Your “Type” Is More Mind Than Media

I think it is good to discuss this, even in the face of some possible discomfitures. As humans, we are also animals, subject to both sublime and questionable impulses. If we want to be more sublime, we need also to understand the non-sublime, if only to rise above it.

For whatever background motivations, I'm what would be called a "leg man"; this is the womanly feature most attractive to me, and exemplified by my spouse (!). Just why that would be, I don't know. I have read/heard that for guys, this may be shaped maternally. That makes sense; my mom was more leggy than busty. Even so, I don't know if it is a full explanation.

An important reason to understand such matters better is that otherwise healthy attractions can sometimes be diverted. Where I live right now, we have a case of a very well known and loved former city/borough mayor, age almost 80, who had some (alleged) child pornography images on his computer. I doubt that anyone knows whether he has actually harmed someone, but the questions are haunting.

Nothing I say here will resolve all such questions, but nonetheless they should be open for reasoned discussion. This thread could be a step in the right direction.

Hello Tornado, I don't think your tastes have anything to do with your mother's own characteristics, for me (some might agree) thinking of sex in relation to females in the family, makes it disgusting.

It is too bad that the "psycho-father of analysis" (a coke consumer and a train-phobic) stated that man's first sexual contact was nurturing from his mother's breasts (!!!).

All human activity (acording to him) has to do with sex, well I concede this certain validity, since it is very common that men strive and reach success motivated by the ambition to posess a woman in particular (or use that to attract them in general and see how many are catched on his wealth web).

In my case (a breast man), I can't explain why am I soo attracted to that part, which I consider to be the most beatiful femenine feature, with face in second place, I used to have a girlfriend, all tenderness and joy, she was M cups (will remember her to the very last day of my life).

If we were biologically programmed to reproduce through all of our lives, cease of period and andropause wouldn't exist; furthermore, sex drive continues without that porpuse, you don't feel like becoming father again and again (neither conscious or sub-consciously I'd say).

Anyways... who knows?

Regards

".. If we were biologically programmed to reproduce through all of our lives, cease of period and andropause wouldn't exist .."

I'm not sure what you're thinking here. It's a bit like saying sports cars are made to go really fast, so there's no reason they have a top speed.

Evolution works by selecting physical changes that allow more offspring to survive to breed, from the range of existing physical possibilities.

There's a trade-off between breeding age and egg quality in women (that's a physical limitation) so there's an age after which there's no advantage to have more children. However, there's probably an advantage to have past breeding age family members hang around to do child minding etc.

The evolved solution is not designed, but is what works in a given situation, often the "reasons" one solution works best (ie produces more breeders) is not clear to us.

What I mean is that attraction is not 100% motivated by reproductive porpuses, I agree to the rest of your comments, except the racing cars, for me one thing is capacity and another very different is endurance.

Regards

As humans, we are also animals,
Ref. "The Naked Ape". i believe by Desmond Morris.

phoenix911: Yes I think its good to get this out in the open, and discuss this.

Female Interviewer: excuse me, My face is up here!

Men, have you ever wondered why your eyes travel to a particular part of a woman's body?

No......................it's always been based on whether she's walking toward me or away from me.

I've always been more concerned with not getting caught. Sunglasses are essential at the beach.

I've also noticed that marriage leads to enhanced peripheral vision.

Peripheral vision !! too funny, I bet your eyeballs do a 360deg rotation at times (no need to call the exorcist, cold shower required though.)

LOL!!

I am told there are sunglasses with what look like chrome plated lenses.....might be even better....

Too obvious................I don't want to look like some kind of pervert.

I should introduce you to my new line of (very haute couture) 'Google Oogle' shades with discrete, builtin, 360-degree stereo telephoto lenses, dvr, uplink, and Instagram capability - all based on Google's new glasses. Make a complete arse of oneself in the privacy of one's own head. :-))

The little voice in my head is teling me to untether from the digital domain. I'll ignore it for as long as I can..........................at my own peril.

5 OTs are what many give themselves because they did not realise they were replying to an OT comment......I think that is what you may have done.

You have to take off the OT mark if you also don't want to be marked as OT when replying......I am going to do just that in a few seconds so that I don't automatiocally get 5 OTs....Its just below where I am writing now!!!! See here:-

Yes, this comment is very likely to be considered to be 'off-topic'. Note: You are replying to an off-topic comment.

"At different times of history and in different societies there are different traits that are held up as ideal or desireable. Many times it hasn't been the emaciated look of the modern American woman with huge breasts and a skinny waist."

You may not have realized it, but this supports the argument, the style changes but the underlying truth doesn't, they are all sexy looks to someone.

As to your other argument, no matter how much value hidden inside the package, it has to attract you before you'll pick it up and look inside.

"... women are willing to go through extraordinary uncomfortable physical steps and spend much money to try and attract the lustful eyes of men."

There is so much more to it than merely appealing to the prurient interests of lustful men. Women (and to a lesser degree, men) also dress to delineate social status in a competitive sense.

In his landmark piece Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorsten Veblen wrote that unlike Europe, America lacked a hereditary aristocracy of families who were able to live on the interest produced by inherited wealth. In America, he wrote, even the wealthiest men were self-made capitalists who earned their own livings. Since these men were too busy to enjoy leisure and spend money themselves, they delegated these tasks to their wives and daughters. Through his support of a wife and daughters who earned no money but spent lavishly, a man could demonstrate his financial prowess to his neighbours. "Therefore," according to Veblen, "affluent women were forced into the role of consumers thereby establishing the social status of the family by the clothes and other items they bought and the leisure activities in which they engaged."

Fashions of the time, such as long skirts and high heels, immobilized women, making it difficult for them to perform physical labour, whilst ideals of beauty such as soft pale hands and faces precluded manual work or outdoor activities for upper-class women. To confer status, Veblen writes, "... clothing should not only be expensive, but it should also make plain to all observers that the wearer is not engaged in any kind of productive employment." According to Veblen, "... the dress of women goes even farther than that of men in the way of demonstrating the wearer's abstinence from [the need to be engaged in] productive labour. The high heel," he notes, "makes any, even the simplest of and most necessary manual work, extremely difficult," and is thus a manifest reminder that the woman is "...the economic dependant of the man - that, perhaps in a highly idealized sense, she still is the man's chattel."

In order to appear on equal footing, the less-wealthy emulated their wealthier neighbours, they theirs and so on, with it all working its way to the socioeconomic cellar. Today it pervades all of society, with mutations on the basic theme branching here and there in order to establish some sort of 'badge of individuality,' but the message is still there: "We belong to a higher social stratum than thou." To wit:

"It is true of dress in even a higher degree than of most other items of consumption, that people will undergo a very considerable degree of privation in the comforts or the necessaries of life in order to afford what is considered a decent amount of wasteful consumption; so that it is by no means an uncommon occurrence, in an inclement climate, for people to go ill-clad in order to appear well-dressed."

Mind you, Veblen wrote this piece in 1899. Remarkable (yet unsurprising) how much still applies today.

-e

I hope the next blog will include, "On a biological level, some women haven't caught up with the 21^st century and are more attracted to the appearance of a man's body and his ability to reproduce than his intelligence, personality or socioeconomic status". OK, 'reproduce' might be replace by provide/protect'. Now just who was that gal who married the wrinkly billionaire ?

"And you should also remember that we have some primitive traits we look for in a mate as well" - that sounds rather begrudgingly said ?

Just being provocative. It's interesting stuff, but doesn't much of this get negated by 21st Century 'sophistication' ? It's not representative of people as a whole, but read any 'lonely hearts' column.

The topic is borderline science/sociology. I don't object, the two are hard to separate on some issues, but people have been naughty-stepped for less. It's a good argument for some sort of apt new forum.

Whilst I'm on a roll, is it not also a factor that each gender tries to change according to what they think they opposite will find alluring.

Time for me to go moisturize. Joking !