Wow, do you really think this is the case? This is such an interesting perspective.
I think a lot of male sexuality is socialized early on, often when people don't even realize it. Being solidified at an early age, most of it isn't rational, but it falls apart if one begins to seriously question it. But since it's considered "normal" behavior few people ever do question it. A number of people tried to bully "manhood" into me at school. They doubtlessly thought it was for my own good and they succeeded initially. In their sense, "manhood" included hooting at women, groping them, treating them like toys and considering them good for not much more than ***. Most of them never learned to relate to women other than sexually. To be "a man" you had to lust after "the right" kind of woman. Lusting after the "wrong" kind risked losing your "cool" status. For them, the right kind of "hot" woman tended to resemble women in **** magazines. For example, I was once openly ridiculed by admitting that I found a flat-chested woman "hot." My "manhood" was questioned in front of the entire group. For a teenage boy, it was humiliating. To fit in, I learned what kind of woman I should find "hot" and openly declared it. Then I was "a man" again. I only noticed later that the kind of woman I was supposed to find "hot" conformed to the "beauty standards" that I saw everywhere on television, in movies, in magazines, on billboards and everywhere else. Those early experiences kept getting reinforced. So where did the men who tried to "teach" me what I should find "hot" learn what was "hot?" Many had older brothers who introduced them to **** at an early age, so the first naked female bodies they ever saw were **** models. Because they wanted their little brothers to be "men," they also reinforced the "right" women to be attracted to. Male culture uses a lot of shame to enforce conformity, as do many cultures. As young men develop sexually, they gradually form ideals of what's attractive and they often rely on the advice of others they look up to. Before most of them ever see a real woman naked, the only reference many have are from **** and that becomes a fixed ideal that they carry with them. This ideal gets reinforced by society as a whole, and being "cool" often implies having a "hot" girlfriend, but only having the "right hot" girlfriend. For many young guys, girlfriends are mainly something to show off to other guys as a sign of their "manhood." But that means conforming to an ideal that other "manly men" will validate. Many never consider, or may never be exposed to, other types of sexiness or beauty. Those get filtered out early on in this scenario. So many men spend their lives trying to find women who measure up to the women from the **** they saw at a younger age. Many women out in the real world don't conform to that standard. But because these ideals were imprinted early on they are difficult to overcome. This can lead to sexual frustration.
Though I'm not a fan of **** and I wasn't really exposed to a lot of it, this isn't necessarily an argument against it. I'm completely and fully against any **** that depicts women, or anyone, getting abused outright. But knowing that banning **** would probably ultimately fail in the same way that Prohibition failed, that doesn't seem promising (except for the worst and most abusive kinds, which I'm all for banning). I would instead argue that young straight men should get exposed to a wider variety of female body types than **** usually portrays. Many men are sexualized towards a certain female body type, or only towards a very few similar types, and it arguably saps them of the ability to appreciate the wide variety of other types that exist in the world. People will obviously have widely varied experiences with such things.
The whole notion of attractiveness becomes nebulous if one looks at history. I once watched an anthology of historic American **** that ran from the early 1900s to the 1960s. The earliest films contained women and men who didn't conform whatsoever to today's ideals. They actually looked more like "normal" people. Most of the women had very large hips and thighs and, by today's standards, would probably be considered "mis-shapen." But there they were in ****, showcased in movies specifically meant to be sexually appealing to men. They were depicted as desirable *** goddesses. As the anthology progressed through time, the women became more and more "familiar" in shape, size and type. The bodies became younger and thinner, breasts became bigger, hips became smaller, blondes became more prevalent, and female bodily hair almost vanished. Some of the women in the earliest films had visible armpit hair, unshaven legs and visible cellulite. Male genitalia also went from "normal" sized to unbelievably gigantic proportions. Most of the men I've known in my life would not consider the women in the early films attractive, but men at the time must have. Looking at other sources, women with much larger hips and smaller busts also appeared in cigarette cards of the 1880s, posed seductively and alluringly.
All of this, along with other research and reflection, made me question the ideals that I grew up with and that were pounded into me. I realized that I was raised and socialized to desire thin, blonde, busty, eternally young, shallow women who existed only to fulfill my sexual desires. And I wasn't supposed to consider them as full people. This preference was strong, very strong, inside me and it took a lot of work to deconstruct it and break it down. First of all, looking around me, I saw a large variety of women in the world. Why did I have this strange preference for just a certain kind? Why did everyone else also seem to want this same certain kind? What was wrong with the other women? A lot of women also seemed intelligent and enjoyable to talk to. The smart ones were a lot more fun and interesting than the shallow ones. A lot of them resented the ideals that men tried to impose on them and, never really wanting to be a "manly man," I could relate to a certain degree.
It's hard to explain, but my earlier preferences began to break down and I began to see beauty in different places and women as entire packages, not just as collections of faces, breasts and butts. As I explored, I found the women who didn't meet my earlier ideal far more interesting, relatable and desirable than those that did. I didn't end up attracted to everyone, but I found myself smitten with everything from a scrawny nerdy girl with glasses, to a flat-chested almost no figure blonde with a shaved head, to a woman with a big nose and a flat chest but enormous hips, to a woman I would have once considered "too chubby" with a green mohawk, and a few others. I became attracted to "full packages," meaning enough of a combination of looks and personality to make the whole woman appealing. Aspects of a woman's personality can be just as sexy as any of their fleshy parts. As this attitude developed, I began to distrust looks all by themselves. All alone, they were misleading. They seemed to leave a lot of the good stuff out. A woman isn't just her immediate outward appearance. And if you rely on looks alone, eventually someone "prettier" comes along and the cycle repeats
ad infinitum. I also learned that relationships involve a lot more than *** and that I wanted more from a relationship than just ***. I also wanted a companion and a life partner. Many of the "pretty" ones, the ones who met my earlier preferences, seemed too wrapped up in getting attention for their looks from everyone, not just from me, for me to establish relationships with them. Sure, they looked great, but many of them had a sad hollowness inside.
Looking back, I realized that if I had never questioned my earlier ideals and explored a bit, I would have missed out on a lot of great stuff. I would have looked at some of the women I met and brushed them off because they didn't meet some abstract ideal. It took work, persistence and vigilance, but it paid off. I feel a little duped by those who wanted to make me "a man" and I actually feel sorry for them a little now. They accepted nothing outside their insular ideals and I even more than once saw them yelling insults at women they considered "ugly" and encouraging others to do the same. It was bloody cruel. I now want nothing to do with being "a real man" and nothing to do with those old ideals that once clouded my mind. I feel a lot freer inside and I no longer stare or lust after so-called "hot" women who I don't even know. They are just images until I get to know them, but I'll never even speak to a vast majority of them. I sometimes think of all the time I wasted on pointless and futile thoughts and fantasies when I was younger. And I'm pretty sure that aspects of my sexuality were bullied and pounded into me.
All of this of course reflects my own experience and it contains substantial personal, circumstantial and generational elements to it that will obviously not apply to everyone's experience. But I think few people really ever question or analyze how they became what they are, but it's a worthwhile exercise, even if it's initially unpleasant. This entire process was at times agonizing for me and I had to resist a lot of peer and societal pressure along the way. But I think it worked out for the most part.
(that wasn't for you ewomack, you're as civil as they come lol)
