It’s not just the guys.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. My evolutionary explanation (and I think that whatever explanation there is is evolutionary, not the media, which is just reflecting viewer and reader preferences) is that women compete more on their physical attractiveness to men (men compete on power and wealth), so both men and women are acutely aware of women’s…interesting…body features (which is also why women have less of a problem being physically attracted to other women than men to men).
After seeing each original full-body image, the participants saw two side-by-side photographs. One was the original image, while the other was the original with a slight alteration to the chest or waist (chosen because these are sexualized body parts). Participants had to pick which image they’d seen before.
While the chest and waist are sexualized body parts on women, is that really the case for those parts on men? When Women ogle men is that really the bits they look at?
I’ve noticed for many years that:
Men’s magazines have pictures of women on the cover, and
Women’s magazines have pictures of women on the cover.
rickl,
it could be that they lied about it after a couple of drinks, or many of the women I’ve worked with over the years really did ‘experiment’ i college or even high school with their female friends. That might explain why they have those mags set up that way.
Can you imagine the drop in circulation if next month, Sports Illustrated kept all the sports stuff, but started showing athletes selling skivvies, t-shirts, socks, clothes in general, scantily clad like the women in women’s magazines?
The guys would definitely be freaked out!
.
.
.
This objectifying women thing is but ONE of my Dual Standard Pet Peeves.
It’s OK for the ladies to look at good looking men, and say the damnedest things about them, or men in general!
I used to run a document research crew and I had 34 women working for me then, much of that time I was the only man in that office. (yes, I did drink heavily then) I heard conversations that would make sailors blush (I was a sailor previously, I blushed!) Those women, and some I’ve worked around or just been around since then, go into long detail of what they like about a particular movie / TV star, or athlete or singer, what they’d do too him or with him given the chance, discussing everything possible, right down to discussing the size of his member based on the outline of his ‘print’.
But God help you if these same women hear you say, “…Sally? Oh yeah, nice legs!” “…there are two Sallys, in the welding office. Which one, brown haired Sally or Sally with the nice behind?”
Well, then it’s time for “biblical” level hate and discontent, Old Testament style, real wrath of God type stuff, fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
…then tomorrow, HALF of them come in wearing the color shoes, dress, slacks blouse…whatever it was that caused us idiot males to look at that slut Sally in the FIRST place!!
What’s wrong with US? What were WE thinking!? I’m blaming Slutty Sallys everywhere!
Yeah, sure, it’s Sally’s fault? I don’t think so. And I don’t
It’s part of that female drive to pick the best looking, strongest mate just like our drive is to find a woman who looks like she can give live birth and feed a child until it can eat some char broiled saber toothed tiger, that imperative hasn’t changed since humans began walking the face of the earth.
What I can’t figure out is WHY it’s wrong to look at, or notice or [wrath of God time again…] openly discuss Sally’s wide hips, strong legs and ample MAMMARY GLANDS!?
Luckily the women who bark most about this are the ones to the Left. And currently those on the Right are out breeding them, and their feminazi lead voting block!