Why are women grossed out by the male body?

Post Reply New Topic

While I may partially agree with you, I've found debating or discussing the issue to be of little help or use to anyone. Saying words such as [expletive], [offensive], and so forth are often viewed as [redacted] and probably violate TOS, especially with regard to [stereotype] and/or [generalization]. I'd rather not see yet another good thread get locked.

the only thing about it that they would be grossed out by are guys with aspergers (i have it myself),based on how severely awkward we appear to them,whether it be in high school or in the neighborhood

No one really wants to see genitals if they're not in the mood to see genitals. It's not complicated.
As for men gawking at breasts, that's a bit different. Breasts aren't genitalia, but they're still extremely sexualized, particularly by men. I would become uncomfortable, simply due to social conditioning inducing a perception of sexual nature, if a woman were to rip her shirt off and expose her chest to me. I really, honestly, think most people would unless the woman was exposing herself to someone already attracted to her.
If a woman were to spread her legs whilst naked in front of a crowd I'm sure everyone would be freaked out.

Suits me. B00bs don't do it for me, anyway. It'll all about feet. If a girl really is that ugly, as in uglier than me, put a paper bag over her head, dress modestly, and as long as she has pretty feet we're good.

WHAT!??!?!?!?

I loooooove the male body. I used to collect pictures of hotties, topless or less, not long after I hit adolescence. I found a way around some of the age filters to find pics of the nudes. I put pics of favorites in a secret diary.

I'm now married, so it would be wrong to do that now. Thankfully, my husband is very fit and attractive! I never tire of observing and touching him.

I have gathered, nonetheless, that an apparently significant number of supposedly "heterosexual" women, for some reason, do not find the male body as appealing as I do. I seem to look at men the way men look at women. I think the only measurable difference between me and the way heterosexual men view women, is that I prefer to see the entire man at once. Just seeing his package alone, or a body part alone, is a bit too impersonal -- but seeing a face to go along with the hot body parts (that is, everything at once), that's always super exciting.

You're definitely my kind of woman! LOL

Yeah, she is pretty awesome, that's one lucky dude.

Thanks, but I consider myself the more blessed of the two. I landed quite the stud.

That's kind of what I concluded too. It's only a few percent of women that are like that, but they certainly do exist, despite some claims that they don't.

I don't know what the estimated percentage is, but the claims that we don't have actually caused me some significant religious, moral, obsessive, and social issues. This topic is one of my special interests, and is of great importance to my faith, so here comes an Aspie treatise:

I'm of the Christian faith. Much has been analyzed of Jesus' statement to not look upon a woman with lust. As a teenager, I took this literally, and that was my logical rationalization of collecting pictures of men, including nude photos -- I mean, He just addressed the men, so it must not be the same thing for women, then, right? Or He would have made a broader statement, like "whoever looks upon another with lust." The problem was, I clearly got aroused by these photos, and it got to the point where I was spending hours of my free time surfing for them. How is that any different from what a guy goes through when he sees a scantily clad woman, and gets addicted to porn? When my addiction was getting quite strong, I decided it was likely the same sin after all, and that I needed to look at that Bible passage more spiritually. I stopped after awhile. This was in the early 2000s.

When I rejoined Christian social groups later, I noticed the topic of "modesty" came up a lot. It was always about women who lead on men sexually. When younger, I took a common-sense approach to this topic: yes, don't dress like a hooker, well duh! But now Christian communities seem absolutely obsessed with this, and it's always a one-way -- the women dressing too provocatively for the men, never the other way around. Some of my pastors, the only time they seem to address women, is when this topic comes up. This is awkward for me because I've never had a guy leer at me, criticize me directly for my dress, or what-have-you. Actually, other than my husband, most guys have been blunt in that they don't find me attractive. So honestly, the constant lecturing on this topic gets irritating to people like me. Not only do I not appeal to men in this way, they appeal to me, so everything in the entire system is reversed. This constantly makes me stumble, makes me frustrated. If this allegedly is a "difference" between men and women, then can I not go back to my porn addiction, and it's logically justified? Guys say they "can't help it," and one church leader once insisted, "Yes it's a sin, but it's temporary, we're not robots, women need to accept our sin and then we'll accept their gossip." Well, I couldn't "help it" as a teenager, either, and I also tried to justify it by qualifying how I'm not actually having sex with the guys I was staring at. But if we're not supposed to even look and have arousal or sexual thoughts, and yet we "can't help it," do we just throw the Bible out and sin in this mental way anyway? Do we lock ourselves up in the house so that we don't have to go out, especially in summers, and see men and women who might be walking around either topless or in otherwise revealing clothing (I had to look away from one nicely developed fellow at a park who was parading around shirtless!)?

I especially hate how there aren't always black-and-white answers to this. What's titillating to one person, is not always titillating to another.

Anyway, that's my treatise for now.

It's cool to have treatises....much better than disorganized rants, I always say!

KDM, you've nailed it pretty well. Fortunately, everyone is different and finds different things attractive, both physical and non-physical traits can be a turn on.

That means a lot of guys or girls who consider themselves unattractive will be surprised to find one day that there is indeed someone who reckons they're hot and special. No one should ever give up on finding a partner / soulmate who has eyes only for them.

KDM, simply put, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. A supermodel can be just as undesirable as the girl next door is desirable. It is only when you take the time to know someone when you know just how desirable that person is. That goes for both physical and nonphysical traits. As far as exterior beauty goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I think that is an important point (and difference). Most sexual guys (NTs), actually dream of having sex with the girls they stare at, but that is less common for ND guys (especially if they identify as asexual too), and I think this is also a feature of girls that are not grossed out by the male body.

Theologically speaking, I think there is a fine line between temptation and intention. I think maybe it's that lusting after someone in your heart Biblically implies an intention to do something about it. It influences your action. Even if you do nothing more than indulge in looking at porn, which is basically participating in prostitution on some level, and taking pleasure in that it is sinful. Admiring the beauty of someone and feeling an attraction to someone, otoh, is NOT sin. We were made to be attracted to each other. Being married doesn't change who or what we are. But that isn't sin. That is simply temptation. Eve didn't sin by looking at forbidden fruit. She sinned the instant she conceived the idea that she could improve on God's perfection. God never said her thoughts or ideas would kill her, only her actions. The arrogance of actually BELIEVING one can exist equal to or above God was the first slip in a cascade of sin that corrupted human nature.

Oh, and don't take that to imply Adam was faultless, btw. His sin was compounded by throwing Eve under the primordial bus when he blamed God's creation (woman) for his failure--in essence placing the fault with God. Eve followed suit by blaming the serpent (who made the serpent?).

The point here being that men and women are equally corrupt and corruptible, co-owners of a fallen creation of OUR design rather than God's own.

The modesty thing--same concept applies to both sexes. The feminist rhetoric I always hear relates back to "victim blaming," i.e. a woman should feel free to wear what she wants or nothing at all without fear of harrassment or worse from men. I agree with the feminists on this point: clothes or lack thereof is not an invitation for sexual assault, and women cannot be blamed for the poor decisions of men. No argument from me on that.

From a Christian perspective, God does not place temptation in our way that's irresistible to us. An alcoholic may have to pass by a liquor store twice a day, but he's not forced to stop and go inside. He may empty his entire liquor cabinet at home, but God doesn't miraculously restock it. So just like God wouldn't do something like that to us, we shouldn't do it to each other. If Christian men, as an example, are weak in resisting the temptation of lust, it's best that women dress in such a way or behave in such a way that doesn't encourage men to fall. This has nothing to do with blaming a victim for teasing men and getting "what she had coming." It's about acting out of a concern for the spiritual well-being of others.

Oh, and btw...most often when sexual assault DOES happen, it has nothing to do with what the woman wore, how she was acting, how drunk she was, or whatever. For whatever reason, a guy just wants to have sex with her and doesn't care if she reciprocates or not. Simply as that.

And don't know the deal with preachers disproportionately dissing women. Depends on the church. At my church, you'd swear all women are perfect angels and the very image of the virgin Mary.

But what I believe is all men and women should be chastised equally if you must chastise anyone at all specific to sex. I've noticed certain men like to target women, married or IAR. And they'll pull out the old "So why isn't your bf/husband with you right now?" I mean, yeah, you can blame women for falling for that and other psychological manipulation. But if your actions risk causing someone to fall, or even deliberately putting someone in the way of a temptation, exactly how is that any better?

And men do this ALL THE TIME.

In a Christian context, we're expected to take care of each other. What is wrong with dressing modestly if it helps keep men succumbing to weakness? What is wrong with men limiting contact with women if one/both of you are already IAR and frequent contact would spark an unwanted attraction?

rdos, I think there may have been a misunderstanding there -- just to be clear, I meant having sex in the literal sense. I definitely still daydreamed about it, though.

AngelRho, I have never seen beauty/lust explained that way before, but that honestly makes sense. Very well-written and thoughtful post.

Regarding the beauty thing, though, I wonder -- how far can we take that? When does it become sin?

A big stumbling block for me a couple of years ago was a pro basketball player. I like the guy as a player, but he's also notably good-looking, to the point where he has a side modeling career, and has posed naked for ESPN. On his Facebook fan page, I wasn't the only female drooling over his...hmm, what would one call it, virile beauty maybe? Even the word "handsome" seems a little too plain for this fellow. Wow. Anyway, I got the sense that I shouldn't be looking at him as often as I was, and the more I looked, the harder I found it to resist impure thoughts -- and it was starting to understandably irritate my husband, so I stopped looking at this guy other than in the strict context of his sport. I even stopped watching post-game interviews -- it was THAT much of an issue.

What frustrated me was I had a Calvinist Facebook friend who was big on preaching about sexual purity and such, but one day he wrote a treatise that women need to accept that men look at other women, and they need to not be so devastated about it because it's a temporary sin, not real actual adultery. Given what I had been dealing with concerning this basketball player, it became so tempting to use that Calvinist's logic, and go back to staring at the player under the justification that, hey, it's just temporary. But I also want to respect my husband, and he doesn't like me staring at the guy. Is there a double standard, where one gender can get away with looking at the other? But does that not violate the idea that God doesn't show favoritism? It would seem both men and women can sin in this way, and they should guard against it and not try to rationalize it. Respect your husband's or wife's wishes, and guard your eyes (I believe it was Job who said, make a covenant with them). (By the way, it did NOT help that the Calvinist had a close friend who wrote in response that "women are not tempted in that way like men are" -- talk about giving me even more potential "logic" to use to justify what I'm pretty sure was a sin, in staring at the athlete.)

This argument has been going back and forth in my head for a couple of years. As much as I'd like to indulge in viewing, and find myself wanting to defend it at times, I've been telling my eyes "no" when I find myself wanting to give in to the temptation. I would think respecting the husband would take greater precedence in the hierarchy of Biblical morality, especially.