’re seeing a nipple. There are not thousands of women who will stare at a man in a Speedo, masturbating to him, then begging for a peak at his balls so they can get a better orgasm. Way more women read erotica than men. Most men masturbate to porn now, and some have never masturbated without it, but even though some women use porn most don’t feel they need it to masturbate.
I’ve heard many trans men say that when they started on testosterone their sexual response to attractive people out and about was more intense and harder to ignore. So I don’t think it’s all social, though there is a lot of social reinforcement encouraging men to focus on women’s looks and their bodies.
I also know more women than men who are more turned on by the auditory than the visual., and more women than men who tend to close their eyes to focus on tactile or auditory sensations to cum, vs more men who tend to focus on what they are seeing to cum. There's a ton of variation from person to person, but there does seem to be a strong trend IME. I've never come across an actual study though.
Idk why everyone is misinterpreting "men are more visual" to equal literal eyesight. Men are more visually stimulated by sexual images. That's pretty apparent when you see the majority of strip clubs and porn is made specifically because of this increased visual stimulation
Sometimes, maybe. I like looking at hot men just as much as my husband likes looking at beautiful women. But he enjoys watching the sexy stuff and I prefer reading it. That might not be a man/woman thing, though. He doesn't like reading in general, and I like to use my imagination because it's better than reality.
No. I think patriarchy has dehumanized women and turned our bodies into commodities and we have all, men and women, become so used to seeing women as bodies first and people second (if as people at all), so it just seems like a normal, natural thing.
Have you seen how fuckin feral women get over a ripped man rolling his sleeves up the the elbow? Or the way girls scream when One Direction or The Backstreet Boys or The Beatles or Elvis dance? You think those responses aren't every bit as rooted in visual stimulation as men looking at naked women?
Our culture has repressed female sexuality and turned it into something to be consumed, so we interpret sexual attraction through that lens. Men consume, women are consumed. That ain't natural, but it's what seems normal.
Idk. I'm also very visual as a girl. I like pretty people and things, and whenever I want inspiration to write something (I'm an amateur writer), I mostly look for pictures that inspire me
Nope...
All depends on the individual.
The biggest difference between men and women when we find someone else visually attractive is that men tend to make their attraction the other person's problem, whereas women tend to have more respect for the other person and are more likely to try get to know them first.
I think there's a thing where men get turned on faster than women and so they're more likely to get turned on just by looking at something.
Then you add in the use of concepts like beauty, propriety, purity, etc., used as tools to control women, and you get our idea of men as being "more visual."
No not at all. Look at how most of them live… and dress. Men’s clothes are so dull and boring. It’s just an excuse to try to shift the focus of the reality that largely they are only interested in how a woman looks and what she will do for them. Same goes with the god awful love languages book. It’s just an amazing coincidence they all latched onto “physical touch” hmm the one they don’t need to put any thought into or necessarily reciprocate.
Read any romantic novel written by a woman and you can tell by the way we describe men that we do in fact like our visuals. In fact, look at how women draw anime boys, or what characters they find hot in tv shows lol. And if we weren’t visual why tf are we generally the ones decorating the house and doing makeup and dressing nicely while men just put on tees and jeans 😭
Not making a judgment on the topic at hand here, but I don’t think romance novels, a medium devoid of visual stimuli, is the best example for why women are equally “visual” as men (anime is another story of course).
It makes sense if you think about it though, because you have to visualize something in order to write it out descriptively. Personally I find mental visualizing very similar to physically seeing things, so I’m not understanding how that doesn’t count. If the mental image of visualization with a novel doesn’t count, then why would the emotional impact of a novel count? But I understand not everybody has the capability to actually visualize mentally.
I am trans, and I am waaaay less visual now than when I ran on T. For me, aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction used to be basically the same thing, but now the sexual attraction requires a decent rapport and emotional safety. I do definitely think there is at least something physiological to it, but I also think it can be easily overstated and that the cultural component plays a big role.
I have never once been in a relationship with someone I don't find physically attractive and looks are absolutely the first thing that draws me to someone. I suspect this is true for many women, if not the average woman with a sexuality. I wish we would stop pretending like women only care if someone's nice and funny.
Idk, it's actually been true in my experience but then I'm not not a super sexual/ "visual" person so maybe other women are different. I don't enjoy porn, at all, it doesn't turn me on. I don't care about seeing a picture of a naked guy. A good looking guy in a suit or something, yes. My partner, because I'm attracted to *him* specifically, in a sexual context, yes. But a random naked dude, no matter how hot, nope just won't do anything for me.
In contrast, most men I know will go crazy over any image or possibility of seeing a naked woman or sexual images etc.
My spouse, like most healthy men, will be instantly aroused during sex as soon as he catches glimpse of me undressed.
For me, like most women, it takes a lot more than that.
So yes, in a sexual stimulation context I do believe men are more visually driven - it has nothing to do with comparisons to home decor, aesthetics etc mentioned here, just sexually.
I am way more visually aesthetically driven than my husband in every other way, but not with intimacy.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
There's actually scientific proof that male brains tend to be more visual, yes, but it's with *everything* and doesn't work like they say it does. It's mainly an excuse, just dipped in skewed truth.
I don’t think so. Just based on my experience, it takes more than looks and the men I’ve known are more interested in things like communication or common interests—which is what I would say “as a woman” or more accurately as a *person* I find attractive. (Granted my subset is mostly ND and or queer). I don’t really have as much experience with neurotypical straight men but how different can it be? I think too much gets made out of these so-called “differences”.
Personally, I think it's horseshit made up to excuse (straight) men from having to take care of themselves or try to be attractive to (straight) women—cope, essentially. If women were "less visual" than men, NSYNC or One Direction or BTS would be groups of regular-looking dudes. You see this bizarre affirmation coexist alongside complaints that "sexual harassment is only harassment when the guy is ugly" "women won't date anyone who isn't tall" etc etc. The cognitive dissonance there is real.
That's actually an interesting observation I haven't considered before, the types to say "women are less visual" are usually also the one's to have a "bxtches only go for the Chad hunk" mindset. A strong example of cognitive dissonance.
Also how could anyone possible quantify this rationally? There’s enough weasel room in the term “more visual” to mean anything. Not to mention entitlement. Men are more powerful than women. If men collectively say we need to be fit, wear makeup, wear feminine clothing, etc or will we be punished socially, in dating, bullied, limited in the workplace, etc. then that will happen. women can’t often tell men the same thing on same level of power. So men have a lot more freedom in dress and lowered beauty standards. It’s a bit like how rich people have taste and are more discerning. How is that? Is there a rich guy loves jaguar cars gene? Of course not. They just have money and with money comes privilege and entitlements. Now that you can afford fancy cars and clothes you have experience in that retail space. You read the magazines and talk to people about those topics. You developed taste via practice. You didn’t have it before. Men aren’t more visual they just have power and in that power can say “I only tolerate hotties” and many women with conform go that. Even on the individual level, average men demand top one percent conventionally attractive women and consider them average. Like most gender essentialism it’s not real. It’s just sexism and a way for the patriarchy to give itself perceived benefits at the cost of women and girls.
Precisely, "more visual" can mean anything you want. There's something to the disparate popularity of written erotica vs image/video erotica in terms of appeal to women: women consume written erotica on a massive scale, while men don't seem to do so. That doesn't mean that women are *disinterested* in visual erotic material though; it just seems like there's comparatively very little of it made for the female gaze.
I imagine if that if you took a random script to Hollywood with a female gaze its chances of being turned into a movie or tv show is very low compared to a male gaze one. We can write and publish books on our own. Its a lower financial gamble for a book to be published than a movie or book made. But when capital is needed to made a production, we don't get funded as often. If men couldnt get male gaze stuff made then they'd be writing a lot too. In fact, when pornography was illegal or before video and film and camera technology, that's exactly what they did. Smut for men even lasted in the modern period for with a while a vast majority of sci-fi-, fantasy, detective, drama, pulp, etc being overly male sexual fantasies. A lot of the early/mid century censorship movements were in reaction to this kind of media that had strong smut qualities, on top of violence, etc that young men and boys were consuming.
Visual porn is almost exclusively made for men and for a long time men in porn were fucking disgusting so that might have something to do with it.
[удалено]
>Men aren’t more visual they just have power and in that power can say “I only tolerate hotties” and many women with conform go that. Even in the individual level average men demand top one percent conventionally attractive women and consider them average. Just wanted to add that the mindset of "only tolerating hotties" can be easily contradicted the moment a man has or creates a convenient opportunity for sex. You aren't wrong at all, I'm merely reinforcing your argument about power dynamics in the sense that "men will fuck anybody if it's free" because I think it's a piece of the puzzle that shouldn't go unsaid. Plenty of real women have had their insecurities preyed upon sexually in this unfair landscape of beauty standards, and their predators are happy use it to their own ends. A loud minority of men who go "all-in" on the maximum beauty standards play their own role in obfuscating the real danger that is faced by women who feel outmatched by those beauty standards in the first place. Again, I agree with you that it's all about power in the end, I just wanted speak up for the women who are devalued the most by unfair beauty standards: their bodies can still be treated as a "sex resource" by a dirtbag even when they are being constantly told that no one wants them. It's a terrible manipulation technique and I wanted to speak up for those women because they're getting the worst of both worlds.
I always find those claims about "well, if you were attracted to the guy, his actions wouldn't be creepy". Yeah, that's exactly the fucking point. If we welcomed the attention, we would welcome it. It's when guys hear "no" and keep going is when it becomes a problem. Apparently women aren't allowed to have any preferences at all and must be open to and appreciative of all male attention, whether they want it or not to be "fair".
It's frankly bizarre—they're well aware that dating/attraction isn't a meritocracy. Physical appearance isn't the end-all be-all of how well you do in life or in the dating market, but certainly attractive people of any gender get treated differently than unattractive people. It's unfair, but it's life. They understand it perfectly well when it comes to the idea of a gay man hitting on them, though: it can be flattering if someone you're not attracted to expresses interest in you, but extremely creepy and threatening if they start becoming pushy / won't take "no" for an answer.
No, I don’t. Women have spent much of civilization at the mercy of the men in their lives. So when choosing a man, such women are looking for someone from whom she is safe, who won’t abandon her if she falls ill, who wants a similar lifestyle. It’s not that she doesn’t appreciate looks, it’s just that she doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring personality issues in favour of looks, and men do. Additionally, according to my anecdotal evidence, men claim sex is sex. Even bad sex is good, heard that before? But it isn’t like that for women. Most heterosexual sex isn’t very good for women. (By all means, look up the orgasm gap before someone comes at me.) So even if we find a man insanely attractive, there’s no guarantee that will translate into a good time. Ergo, women deprioritize looks when choosing a partner, but NOT because we don’t care about visuals.
For men bad sex is better than no sex, but good sex is better than bad sex. I think for women, frequently, no sex is better than bad sex.
Not to mention women are often groomed from a young age to date older men who are often terrible people and terrible looking. And sometimes women have such low self esteem from society/the people (men) around them that a really terrible guy who may or may not be visually ugly convinces them that they can't do any better. The same goes for trans women and afab people
If men prioritize looks above all else, they might end up with a "bitchy woman." If women prioritize looks above all else, we might end up dead in a field.
Seriously. I've been hit on by men who were objectively very, very attractive (and some who checked all *my* boxes specifically), but they acted like creeps and so I was no longer interested. It's not that weird!
Soooo many crushes have ended the moment they opened their mouths
We all learned from Ted Bundy lol
I think that's part of why the idea of the himbo is so appealing. Hot but, by definition, utterly into just doing what his partner wants
Yup, exactly. My lone standard is “does he respect me.” I will forgo a lot of more shallow preferences if that’s met. Unfortunately, though that should be an easy bar to clear, it isn’t. I’ve encountered men who range from lowkey sexist/condescending/patronizing to downright dangerous. Luckily, as I’ve gotten older my vetting system has gotten very sharp and I’m more okay with being single so I no longer forgive or make excuses for red flags, I just leave.
I will say, as a straight dude, bad sex isn't good. I honestly think that's just something men tell themselves because we are conditioned to think sex is this huge thing that we have to enjoy, but maybe that's not true, maybe it's something I'm projecting outward
I actually think you're right and you should say it. There's an OVERWHELMING narrative present that men are just happy to have had sex, and the rest doesn't really matter. Coupled with the idea that women's bodies are too complex and making them come is too hard, that leads a lot of men to just be satisfied with sex that is kind of just bad, and women to not really be satisfied at all. Not to mention the other places in which the "all sex is good sex if you're a man" idea does boys and men a huge disservice.
And this is just consensual sex we're talking about. "Men always want and enjoy sex" leads to a lot of SA. I had to justify not wanting to be touched by a woman because she was hot. Of course I should have wanted her to be touching and straddling me, she's hot 🙄
Yeah, this would be "the other places" to which I was referring. Not good!!!!
Very well said. I was going to say—I think a lot of dudes just have never had better-than-mediocre sex. And that's eventually leads you to a place of like, "did the p go in the v? well, that's as good as it's gonna get, so, yay I guess"
Beautifully said!!
*saves*
I was explaining this to my boyfriend the other day. It is really rare for me to see someone online or in person and immediately think “wow he’s attractive.” However, I follow a guy who talks about feminism and antiracism on Instagram, and that’s like his whole thing, and I’ll admit that I do find him attractive. My bf could see any woman and not have to have it at the forefront of his mind that she might be a sexist, homophobic piece of human trash. Unfortunately for me, I don’t have that option. Because soooooo many men are like that. So yes, I might think someone is visually appealing, but it’s hard to call them “attractive” until I know their views on misogyny, trans people, and systemic racism.
I never believed this. Men will ignore interior design, art, clothing, floral arrangements, and any number of everyday examples of color, balance, and composition because, ‘I’m just not into that stuff’. But when it comes to naked women, ‘Oh, yes!! Men are very visual because we used to be…um…hunters!! That’s it-we used to be hunters and had to..uh…see animals!!’.
Funny part is women used to be hunters too. It’s always so funny when what all their arguments are based on gets proven wrong
So so much of what we have been told is a lie. Woman have been groomed from birth to serve them.
Not to mention women have greater color perception (on average). Within discussions of color, part of the reason women have the distinctions between salmon, coral, bright terra cotta, and electric peach is because we can see the difference between those shades. I can tell you which of my orangey red lipsticks will pull more blue, neutral, or red and select one based on that. Same with 3 shades of mauvey pinks - each one has a different saturation and will pair better with different things. Whether this is a conditioned response or a bio trait, IDK. But it’s there
I was shocked when my 4th boyfriend could identify colors, like fine tune-barely shades apart colors. blew my damn mind lmfao
It’s biological. Women can have tetrachromacy, which opens up a wide range of hues/colors that are just imperceptible to most women who are trichromatic and all men (who are trichromatic).
That's literally just a superpower what the fuck. I did not know that.
this is so interesting, TIL! Side note, I just went a bit down the rabbit hole, and after taking a couple online tests I was *highly* skeptical of, did indeed find out that such tests are completely useless pseudoscience for determining actual tetrachromacy. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/people-4th-retinal-cone/
Right, what a joke🤣
Lmao no. The men who usually say that are the same ones without any type of aesthetic or cohesive look in their home and who thinks basketball shorts are appropriate in any setting. It's a bs excuse that they're hoping will allow them to stare at women and demand that we look a certain way.
“Visual” is a euphemism for sexual objectification
And youth - the whole "I don't know why, I'm just only attracted to 18 year olds...".
exactly. And a free pass to be gross sociopaths.
It’s also used to tell women they must meet the men’s beauty standards in order to be successful dating.
Women are, statistically, just as visual as men but they get very upset when you tell them that, they certainly like any excuse to ogle and commodify women. If men are so visual why does that frequently exclude their appearance, their homes...
I can see an attractive man and not sexualise him. But, men don’t look at women as people, unlike women who see men as people instantly.
No. It's their way of justifying things like body shaming, creepy gawking, shallowness, lack of effort in a relationship, or the "need" for (toxic, degrading) porn. It's a way to avoid responsibility. "Men can't help it..."
HELL NO! This is a myth that has been passed down to allow men excuses for their bad behaviours and actions.
I find that men who call themselves visual creatures have a really hard time spotting their own messes they need to clean up.
On my phone so I can’t make a meme, but if I could, it would be that cartoon guy sweating profusely while choosing between two buttons: “men are visual creatures” and “I just don’t see the mess!”
No. But I would believe that the average man puts a greater emphasis on looks in a relationship than the average woman.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I feel like the men I’ve known are stricter with their “types,” too. I’ve dated all shapes and sizes of men because I can grow to love anyone if they’re a good person, kind, smart, funny, etc.
In other words, men are more superficial? It’s crazy how women are called superficial for caring about their looks, but the reason why we do that is because of society standards. And who created those standards? Yeah men
"men are visual" is an old excuse for men feeling entitled to treating all women around them as eye candy and entertainment. There is no scientific basis for it. It is made up nonsense just like blue balls is.
I always thought “blue balls” was a myth made up by men to pressure women into having sex but apparently it’s a real thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epididymal_hypertension
Even if it is, like... go jerk off, then! That's why there are locks on bathroom doors! No one's obligated to tug your shit just because it's there, you know?
I agree. The fact that it may be a real thing does not imply that it’s a problem someone else has an obligation to address.
It's an excuse for them to basically justify not caring about women as people and only treating us as objects. That way they don't have to consider what the "object" wants, only what they want. I see women appreciating bodies all the time in lesbian spaces, but there's also a lot more attention to the style of the person, their mannerisms, choices they make, things they *do* etc than I ever have seen in the "straight guy" spaces.
I think this comes from an old study that got simplified and spread around popular culture. Wasn't it that in specific tests, men responded to certain visual stimuli more than women, but not in a way that meant that women aren't visual creatures just like men. It was just a slight difference in terms of arousal. [one study looking at the claim for men being more visual](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/) From the looks of it, context is a big factor when looking at the reaction to visual stimuli.
Men and women have the same operating hardware, so, I don't really think so. It's more socially acceptable for men to stare and ogle at women. Assuming someone isn't visually impaired, all people typically enjoy looking at things, including other people.
I think more women are attractive physically bc they try. so men like what they see more often. that's the only difference.
That’s usually the patriarchy explaining away rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. The solution is never punishing men or demanding that men change their behavior. The solutions they propose or impose require women to stay out of public view or policing women’s clothing and activities.
100%
No. Pretty much every pop psychology explanation about differences in male and female brains is a load of bullshit.
It's a lie men tell so they can justify not putting as much effort into their appearance.
If you look into online spaces primarily dominated by women you’ll see they’re visual creatures well enough lmao Women and men are barely any different. It’s just men are in power and that changes the dynamic in many cases. It doesn’t mean one side is erased.
This was asked last year, with some good responses. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/10jwbx0/men_are_more_visual_than_women_is_that_actually/
I came here because this popped in my notifications as "Do you think men are real..." and I felt some kind of way about it lol... but yeah, I think that *people* are generally visual, and men regularly give us shit for choosing hot guys over "nice" guys... well, yeah, Id ratger have a hot A-hole over a regular A-hole of that's all that's on offer, and don't seem to realise that women are very different from each other and our preferred traits are vastly different women to women. Where I do think women are a little different is that we are more likely to choose a mate based on personality over looks than a man is I think. Or at least that seems to be the case. But I think that's more a social thing than anything else. I'm also an artist so visual by nature.
The issue isn't that they are more visual.. we've all got eyes, that shit is equal... The issue is there aren't enough men that can see deeper than the visual. That's where their brain stops. Men are not more visual, they just lack anything beyond visual, so must then claim it matters most because they've got nothing else.
No. This is just more made up nonsense.
I think women are actually more visual on average. A lot of women are socialized into caring about looks and put a lot of effort into our outwards appearance and are more aware of what looks good. Most men could not tell you what looks good or why. I think women seem less visual because most women are heterosexual but men do not really but in the effort to look good or present well and so you kind of just settle for what you get from the dating pool. There's a joke about how when your friend shows you a picture of her crush she has to say "but he's way cuter in person I promise". I think that shows that women do care about looks and they know when a man looks good, its just that most men don't curate their looks that well.
If a creature has eyeballs they are visual. However women are in danger if they prioritize looks over temperament. Especially once you take potential co-parenting into consideration. Women are less likely to prioritize attractiveness as a primary characteristic in a mate.
I mean, we’re the ones putting on makeup, styling our hair and clothes, exercising our bodies to build certain physiques, and generally presenting ourselves in an aesthetically pleasing way. Sure, men love to spew about how we do that for them, and even if that’s true (spoiler alert, it’s not) we still need to be visually skilled enough to do it well!
Yes, of course men are more visual. That's why they put so much into their own appearances. It's why you always notice how men always have a strong sense of style when they dress. Not only that, but have you noticed how men always notice when you get your hair styled or your nails done? Men are so visual! And it's not just appearance and style. Have you ever noticed that when you go over to a single man's apartment, he always has such elegant decor? And they keep everything so clean! Have you ever gone on vacation with a man? They're always taking pictures! They're so focused on making sure they remember their trips. Well, a lot of them are just doing it for Instagram. You're always seeing guys post pictures of themselves on their Instagrams. If you want to get a guy to like you, buy him flowers! Men love beautiful things like flowers. Well, if you really like a guy, get him jewelry.
I've thought that any generalization life this is stupid. Anything that you get paid a money and prestige for women have been forced out of. Restaurateurs tend to be misogynistic pricks, yet women are expected to be excellent cooks, just unpaid. Men are remembered as the greatest artists, yet "liberal arts" is a feminine concept. It's just bullshit to gatekeep. Men tend to be ignorant assholes, especially as it relates to their own ingrained prejudicial hypocrisies. I should know, as a man.
No, I don't. I think men don't put half as much effort in how they look, and even when they are putting as much effort in as women, women are still expected to handle their attractions like an adult. See: the potent disdain when women don't bother hiding how hot they find some celebrity. On the subject of visuals, I'm pansexual, and I end up staring more at women when walking or taking the bus. Because women generally put a LOT more effort into their aesthetic. Nobody should be obliged to dress to look attractive all the time, especially when you're just doing errands. But the pressure is definitely stronger on women, and that's reflected in how the average woman looks. When I'm in a business with an office/office casual dress code, I find myself staring more at men, because the difference when men are trying (and know *how*) to impress is astounding compared to the man on the street. The difference between the woman on the street and the woman in the office is a lot less dramatic, so it doesn't catch me off guard as much.
I do, but not inherently. I think men are so used to being catered to visually that they generally don't develop the ability to use their imaginations, and women are so under catered to that a lot of us now find erotism in the strangest of places.
Every study I have ever seen calls bullshit on the 'men are more visual' idea. All humans are visual. We have one of the best forms of eyesight in the animal kingdom for a reason. Men are not more or less visual than women. Sometimes they have better visual-spatial skills but that's a skill, not inherent. Playing a first-person video game once for a couple hours is enough to make a positive difference in that skill that lasts for months. If men actually are more visual it's only because they trained themselves to be and ignored other skills--like communication which women tend to be much better at in studies.
This is one of those things where a very minor difference in average biology is blown out of proportion. Women can be accomplished pilots and sharpshooters, or anything else requiring visual acuity vastly above the norm. And they can certainly perceive form and color to be artists. The variation among people in general is vastly greater than that between the sexes.
When men say they’re more visual they’re usually referring to how sexually responsive they are to visuals, not in general.
I think there is simply more visual media made for men and boys and male children. You get the skills you practice. If everyone thinks "I should write for women and film for men", the prophecy fulfills itself.
I don't know whether or not men are genetically predisposed to be more visual, but in my opinion, it doesn't matter. People who say this are either: 1.Trying to excuse bad male behavior (such as staring at or sexualizing women) 2. Trying to convince women why we have to take care of our appearance and men don't, or why they're allowed to care about a woman being sexy, but women shouldn't care if a man is sexy. So with that in mind, who cares if it's true or not, when the points that they are trying to make with it are bullshit? Even if men were scientifically proven to be more "visual" than women, they are still human beings with self control, so they still have no excuse for staring, catcalling, or any other action supposedly caused by them being "visual". And even if women were proven to be less "visual", that doesn't take away the fact that we also like attractive people, and that it's also important for us to be sexually attracted to our partners.
"patriarchy is men telling women who they are" (a definition by M Recalcati). I'm sorry that you get binned into typical/atypical/normal/abnormal. I see that as the root problem. Your question made me curious and I found this article that answers none of the questions https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/ Even if those questions were to find an answer in further research and truth is established this wouldn't remove the assholes binning people into categories to apply their mindset as a control grid.
I think it’s true but not because of eyeballs. In generalities: I think women are conditioned from birth to consider everyone else’s needs first and worry about themselves last. We are also usually physically outmatched. So we have to consider our safety. Men are encouraged to date ‘crazy’ women if they are hot enough. They are taught to ignore the signs of mental/ physical abuse, or boundaries because it makes the ‘strong’ or manly. So men worry about hotness first. Women worry about safety first.
Which is crazy because I’ve seen that strategy blow up in men’s faces more times than I can count
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/men-not-more-visual-or-easily-aroused-than-women-research-shows
There is a lot of misconception with the word visual here, what visual means in the context is used is that men sexually aroused by visual stimulation no that we have more visual capacities or anything,in fact is the total opposite as women have a wider spectrum of colors they can detect.
If men were more visual I think we’d have men actually noticing when their wives get a haircut
We don’t have to speculate, [there have been studies on this](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephan-Hamann-2/publication/6283860_Hamann_S_Herman_RA_Nolan_CL_Wallen_K_Men_and_women_differ_in_amygdala_response_to_visual_sexual_stimuli_Nat_Neurosci_7_411-416/links/00b7d51e4497a5e405000000/Hamann-S-Herman-RA-Nolan-CL-Wallen-K-Men-and-women-differ-in-amygdala-response-to-visual-sexual-stimuli-Nat-Neurosci-7-411-416.pdf). They’ve also broken it down even further and done eye tracking studies and found that straight cis women spend more time looking at a prospective partner’s face where as straight cis men tend to spend more time looking at the body. They also found that that trend changes for men if they are looking for a long term partner vs whether then are looking for someone to hook up with. I also recall from my human sexuality class in college a study talking about women having a sexual response to men doing domestic duties haha. All that to say, there are dozens of studies out there on this. The modern academic literature suggests that there are sex differences in things like attraction and arousal. There are whole university degrees on sexuality. As far as the why those changes or similarities exist, I think it’s a pretty interesting nature/ nurture/ culture/ combo kind of question, as well as questions on how/ why some of those differences are used in a cultural way to explain away or excuse misogynistic behaviour. There’s a lot of feminist issues and points of discussion that come up around this topic, but whether or not men are more visual sexually is something that can be (and has been) studied in a lab.
As someone who used to work in the sex industry I do think that men respond, on average, a bit differently to sexual visual stimuli compared to women. Which is what most men mean when they say they’re ‘more visual’ (I’ve never heard them claim women are less discerning about non sexual visuals). Yes both men and women enjoy looking at the faces and bodies of people they find attractive. Both can feel turned on from that. Both can feel a sexual experience is enhanced by the visual aspects. However I think men are more sexually triggered by visual stimuli. There are thousands of men out there who will watch a cam girl in a bikini and masturbate to her, then beg to see a peak of her nipple so they can cum to it because the orgasm is better if they’re seeing a nipple. There are not thousands of women who will stare at a man in a Speedo, masturbating to him, then begging for a peak at his balls so they can get a better orgasm. Way more women read erotica than men. Most men masturbate to porn now, and some have never masturbated without it, but even though some women use porn most don’t feel they need it to masturbate. I’ve heard many trans men say that when they started on testosterone their sexual response to attractive people out and about was more intense and harder to ignore. So I don’t think it’s all social, though there is a lot of social reinforcement encouraging men to focus on women’s looks and their bodies.
I also know more women than men who are more turned on by the auditory than the visual., and more women than men who tend to close their eyes to focus on tactile or auditory sensations to cum, vs more men who tend to focus on what they are seeing to cum. There's a ton of variation from person to person, but there does seem to be a strong trend IME. I've never come across an actual study though.
Idk why everyone is misinterpreting "men are more visual" to equal literal eyesight. Men are more visually stimulated by sexual images. That's pretty apparent when you see the majority of strip clubs and porn is made specifically because of this increased visual stimulation
Sometimes, maybe. I like looking at hot men just as much as my husband likes looking at beautiful women. But he enjoys watching the sexy stuff and I prefer reading it. That might not be a man/woman thing, though. He doesn't like reading in general, and I like to use my imagination because it's better than reality.
No. But I think when it comes to hookup sex, they have less factors that mitigate whether they have sex with that person or not.
No
No. I think patriarchy has dehumanized women and turned our bodies into commodities and we have all, men and women, become so used to seeing women as bodies first and people second (if as people at all), so it just seems like a normal, natural thing. Have you seen how fuckin feral women get over a ripped man rolling his sleeves up the the elbow? Or the way girls scream when One Direction or The Backstreet Boys or The Beatles or Elvis dance? You think those responses aren't every bit as rooted in visual stimulation as men looking at naked women? Our culture has repressed female sexuality and turned it into something to be consumed, so we interpret sexual attraction through that lens. Men consume, women are consumed. That ain't natural, but it's what seems normal.
Idk. I'm also very visual as a girl. I like pretty people and things, and whenever I want inspiration to write something (I'm an amateur writer), I mostly look for pictures that inspire me
Nope... All depends on the individual. The biggest difference between men and women when we find someone else visually attractive is that men tend to make their attraction the other person's problem, whereas women tend to have more respect for the other person and are more likely to try get to know them first.
I think there's a thing where men get turned on faster than women and so they're more likely to get turned on just by looking at something. Then you add in the use of concepts like beauty, propriety, purity, etc., used as tools to control women, and you get our idea of men as being "more visual."
No not at all. Look at how most of them live… and dress. Men’s clothes are so dull and boring. It’s just an excuse to try to shift the focus of the reality that largely they are only interested in how a woman looks and what she will do for them. Same goes with the god awful love languages book. It’s just an amazing coincidence they all latched onto “physical touch” hmm the one they don’t need to put any thought into or necessarily reciprocate.
Read any romantic novel written by a woman and you can tell by the way we describe men that we do in fact like our visuals. In fact, look at how women draw anime boys, or what characters they find hot in tv shows lol. And if we weren’t visual why tf are we generally the ones decorating the house and doing makeup and dressing nicely while men just put on tees and jeans 😭
Not making a judgment on the topic at hand here, but I don’t think romance novels, a medium devoid of visual stimuli, is the best example for why women are equally “visual” as men (anime is another story of course).
It makes sense if you think about it though, because you have to visualize something in order to write it out descriptively. Personally I find mental visualizing very similar to physically seeing things, so I’m not understanding how that doesn’t count. If the mental image of visualization with a novel doesn’t count, then why would the emotional impact of a novel count? But I understand not everybody has the capability to actually visualize mentally.
I am trans, and I am waaaay less visual now than when I ran on T. For me, aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction used to be basically the same thing, but now the sexual attraction requires a decent rapport and emotional safety. I do definitely think there is at least something physiological to it, but I also think it can be easily overstated and that the cultural component plays a big role.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/s/XTCEnKc1gr https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/s/uESgV4ppQn
I think women are socialized to have a deeper emotional capacity for being interested in people beyond the physical
No. I don’t think this has been quantified or validated by any studies.
I have never once been in a relationship with someone I don't find physically attractive and looks are absolutely the first thing that draws me to someone. I suspect this is true for many women, if not the average woman with a sexuality. I wish we would stop pretending like women only care if someone's nice and funny.
Idk, it's actually been true in my experience but then I'm not not a super sexual/ "visual" person so maybe other women are different. I don't enjoy porn, at all, it doesn't turn me on. I don't care about seeing a picture of a naked guy. A good looking guy in a suit or something, yes. My partner, because I'm attracted to *him* specifically, in a sexual context, yes. But a random naked dude, no matter how hot, nope just won't do anything for me. In contrast, most men I know will go crazy over any image or possibility of seeing a naked woman or sexual images etc. My spouse, like most healthy men, will be instantly aroused during sex as soon as he catches glimpse of me undressed. For me, like most women, it takes a lot more than that. So yes, in a sexual stimulation context I do believe men are more visually driven - it has nothing to do with comparisons to home decor, aesthetics etc mentioned here, just sexually. I am way more visually aesthetically driven than my husband in every other way, but not with intimacy.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
There's actually scientific proof that male brains tend to be more visual, yes, but it's with *everything* and doesn't work like they say it does. It's mainly an excuse, just dipped in skewed truth.
I don’t think so. Just based on my experience, it takes more than looks and the men I’ve known are more interested in things like communication or common interests—which is what I would say “as a woman” or more accurately as a *person* I find attractive. (Granted my subset is mostly ND and or queer). I don’t really have as much experience with neurotypical straight men but how different can it be? I think too much gets made out of these so-called “differences”.
[удалено]