Okay, not strictly poser related, but I'm curious to see what kinds of replies I'll get... Men like looking at women (with an exception rate of about 5% I believe). It's hardcoded into their brains. Survival of the horniest and all that. He who procreates most wins. Ten women a day keeps gene obsolescence away. Okay. Now I've known a number of women, strongly biased toward heterosexuality (some from personal experience), who have indicated that they would rather look at women than men as well. I can't fault this; in my opinion, men are kinda ugly in general. Too many points and corners. But I'm hardcoded (see above) so I'm not surprised. So what's the evolutionary driver behind women enjoying looking at women? Completely escapes me... Perhaps it's just an echo of the male hardcoding? (ew, I'm probably going to burn for that one...) Comments?

Oh, and anyone looking at the Gallery can understand why it's poser related....

in my opinion, men are kinda ugly in general Speak for yourself, bud. :-)

We just had something like this in our football site. The guys start who are your Top 10 choices for beautiful women, and they were kind of shocked I replied. Although I pretty much likee men, I think women are beautiful and I have my list of who I think are stunners... Faith Hill, Shania Twain, Charlize Theron for examples. But my all time faves are Sophia Loren, Rachel Welch, and Marilyn Monroe. I just think women are beautiful period. One reason I guess for this reason is because, well this may sound idiotic, they let their souls shine through in their eyes and actions. Well that's my onion. So Be It.

women in general have a real beauty to them, the way their anatomy is. I studied anatomy years ago and it really was interesting to see the huge difference in structure, the way light and shadow falls on a female is different than a male and I think (just my opinion) much more attractive to the eye. Sharen PS: not that males are unattractive, it is just different.

The reasoning for this could be also found in the primal motivations. The male motivation, as you indicated, involved the spreading of his seed widely. While the woman was more involved in nurturing and developmental side of species prolongation. As such they were more social creatures and developed a community sense from which they learned things from each other as to how to better care for their children (and themselves). So they look on each other for ways of improving themselves and their lives. This is also why female relationships are more about emotion and support than male ones. (this is also why women tend to learn things easier than men...but this is a broad generalization (no real pun intended)) Rawnrr

I think youmight like to use a term other than 'hardcoding'. (But then I always chuckle when an advertisement for 'Everwood, tonight on the WB' comes on telly, too. Sounds like a veiled reference to priapsy to me.) I think women are usually prettier because men don't usually care of they're pretty or not. But, as for the hardcoding cough: I like looking at pictures of nekkid women as much as the next buy, but pictures of nekkid poser women -- I just don't see the huge appeal there.

'But my all time faves are Sophia Loren, Rachel Welch, and Marilyn Monroe.' I have to cast my votes for Audrey Hepburn and Tori Amos.

Now, Sharen, that's an interesting thought. Assume evolutionary theory is accurate (some don't). If you (as "Nature" or "natural selection") wanted males to be attracted to females, you would design females to have characteristics similar to other objects in nature that the brain is already hardcoded to find attractive. Assuming that human brains already found curves, smooth surfaces, sparkling reflections, lucious lips,...ahem...and such things, beautiful, you'd stick them on women to attract men. In this scenario, there is an assumption that men being attractive to women is more important than women being attracted to men otherwise men would have those same features. Since human brains already find those natural characteristics attractive, females would find them attractive on other females. I like it! :-)

um, that should be "an assumption that men being attracted to women is..." (darn the lack of editing!)

I do understand the theory that women are strongly social due to the evolutionary need to form social groups for support and safety. It certainly must contribute to women finding other woman emotionally attractive as well.

"The reasoning for this could be also found in the primal motivations. The male motivation, as you indicated, involved the spreading of his seed widely. While the woman was more involved in nurturing and developmental side of species prolongation. As such they were more social creatures and developed a community sense from which they learned things from each other as to how to better care for their children (and themselves). So they look on each other for ways of improving themselves and their lives. This is also why female relationships are more about emotion and support than male ones. (this is also why women tend to learn things easier than men...but this is a broad generalization (no real pun intended))" Took the words right out of my mouth.

I think part of it here is that they're all static pictures. Someone once said that men are beautiful in motion, while women are beautiful at rest. I've usually found this to be true (with exceptions). Men tend to view other men as potential competition, women view other women as potential allies. Men go to the restroom alone, women in pairs. Men invest a few minutes of pleasure in primary procreation. Women invest a few minutes of pleasure, 9 months of ever increasing physical investment, and a number of hours of extreme pain. Men don't need help for their part (other than their partner), women need help all along the way. Women get the short end of the stick (pun intended). I'm surprised straight men don't feel guilty. Ah, to be gay and have no guilt (grin).

Sorry for not being guilty... I did not choose to be a man. I'd feel guilty if I'd abuse the fact of being a man as an excuse for being bad to women, which I do not. As for the primary topic, I don't think that the problem comes from women seing other women as attractive. I think that men could find one another attractive, but whenever they look at another male, they find him offensive, despisable and are ready to attack him outright. It is not women who like each other, it is men that hate each other. Compiler

I feel much the same as ladydawg and others. The female "energy," which is not limited to women who happen to be in the female form, shines through. We all contain both male and female energies no matter what bodily form we exist in. Female energy and maternal/nurturing instincts normally draw us in, it's a receptive energy, emotional, soft, and really shows through the female form, but I have seen images of men that I find just as attractive and draw me in, not "always" in a sexual or erotic way but on other levels too. I recently posted a "pinup" image, I don't do them very often at all, and was amazed at the viewings as opposed to some of my other things ... nearly as many in two-three days as those things that happened to have sat in the Hot 20 for several weeks. The evidence is definitely there and everywhere that "sex sells", but it would be interesting to know the ratio of male vs. female viewers and get a deeper glimpse into the psychology behind it. :-)

The shape is more fluid than males and a female body can look beautiful just by standing in a pose. (Usually) Stand a male form is a similar pose and it's just not as beautiful.

Now a hard muscled man in a tight shirt with the sleeves rolled up, tanned and with tight jeans and maybe even a cowboy hat doing something physical, muscles bulging.... Now that's beautiful. :)

Complier - I believe you are on the right lines, in the same way that I believe Rawnrr's ideas to hold a good deal of truth.

It's simple. Women have cooler clothes, even if they're just partially clothed.

The shape of a female face that people find beautiful is similar in proportions to children and infants, which ALL of us are hard-wired to respond to in a positive way. In men's brain's, especially if there is a sexually provacative context, a chemical response is triggered that rewards the male just for looking. Het men also respond to "attractive" men's faces (just like everyone else), but it is more in terms of a dominance/submission response and does not tend to trigger the same kind of chemical response in the brain. Women get similar chemical responses and arousal triggers, but much less from visual stimulus than men. In general they seem to get the triggers from emotional context instead.

I think the lack of threat has something to do with it. If you just look at nude bodies, the curve, the primal basic elegance of structure, the organic lushness is there no matter what the gender or condition of the body. I've worked in better abled days at dance-movement therapy where a large group of people will just move dance or other wise wiggle for hours at a time. After your preferences are met, the essential beauty of the body in motion, in flow, is so darn obvious, and the same thing applies to the body at rest. Bodies are gorgeous and women have the freedom to look without being slapped in a box for looking. I happen to particularly love pinups-- not because I'm turned on by women unfortunately I am not, but because I am turned on by the playfulness of pinups, of being comfortable with one's body enough to entice company, danger even the unknown. Is it all Freudian and men separate from the image and women unite?? Hope not, but some of that is probably true. Emily

pdxjims, you analogy is very interesting, regarding woman that are static and men who are in motion....I never thought of it that way....good one...Sharen

I like that analogy also... I spend two weeks out of the year at Browns Training camp... And to watch those men in action using their muscle, running for the fastest speed, it's just amazing to watch what they can do with their bodies and the power that they yield....And the clumsiness of it all does become graceful in it's own way... Where as it were in a woman, she can just stand there, and we can see the grace in the way she holds her hands, her head, her shoulders. Just one single pose says it all. Now if I can just get past the "damn that boy has a body stage" I'm sure I can see some grace in the men in a single pose... I need to grow-up... ;0)

I think, the female form is just superb, but that may be a sexually tainted POV. I can enjoy the sight of beautiful man, but more like I enjoy a work of art, a beautiful animal, a big sky, the stars and an impressive landscape. It's just a different emotion. Willy

I want to thank you for your replies; there are at least two views here that had not occurred to me (and me at my age!). It is these types of thoughtful answers that give me the illusion that mankind isn't a complete waste after all...:-) pdxjims, although I am quite aware of what my wife went through to have our children, she would have wanted to have children (and go through the effort to have them) even if there wasn't a man on earth to help. Considering how much joy I get from my kids, I am very grateful for her sacrifice without feeling a great need to have gone through that sacrifice myself...:-) Given the drawbacks of having males around (wars, pestilance, disease, really bad manners, etc.), I can't help wonder if we may just become obsolete if someone comes up with an effective artificial insemination technique...:-/ :-) To keep this Poser related, one aspect of Poser that I've found interesting is that over the years I've used it, I've discovered those combinations of feminine characteristics that I find most attractive, and it wasn't was I expected at all. Actually what those combinations are is left as an exercise for the student...

I have found that no matter how I pose my hunky guy models they often look kinda gay. Yet you can pose a woman sexy and she looks, well sexy! Is this connected? I am a happily married woman but I can appreciate the beauty of another woman - as long as she isn't chatting up my husband!!!

I have found that no matter how I pose my hunky guy models they often look kinda gay You say this like it's a problem. :)

After being assigned "Moderator of the Poser Gallery",
Which means looking through Every Poser Gallery Post Each Day
{{Which means viewing hundreds, perhaps thousands of neekid Vickies per week}}
I am very ready to have anyone volunteer to post more male nudes :)

Really, it's A-OK! ;]

Just for a little (no pun intended) change of pace :)

Ok, I am back to work, No rest for the Wicked ;]

ladynimue

"Given the drawbacks of having males around (wars, pestilance, disease, really bad manners, etc.), I can't help wonder if we may just become obsolete if someone comes up with an effective artificial insemination technique...:-/" WHAT! Who the hell are you calling me a drawback! Maybe the real drawback is men like you selling the rest of us guys out for a bit of bullshit chivalry. And who do you think you are blaming men for war, disease and pestilance?! Blame yourself not me and don't write checks out my check book.

Zenman's being just a bit sexist there... :-P

i would love to see more males and more couples in the gallery. but, why do women look at women? easy. i look at men, quickly. either he's hot or he's not. most are average. very few get the "eyes" from me. and, those few, i talk about later...hell, i even hope they strike up a conversation. in the gallery, i wouldn't spend a whole bunch of time looking at pics of the "dork". now, women...that's another story. you can look like a mud fence...but...hey....that might be a way cool haircut you're sporting...or, dress, shoes, purse, makeup technique, nail job..get the picture? i think women look at one another to scope out what the other has....not much different than the gallery, actually.

I think part of it is cultural. With so much emphasis on a woman's appearance in today's society, how can women help but evaluate other women's looks? It's considered normal to appreciate the female form, while men looking at other men is unmasculine, thus bad. Guys are conditioned nowadays to think that manhood revolves around how many times they have sex with a women. To admit to finding a male attractive, even in a platonic way, hints at an interest outside of having sex and therefore is less masculine. (Yes, the sexual need is biological, but so is eating and we don't strongly define ourselves by by our eating patterns.) As well, women are expected to find men attractive. Any man who finds men attractive is somehow womanly and that is still considered a bad thing in this culture. (Before I get arguments on this, how many women have a problem wearing blue - a boy color, and how many men wear pink - a girl color? Women wearing pants are okay, but not men wearing dresses. Being a mama's boy is bad, being daddy's little girl is good, etc.) I'm a raging feminist but I don't blame men for war, disease and pestilance; I do blame them for toilet seats left up, though. ;-) Cheers!

There is an entire science of sex available- things like allmost all mammals young have large eyes- it's part of the hard wireing for us to protect and care for yungins :) that and smaller body frame- body fat distributation, proporation ect ect.... all add up to gaining protection- either of offspring or from the mate. these things are fairly universal in mammals. Woman have the same preceptions as mem- we want beautiful woman- who in turn want beautiful children. I'm really tired and may not be explaining myself clearly. but beauty is totally biological.

Hmmm, toilet seats, the scourge of many a male-female relationship. There are actually devices on the market that will automatically lower the seat after five minutes; probably have saved a number of marriages...:-) Some of these replies remind me of a comment a coworker once made about Poser: "Men create renders of what they find attractive; women create renders of what they would like to be." I think I heard a little of this in the comments above.

Crescent: Believe it or not, I actually never leave the seat up. The frustration my wife encounters is that I always close the whole thing, seat and lid both. But me, I think the inside of a toilet is one of the least inviting sights in the world, so I like it to remain hidden when not in use. I also put the toilet paper on the roller. I do that at other people's flats, too. Drives me crazy for the toilet paper to be sitting on the back of the commode. As for war, disease, and pestilence, those aren't guys' faults either. Pestilence is caused by bugs, as everyone knows, and disease is caused by germs. War is caused, directly or indirectly, by men trying to impress women. Remember Helen of Troy? Modern wars are over oil... oil that is distilled into petroleum... petroleum that runs big fancy sports cars... that guys buy... to get chicks to notice them.

Hey, don't forget that some of that oil gets tuned into polymers, some of which get turned into CDs, some of which are burned with Poser stuff - so war is OUR fault.