HAHAHAHAHA

They needed to spend research money to figure this out?

Did they use Rick Santorum for the AKC test?

I need some clarification.

Since the study suggests that I will, regardless of my position on the Kinsey Scale, involuntarily check out a male baseball player's face and "package", especially when he's waving a large stick around his head, does it also mean that it's OK for me to momentarily linger on a woman's face and nether regions (i.e., waist, ankles, hair, neck, shoulders, hands) as long as I'm not a perv about it?

Despite my best efforts to be progressive, enlightened and socially democratic, I have struggled with this particular issue all my life.

Shoulders and neck are nether regions?

For a minute I thought that was some Predator-like infrared vision and that the guy on the left was in the middle of something other than batting.

Just like men supposedly think about sex "blah blah" times a day, this is something I simply dont do. I Barely even look at a persons faces unless I really need to. I mean, I dont even "check out" women for fecks sake.

lol. well baseball is a poor example because you have to look at the guys stance to really size up his swing and whatnot. I'd rather see a picture of what men look at when they see just like a regular dude standing.

See I think any baseball buff - guy or girl, is going to look at the guys stance to judge his batting ability, but that's just my opinion.

I read this on SA a few days ago and a lot of people said basicly what Steven Guess said.
There may be some truth to it.

usually, I just don't even look at the screen because I find baseball boring.

They should try the study again but with a picture of a man walking.

Well, it's not just baseball players. The quote in the post indicated it went for the pictures on the American Kennel Club site. So...don't think you can blame it on a batting stance issue. Unless the dogs were batting, then disregard. *heh*

Posted by: Bearcat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 15, 2007 05:10 PM

In combination, yeah. Major nether.

"Despite my best efforts to be progressive, enlightened and socially democratic, I have struggled with this particular issue all my life."-MichaelHarold

There is nothing "enlightened" about denying your basic instincts, Michael. Why would you have to struggle with your sexual interests? Be proud of who you are and don't be ashamed if you go looking at the nether regions of others. It doesn't make you inferior to anyone else, and there's nothing perverted about checking out a woman.

As for the original post, I have definitely noticed this about myself. It's always made me wonder if I'm gay or not. Now I have scientific data to back up my behaviors.

I have an issue with this quote from Nerve:

It’s not just you, gentlemen. ALL men are obsessed with genitalia, at least according to a new report in the Online Journalism Review.

That's like saying all women are bad at math. The original report said that men "tend" to glance at genitals more than women. That probably means something like 40% of men glanced at the baseball player's genitals compared to 30% of women. People are people, and groups of people's personality traits mostly overlap unless you're talking about cultural rules or traits related to structural differences (eg, the difference between how women and men pee).

That is a hilarious picture, though.

So, this tells me that men are competitive, even with animals. I wonder what the results would be if it was a picture of a female human. I'll admit, I've caught myself looking at other women and thinking about how my respective parts compare.

Michael, "nether" means lower. Not sexual.

Does this prove that when men ogle women's bodies, they're not being sexist? As in, "he may be objectifying women, but he does it to men, too!"

not to be a jerk, but there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here.
you (and i agree with you) often warn against studies that seek to essentialize certain traits and associate them with a gender. but here, you are endorsing a study that does just that, except for males.

"Michael, 'nether' means lower. Not sexual." - Bearcat

Thanks. I stand corrected.

I think Jamier and Invisible_Hand raise some good points. We don't know the true extent of gender differences in this study; and it does seem rather hypocritical to draw generalizations about the genders based on this study, especially on a feminist blog.

On a separate note, I find it rather interesting that the infrared blobs are more horizontal for men compared to women. I wonder if this could point to organizational differences between the sexes of this sample.

"Does this prove that when men ogle women's bodies, they're not being sexist?"-AmitJoshi

What constitutes an "ogle"? That has always been a confusing contention made by feminists. It seems too subjective to be reliable. The only consistent variable is time spent paying selective attention. How much time is too long? What one woman might consider too long another might find just right, or not enough. Ultimately, it's up to the person being ogled to decide, and that's dependent upon too many intermediate variables.

Well, in fairness, this post doesn't draw any conclusions from the study. It just posts a picture, cites the study, quotes it, laughs, and HTs appropriately.

It IS kind of a funny image. But, ultimately, I think, not super helpful in any direction. Just humorous. Who says feminists don't have a sense of humor? ;)

Oh, Ivy, I disagree with this:

There is nothing "enlightened" about denying your basic instincts

Sure there is. Our basic instincts are selfish and violent. Our basic instincts don't build a very good society. That's why we have laws.

I do agree, though, it is interesting that the shape of the regions of concentration is different for the two sexes. I'd be interested why that is.

Women are apparently more interested in the guy's shoulder than men, as well. What could that mean?

"Our basic instincts are selfish and violent."

I have to disagree there. Some are, but many aren't. We have basic instincts to love, to share, to give, to create, to solve problems nonviolently, and to protect others, as well as to kill, rape, steal, and be selfish. It all depends on which instincts we use and convince others to use.

What constitutes an "ogle"? That has always been a confusing contention made by feminists. It seems too subjective to be reliable. The only consistent variable is time spent paying selective attention.

If you think that's the contention, then we need to seek some clarification, because I don't think that it's a matter of time so much as attitude.

Seeing someone you find attractive and taking a moment to look, perhaps in the hope of making eye-contact = looking.

Staring at a woman, undressing her with your eyes like she's a piece of meat = ogling/leering

People check each other out- that's normal and healthy and fine. If you want to really see the difference, go to the mall and people watch for a little while. Bring a woman with you, and have her point out men that are ogling. The difference is startlingly clear once you're watching for it. I'm sure that there are some grey-cases, but I think that they're very much the minority. I think that most men are well aware of when they're ogling.

Ultimately, it's up to the person being ogled to decide, and that's dependent upon too many intermediate variables.

Only if you're not interested in what her opinion, as the object of your gaze, is. You shouldn't have to be told explicitly that you're making a woman uncomfortable- body language is almost always enough, I think. If a woman catches your gaze and starts to flirt, then by all means, continue. If she catches your gaze and isn't interested, it's usually obvious. If she gives you a dirty look, and you continue to stare, then you're staring, and that's probably ogling.

If you're really unsure, try empathizing- turn things around. Imagine the worst-case scenario. Imagine someone that you're not attracted to is looking at you the way that you're looking at a particular woman. Would it make you uncomfortable? If so, you're probably ogling.

It's really not hard.

Did anyone else notice the yellow area in the bottom right corner?

What's funny about this? The only things I can imagine someone thinking and laughing about are:

"HAHAHA... GAY!!"
"HAHAHA... Men are dumb!"
"HAHAHA... It's a penis!"

None of which seem that funny. Am I being dense?

"Am I being dense?"-Erik Punkinskis

No, you're not being dense. Honestly, I can't figure out what's so funny either.