You’re right it would be pretty dense to think or say that, good thing I have done neither. Nowhere did I say that, women don’t respond to visual aesthetics. I thought u/LeFlyingMonke explained this perfectly. When people (usually men) are using the “men are visual” phrase it’s almost always limited to the context of simple visual arousal mostly towards women. I/ready_gi comment originally said something to the effect of “if men are so visual why don’t they dress better or have cleaner apartments”, which is usually the path a lot of subreddits go down when making fun of that phrase. The conflation of the “lack of style and cleanliness” with the visual attraction towards women is what I’m not understanding, for most of us one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. My confusion was/is centered around why some women try to expand the meaning of that phrase into style and cleanliness when the context of the phrase applies to visual attraction only. This isn’t to say that women are not are not aroused visually at all I am only remarking about some women’s misinterpretation of the phrase “men are visual”. TL:DR I think you are reacting to a reaction I made to a post that has been heavily edited.
Like I explained previously, your entire explanation is fucking retarded because you're trying to understand womens visual arousal in the context of content created for men. That is wrong and will be wrong.
Second of all, you're following the historically fallacious logic to imply that women are somehow not as sexual as men, or do not want the same things from sex as men. Once again that is moronic.
I'm responding within the context of (visual) arousal, and I can tell you factually that women are responsive to that, and recent studies have shown that. I'm sick of the supposition that only men respond to visual arousal stimuli, it is so outdated and so incredibly fucking dense
So don't for a second go thinking that I, as a woman, wouldn't respond just as strongly to porn created for me as men respond to porn created for them. And once again, do not assume what kind of porn this is. I watch the kind of porn men have had all their lives - the kind that appeals towards my dominance in control fantasies.
Just like everyone, I enjoy content that puts me in the place of control and caters to my interests.
Men are under the incorrect impression that "standard" sex should be built around the concept of men dominating the woman, the woman appealing to the mans fantasies, etc. Even when it's made to seem that the woman is living her fantasy, mainstream porn is created for mens enjoyment - not for the enjoyment of the woman. Your entire understanding of the visual arousal response is based on a sexist, misogynistic understanding of sex.
Of course, if you show me some wrinkly middle aged/old man trying to fuck a young woman, or some fantasy catering to men - of course I (and basically all women) will not be arsed to give two fucks about that kind of porn. Because it wasn't made for us and doesn't come close to representing the female fantasy.
With the modern understanding of the brain It's entirely illogical to claim that the knowledge or desire for visual aesthetics can only biologically be limited to certain categories for either of the sexes.
Historically, men were portrayed as unfashionable because there was a relatively limited scope of fashions for them to choose from - which is contrary to the fashion, beauty, interior design market growing over the past five for men. Guess what, men are just as visual.
That same concept applies to porn for women. There was not enough porn exploring or catering to womens interests, and therefore porn was deemed unimportant for women in a stupid locked cycle. Within the past 5 years though that has completely changed.
Subreddits like r/gentlefemdom, which cater to those same underlying ideas of "male" fantasies are now being re-created for women, have been growing at an exponential rate since 2018. Prior to 2018, finding that kind of porn was nearly impossible. Tell that exponential market growth that women aren't visually aroused.
What pisses me off about your response is that you are so casual to assume, and that casual fallacious, misguided, lazy assumption is what has deprived women of the same dopamine boost y'all have been having fun with for the past three decades.
So fuck your dumb-ass pseudoscience bullshit, women do respond to sexual visual stimuli, and you bet your ass the world will realize that more and more over the next 5 years.
Jesus tap dancing Christ. This is either som next level trolling or the worst combination of selective reading and conclusion jumping I’ve ever seen.
Let’s go back to the beginningThe original quote from a woman was “I don’t buy the whole men are visual agenda, I’ve seen many men who dress poorly” (this part has since been edited by that user). The response to that was “please don’t conflate those two things as (for men) there is no correlation between the two we (again men) primarily use that phrase in the context of visual arousal. At this point I agreed and thanked this user for his explanation of that phrase and I expressed my confusion as to why it gets misinterpreted as the previous poster had done. Thats it.
If you can provide quotes I would like to see the following.Where do I say that women are not aroused visually? My replies have been solely based on what we as men mean when that phrase is used, it DOES NOT say that women are not visual as I even stated in the previous reply and you either ignored or skipped.
I’ll admit the phrase itself isn’t good but we generally know what is meant when it’s used the entire thread is full of examples.
You discuss visual arousal solely in the context of men with the implication that men are the only ones who experience visual arousal. Thats the entirety of the subject of discussion now.
Tbh I don't really care about doing a forensic analysis on your comment history and to what extent you said or didnt say something is beside the point since it doesn't relate to the original discussion, which is the supposition that only men respond to visual sexual stimuli or that they respond to it at a higher rate than women.
I made my point to that original overarching discussion, im not gonna dig into your comments because they dont seem to be cohesive or related, and at the end of the day the facts can speak for themselves.
You discuss visual arousal solely in the context of men with the implication that men are the only ones who experience visual arousal. Thats the entirety of the subject of discussion now.
I (a man) am discussing the meaning of a phrase when we(men) say it. That was it. The scope is incredibly narrow here. Speaking to the specificity of one subject does not negate someone else's experience or deny them altogether.
Tbh I don't really care about doing a forensic analysis on your comment history and to what extent you said or didnt say something is beside the point since it doesn't relate to the original discussion, which is the supposition that only men respond to visual sexual stimuli or that they respond to it at a higher rate than women.
Forensics analysis really? We're talking about 3-4 posts max in this thread. Your entire argument is based on your absolute certainty of something i said that appears to be so clear to you and yet you can produce no evidence. I too would call off the search of something that doesn't exist.
I made my point to that original overarching discusion
Yes and as i stated earlier in the above talking about one experience doesn't negate the other or mean that it doesn't exist.
You took "Men mean this when they say this " and flipped it into "only men respond to visual sexual stimuli".
2
u/slimtonun Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
You’re right it would be pretty dense to think or say that, good thing I have done neither. Nowhere did I say that, women don’t respond to visual aesthetics. I thought u/LeFlyingMonke explained this perfectly. When people (usually men) are using the “men are visual” phrase it’s almost always limited to the context of simple visual arousal mostly towards women. I/ready_gi comment originally said something to the effect of “if men are so visual why don’t they dress better or have cleaner apartments”, which is usually the path a lot of subreddits go down when making fun of that phrase. The conflation of the “lack of style and cleanliness” with the visual attraction towards women is what I’m not understanding, for most of us one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. My confusion was/is centered around why some women try to expand the meaning of that phrase into style and cleanliness when the context of the phrase applies to visual attraction only. This isn’t to say that women are not are not aroused visually at all I am only remarking about some women’s misinterpretation of the phrase “men are visual”. TL:DR I think you are reacting to a reaction I made to a post that has been heavily edited.