Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think it goes back to the ways boys and girls are taught to play
    their respective roles.  Girls are more likely to have been taught to be
    sensitive to the feelings of others (at least in the past) and play the 
    warm loving role. Boys are more likely to have been taught (at least in
    the past) to be tough and aggressive.  (I know that far more parents
    today are more likely to be teaching their children non gender specific
    roles.)  Anyway, boys have been taught by society and other boys that
    sexual behavior toward other males is one of the most un macho
    behaviors imaginable.  Girls are not taught that sexual behavior
    toward other females is unfeminine.   For the boy to act on sexual
    feelings toward another male, potentially undermines his identity and
    self respect because of what he has been taught and SOCIETIES REACTIONS
    to that behavior.  Girls on the other hand do not seem to have been
    taught as rigorous sexual behavior standards toward members of the same
    sex.  The result is that many men view homosexual behavior by other men
    as anti-macho (thus a threat to the male image) while lesbian behavior
    isn't perceived as unwomanly.  The result is a far more negative
    reaction toward homosexual men than women.  Another element of mens'
    reactions toward homosexual men is that it is likely to stir up latent
    homosexual feelings in the man... while lesbian behavior doesn't stir
    up latent MALE homosexual feelings.

    A hetero female friend was relating to me a description of a sexual
    practice that a lesbian friend of hers stated that she liked. The
    hetero friend was repulsed by this, and asked me if I was disgusted
    by this as well. I said no, she was mystified as to why, and I said
    that it was all in your point of view, as to what turns you on, or
    off. 
    
    Like the old joke says, "I'm just a lesbian trapped inside a man's
    body".
    
    
    I've often heard gay men and hetero women comparing notes on what
    they've found attractive in men, so it works both ways, I think.
    
    -roger
    

    Alfred, I don't know whether or not I can do this topic justice.
    I've thought about it before, and from a variety of perspectives,
    too... they're all jumbling around in my head now, trying to organize
    themselves.  And the comment in .1 about how boys are conditioned
    differently than girls (as children) struck a chord, so I think I'll
    start along that tangent.
    
    I think men are 'supposed' to be capable...self-sufficient...able
    to handle the world, able to drive any car, laugh at any weather,
    defend themselves against any bad guy...in a word, men are all
    trying to be heros.  Or hoping to be heros.  Or hoping to be looked 
    at as though they could be heros if the opportunity arose, giving 
    that impression of..."power".  Potential.
    
    Women are not encouraged to be that way, excpet in rare circumstances. 
    
    I think that many, many people recognize that difference in the way our
    culture shapes men and women and they learn the WRONG lessons from it.
    They "learn", for example, that women aren't capable, can't be powerful.
    They "learn" that "a real man" *ought* to be that way and its anybody's
    right to harass the man who conduct his life in some other way.  These
    foolishly begotten misperceptions dog us all, as the people who cart
    them around can't understand individuals who don't accept the "lesson",
    and make our lives hell.  Like most men, I pretend I'm capable of all
    that balderdash too, most of the time; to avoid being hassled.
    
    One of those misperceptions I think many men have is that their
    physical differences from women are legitimate means of enforcing
    these "lessons".  [It is hard to say this accurately, bear with me.]
    That is, in coming to terms as children and as adolescents with the
    differences between our culture's treatment of men and women, these
    men don't realize its due to ingrained attitudes and hidebound
    tradition...they mistakenly think its natural, that men are powerful
    because they wear penises, and that the penis is therefore the source
    of their power, it is what makes them worthy of being treated better
    than women.  Once this misperception has taken flight in an adolescent
    male's mind, rooting it out is a daunting prospect.  That man's model
    for the use of his penis ties him to reinforcing all of those old
    roles; he literally has no other way to understand his own biology.
    
    OK, the thesis gradually comes round; Alfred, I think that many men are
    bothered by male homosexuality because those men are not doing what men
    are "supposed" to be doing with their penises...reinforcing men's power
    over women in the society, in the traditional roles.  They're traitors.
    Lack of concern over lesbianism is easily interpreted by this model;
    women's lack of power means that whatever they do isn't worth fighting
    about, at least to the extent that a traitorous male is worth fighting.
    
    I think there are other reasons that many men hate and fear gay men
    but this one will do for now.
    
    DougO

    Hurrah for the .4 note!  I wish we had many more people with your
    views or better said, with your behaviour, that's what counts!

I had a woman tell me recently that women were "terrified of gays because
they (women) couldn't compete with another man".  Certainly this attitude
doesn't map into men's general indifference towards lesbians (except perhaps as
a "lost opportunity").  My own thoughts run along the same lines as Herb's.

				Steve

    This is somewhat interesting, and I agree with .4 a lot. Married 20 +
    years - monomogas (sp) and 2 boys. 
    
    Maybe some of the role learning and differences come from our sexual
    contact during upbringing. 
    
    When I was in high school, boys had gang showers. Girls, being 'more
    delicate and having "personal" need' had individual stalls. Boys, in
    the locker room for football or everyone in gym, could see everyone
    else. Beyond natural curiosity, there was no stimulation (speaking as a
    hetro). Girls, on the other hand, and from what I remember, never saw
    another girl naked. This could possibly explain why boys (men) find the
    thought of gay men offensive. They have been conditioned (partly)
    through the above example to not look on other boys (men) sexually.
    Girls, on the other hand, have not had this naked exposure and the need
    to suppress (for lack of a better word) any attraction to other girls 
    (women).
    
    Just some random thoughts
    
    Steve

    
    
    To me it seems much more simple than the "power penis" theory or the
    other ideas thrown around.
    
    Why do you find lesbian acts in a heterosexual erotic movie?
    
    Men (who presumably the movie is oriented toward) can relate to having
    sex with a woman.  They can understand how a woman can be sexually
    attracted to another woman.  It feels the same as it does for *them*!
    
    Men cannot understand how some guy can be sexually attracted to another
    man, however, because they cannot identify with it.  Furthermore, there
    is a repulsive reaction, due to all of the sociological crap that we
    learn.
    
    It seems to work the same way in reverse.  I have known women who were
    friends with gay men, who couldn't deal with lesbians.  That throws all
    of the "power penis" theory stuff out of the window!
    
    
    Marc

    	In continuing with .9's line of thought, I wonder if heterosexual
    	women would find the depiction of male homosexual acts in a
    	movie (hard core or not) to be erotic.  
    
    	I have no idea, but I can imagine valid reasons for both yes and no 
    	answers.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re .9, Marc-
    
    I don't understand what you mean when you say this:
    
    > Furthermore, there is a repulsive reaction, due to all of 
    > the sociological crap that we learn.
    
    Could you put that in other words?  I could interpolate about
    sixty-eleven different meanings for 'sociological' in the above,
    and I'd probably be wrong each time.  Thanks-
     
    DougO

    Doug, 
    I think he means (at least that is the way I read it) that the way 
    we are brought up in todays society, we find the sexual act of
    homosexuality somewhat repuslive. 
    
    ** by "we" i am refering to the generic "we", noone in particular.
    
                            

    Doug, read .1 in which I have attempted to describe the sociological
    crap.  I think Marc has provided simple accurate additionalexplanation
    for why many men are so turned off by gay sexual orientation.  One can
    see this reaction in many other areas too.  If a person can't relate to
    a certain behavior, usually they condemn the behavior.  Jeff

    	I see as simple. Most men can relate to oral/genital sex with
    a female as a 'normal' part of foreplay/sexual fulfillment for his
    spouse/girlfriend. Lesbian relationships support this type of sexual
    action as good or acceptable. 
    
    	Ken

    
>    When I was in high school, boys had gang showers....
>    This could possibly explain why boys (men) find the
>    thought of gay men offensive. They have been conditioned (partly)
>    through the above example to not look on other boys (men) sexually.

This doesn't make sense to me.  If boys are conditioned not to look at 
one another, why didn't we get the "personal needs" showers and the 
girls get the gang showers?  Also, in my experience as a letterman 
jock in highschool, there was a lot of "show off" behavior in the 
lockerroom that encouraged looking at (and sometimes touching) one 
another.  I remember a ritual of one of the guys on my basketball 
team; he would stand naked on one of the benches and would pantomime 
the sex he (supposedly) had with his girlfriend the night before.  
Another ritual was the older guys grabbing a younger guy in the shower 
and holding him there while someone turned the water to scalding.

[Male touching and looking, especially in a locker room, is a big 
topic; a book could be written about it.  It isn't as simple, in my 
opinion, as "we are/aren't trained to look at one another."]

I might add that one of the reasons why the touching and looking go on 
in the locker room is because there are clear boundaries as to what 
type of looking/touching is "okay."  Heterosexual men feel safe as 
long as those boundaries are observed; gay men challenge and undermine 
those boundaries.  It's okay for football players to slap each other 
on the ass or look at each other in the locker room (in a certain way); 
it's not okay for them to kiss each other on the lips or to hold each 
other tenderly.  Then, the line gets crossed.

One might ask why that line is there.  What are the good things about 
where the line is?  What are the bad things?


							--Gerry

    In my somewhat limited experience of life I have come to the 
    following conclusion on this.
    
       The images of girls with girls is OK for men PROVIDED it is in
    the form of serving the men who watch it .
      i.e. in pornography this is (supposed to be ) a turn on for Het'
    men. 
    The fantasy of being in between two beautiful women or watching
    two enjoying each other (supposedly in preparation of the arrival
    of the man ), is considerd a "traditional" one.
        As some men still consider this to be a "man's world" the
    idea of hearing two females 'saying' "no we don't need YOU for our
    pleasure" smashes the fantasy and flattens the ego!
    
    (This might be why some lesbians are considered to dress butch.
    they could be avoiding the "traditional" stereotypes that are 
    supposed to attract men? )
    
    I have noticed here that "trad Het'" men can't cope with lesbians
    quite as well as they can gay men.
    
                                                              
    I think some find it more threatening ( to their manhood ) more
    than they are repulsed. Lack of understanding is the biggest breader
    of intolerance, in my opinion.
                   
    David

    RE .15
    
>This doesn't make sense to me.  If boys are conditioned not to look at 
>one another, why didn't we get the "personal needs" showers and the 
>girls get the gang showers?  Also, in my experience as a letterman 
>jock in highschool, there was a lot of "show off" behavior in the 
>lockerroom that encouraged looking at (and sometimes touching) one 
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>another.  I remember a ritual of one of the guys on my basketball 
>team; he would stand naked on one of the benches and would pantomime 
>the sex he (supposedly) had with his girlfriend the night before.  
    
>I might add that one of the reasons why the touching and looking go on 
>in the locker room is because there are clear boundaries as to what 
>type of looking/touching is "okay."  Heterosexual men feel safe as 
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>long as those boundaries are observed; gay men challenge and undermine 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>those boundaries.  
    
    
    I don't know about YOUR high school/college locker room experiences,
    BUT these sure weren't mine!
    
    I would like to know if anyone out there other than Ger has seen any
    experiences like this one?
    
    Steve
    

    
>    I don't know about YOUR high school/college locker room experiences,
>    BUT these sure weren't mine!
    
Nobody else saw butt slapping, towel whipping, "fake homosexuality"
just to shock someone (dorm-mates of mine had a whole routine of
lisping, sitting in each other's laps, and swearing eternal love; I'm
very sure that they are heterosexual), parading around naked while
talking, standing up naked on the benches while making some noise or
joke? 

It didn't happen every day, but it happened regularly.  Maybe there 
was something in the water in Milford, Connecticut.   ;-)


							--Ger

    
    We are diverging from the orginal topic.  Should we move this part to
    another topic?  Moderator, feel free to do so.
    
    I had a friend (straight) in high school who was a wicked jock.  He was
    very comfrtable with his sexuality (I assume) and he used to do all
    kinds of sexual things to guys.  He used to always grab them in the
    crotch, hug them naked, and all kinds of other things.  I think he was
    just having fun with us, because we were his friends, and he didn't
    have to "prove" his heterosexuality to anyone.
    
    I also noticed that, quite contrary to the "private shower" reason,
    that many guys look at each others' private parts in the gym.  The gym
    that I belong to is (presumably) mostly straight, yet guys check out
    each others' accoutrements.  I don't think there is anything sexual
    about it, I think that it is just curiosity.  Many guys are insecure
    about their rank in the penis size ladder, and check out others to see
    where they fit in.  
    
    Re: (a while back)  I don't think that women would "get off" watching
    male homosexual erotic movies as much, because (I hope I don't start a
    flame-fest!) they are less into the visuals of sex.  Magazines cater
    mostly to men, becuase that is where the market is.  It is not just
    because of cultural influences, either, in my opinion.  Women are more
    interested in the emotional aspects of sexual fulfillment, and men are
    primarily concerned with "getting off."
    
    You'll notice that there are tons of homosexual erotica, but I don't
    ever remember seeing a lesbian erotic magazine.  (I doubt that it is
    only because it is not PC.)
    
    What do you think?
    
    Marc
    

    I agree with your observations Marc.  I too believe that guys are more
    visually oriented sexually than women in general are.  That is... guys
    get turned on primarily by visual images whereas women get turned on
    more by emotional depth.  I AM NOT saying that guys are not turned on
    by emotional depth too... I am saying that the primary thing that
    attracts guys sexually is physical appearance... followed by a growing
    emotional attachment, and, as Marc points out the magazines sell 
    primarily to men.  I also agree that a mans' sexual needs tend to be
    urgent and be fulfilled by orgasm, if not, intense frustration can
    be the result.  I think the reason for this is simple.  Babies' don't
    get conceived unless the man does perform the sex act and nature has
    programmed men to achieve this. 

    As far as the guy in Marcs' note is concerned he strikes me as unusual
    in his openness at grabbing at people.  He MUST have been good friends
    with the other guys to have gotten away with it.  In my experience,
    locker room banter consisted of towel snapping, looking, and crude
    comments.  I never saw anybody grab at anyone else.   

   There are certainly lesbian erotic publications. This is as opposed to
   the plethora of "woman on woman" publications actually aimed at
   heterosexual men. Some of the lesbian magazines are rather outre even
   for the lesbian community, but there is no way *I* am going to discuss
   them *here*. (!)
   
   Women may indeed be "less visually oriented" in sexual stimulation than
   men, but I see little evidence for it. I personally believe that a lot
   of what people are "seeing" :-) is socialization, and evidence that
   women have better taste in erotic art than men... :-) [q.v. "Hustler"]
   
   	-- Charles

    
    re .-1  I disagree.                         
    
    I think there is strong evidence that women are less into the visuals
    than men.
    
    How many times do you see an unattractive woman with an attractive man? 
    Why do so many beautiful women "settle" for dumpy overweight unkempt
    men?
    
    More gay men are into "primping" and "looking their best" whereas gay
    women are less interested (great generalization, I know!) in being
    visually stimulating.
    
    Men don't dress in titillating fashions to sexually arouse women, the
    way the reverse happens.
    
    Look at surveys of what women find attractive in men versus what men
    look at in women.  You'll find the women want things like "a nice smile"
    "a good sense of humor" "a warm passionate person", etc... whereas men
    say "large breasts", "a nice a*s", etc...
    
    Men are much more into "looking" (ogling) women than women ogling after
    men.  It happens to some degree, but not to the degree that it happens
    with men.
    
    

>   re .-1  I disagree.

That's OK Marc. I don't mind. :-)

>   I think there is strong evidence that women are less into the visuals
>   than men.

>   How many times do you see an unattractive woman with an attractive man?
>   Why do so many beautiful women "settle" for dumpy overweight unkempt
>   men?

Maybe they find them visually appealing? :-) I hear you, but I think I would
want a more objective dataset. How many times do you see an attractive man
with an unattractive woman? How many times are they both attractive or
unattractive? Most importantly why are you deciding whether the woman is
visually stimulated based on what YOU see? It seems to me to be more
reasonable to ask her no? The example you cite above seems irrelevant.

>   More gay men are into "primping" and "looking their best" whereas gay
>   women are less interested (great generalization, I know!) in being
>   visually stimulating.

Again, visually stimulating to whom? How many "feminine" appearing lesbians do
you know? Perhaps more than you thought. How many "non-feminine" appearing
lesbians that you know spend time looking they way they do, "in order to be
visually appealing"? Perhaps more than you think. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder after all. How do YOU know what a woman finds visually stimulating?
Personally, I ask.

>   Men don't dress in titillating fashions to sexually arouse women, the
>   way the reverse happens.

Ahem, I'm a living counterexample. :-) SOMEONE is buying that Jockey Bikini
Underwear, and I don't think it's ALL gay men. They certainly aren't buying it
because it's more *comfortable* than boxer shorts! Not everyone who buys a
Speedo is doing it to better their lap time...

>   Look at surveys of what women find attractive in men versus what men
>   look at in women.  You'll find the women want things like "a nice smile"
>   "a good sense of humor" "a warm passionate person", etc... whereas men
>   say "large breasts", "a nice a*s", etc...

Aha! Good job. Do indeed look at these surveys, you will be surprised. It
turns out according to the surveys *I've* seen that men AND women are more
interested in "a sense of humor", "a nice smile", "a pleasant personality",
"intelligent conversation", than any physical trait.

>   Men are much more into "looking" (ogling) women than women ogling after
>   men.  It happens to some degree, but not to the degree that it happens
>   with men.

Yes, I agree, if you change your claim to:

>   Heterosexual men in our society are much more into "looking" (ogling)
>   women than heterosexual women ogling after men.  It happens to some
>   degree, but not to the degree that it happens with men.

I agree, but my claim is that it is socialization. Most of the lesbians I know
like ogling other women, and many of the heterosexual women I know like ogling
cute men, they just don't usually admit it! Witness the popularity of
Chippendales, and "Buns" calendars. My claim is that this behavior is
cultural, and due to training. I disagree with claims that "women are less
visually oriented than men when it comes to sex", since I interpret that to be
a claim about "nature" rather than "nurture". I suspect that some of it is due
to how most men would react if a woman said something like "check out the ass
on that one!" They would either 1) be embarrassed or 2) think she was coming on
to THEM. In either case do you think it would improve their opinion of her?
Why then would she admit it except to someone she trusted?

I can still see how you might disagree, but I think you may have missed my
original main point. Further, using anecdotal evidence is not convincing (to
me) since I *agree* that women in our culture BEHAVE the way you say, I
disagree as to the why. I know many women, both lesbian and not, who enjoy
"visual" "pornography". I know an even larger number who say they don't like
"X rated movies" for reasons that I share - poor production quality,
unimaginative plots, and an emphasis on gross anatomical shots. Many of these
same women admit to liking "erotic" movies that are not X rated, and those
that have seen high quality "couples" or "women oriented" movies usually like
them as well. I admit that my samples in this case are just as biased as
anyone else's, these being women that will talk to *me* about sex, but it
makes for an interesting counterexample.

Honestly, I believe there ARE some innate sex related differences in this
area, but that until the gross societal effects are filtered out we cannot
know what they are, much less how strong they are.

	-- Charles

    
    Interesting topic, Charles.  I *wish* that I could agree with you more
    than I do.  I don't have time (or the data) to provide some
    counterpoints right now, and I'll be on vacation soon.  I hope that
    when I come back, there are more replies to this most intereting topic.  
    
    Thanks for your input!  It does shed some possible light, but I think
    we're still talking about how we would like things to be versus how
    things really are.
    
    Marc
    

 I think that women start off being every bit as visual as men do. Ever go to
a bar where there are single women? They ogle every bit as much as the guys.
They swoon over hunks; guys swoon over babes. C'est le m�me chose. 

 However, once they realize that there are only so many hunks, they realize that
being alone due to unrealistic standards is not a hell of alot of fun. So they
decide to compromise. But at least they are smart about it. They go for 
qualities which will work out better for longer term relationships than a
single night. Which makes alot of sense. They are also less concerned with
their status (to a degree) than guys are. Guys want to have a gorgeous babe
hanging off their arm in public, even if she is an A#1 bitch in private. It's
a status thing. Women find that men who are wealthy can bring them as much or 
more status than men who are gorgeous and their tastes reflect that accordingly
(for the status conscious women).

 I think that the fact that a smaller percentage of men than women spend an
inordinate amount of time on their appearance contributes to this phenomenon.

 But anybody who doesn't think that women are visual when it comes to attraction
hasn't been paying much attention in male-female meeting places. :-)

 And I also think that it is more accepted for women to talk about being 
attracted to men that make them feel good emotionally (good communicator, etc)
than it is for a women to claim her own sexuality and say "he's such a hunk,
I bet he's wild in bed!" Few women are bold enough to admit to being less
of a nurturer and more of a person that is ruled by her endocrine system. :-)
*But watch how they act, not what they say.*

 The Doctah

    I recall reading somewhere that males are more 'object-oriented'
    in their turn-ons while females are more 'situation-oriented' in
    what they like. Men can be turned on easier by an attractive body,
    women more easily by a candle-lit dinner (for example).
    
    	
    

    
         Comming from the stand point of view,that if I don"t go out
    looking my best,I feel very out place.And I do feel that I make
    a few more heads turn,if I am looking my best.Then I do feel that
    woman LIKE A SHARP DRESSED MAN.YES, I do feel that they get turn
    on bye maybe a par off pants that fit just that certon way.So,
    maybe this visual thing does work both ways.
          

    
    
    
    It has been proven (sorry, I don't have the exact report anymore) that
    
    Men's fantasies tend to be about specific people, generally people they
    know, whereas women's fantasies tend to be either about faceless people or
    "unreachables" (film stars, singers, etc.).
    Heterosexual vs. Homosexual were not mentioned in the report.
    
    Whether or not this is an inherent difference (as opposed to a learned
    trait) I don't know. I do know that a "goodlooking" man will catch my
    eye and make me feel sexually attracted. So will a goodlooking woman,
    though I certainly have no idea what I would do with her if I had her.
    In both cases the attraction fades very quickly, though with men the
    attraction does remain if he appeals to me on an emotional level. Men
    who are not by my standards "good looking" tend to appeal to me on
    emotional levels more often then the physically attractive ones.
    
    * Sylvia *
    

RE: .28 Doctah


	 Just to refresh your memory, over a month ago Doctah said....

	 

> I think that women start off being every bit as visual as men do. Ever go to
>a bar where there are single women? They ogle every bit as much as the guys.
>They swoon over hunks; guys swoon over babes. C'est le m�me chose. 

>However, once they realize that there are only so many hunks, they realize that
>being alone due to unrealistic standards is not a hell of alot of fun. So they
>decide to compromise.


	 I disagree.

	 First, women do "ogle every bit as much as guys", but they do
	 not compromise their standards to get what they want.

	 Women look for enjoyment.  I happen to appreciate seeing a
	 nice bod on a guy....I like seeing muscular thighs, sparkling
	 eyes, nicely toned chest, long flowing hair, etc.  And I'll
	 gladly express how attractive I find "that" man.


	 But it rarely ever enters my mind to pursue something with
	 that man because he's "a hunk".  My visual tastes are
	 VERY much different than my romantic tastes.   My romantic
	 tastes involve personality, sense of humour, understanding,
	 honest, etc.....

	 When I'm "scamming men", it never occurs to me to picture
	 myself in a relationship with them.  In fact, when I
	 purposely allow try to picture it, most times I find the
	 scenario replusive.

	 In other words, I find (and I think other women might too)
	 looks to be an eye catcher and something to enjoy, but when
	 it comes right down to it, it really doesn't have a lot of
	 bearing on my "selection process."  So, it's not so much a matter
	 of "compromise" but rather different standard for looking
	 and having.


		kath
	 	 

re .32  Kath,

I also had a problem with that second paragraph of the Doctah's that you 
referenced.

I think women are every bit as capable as men of admiring a 'nice package,'
but I don't think it's a matter of "compromising," or settling for something 
inferior.  To me it seems like a matter of priorities... Which is more 
important - having a gorgeous hunk/hunkette on your arm to show off to the 
world, or having someone you're compatible with?

I've been attracted to some really terrific-looking bods/faces, but there 
wasn't enough intellectual/emotional compatibility to hold the relationship 
together.  

For me, it's been just the opposite of what .28 described...I've often 
found myself 'settling' for nice packages that I have nothing in common with.

Outside packages are nice, and helpful in the initial-attraction phase, but 
it's what's *inside* that really counts.

Cheers,
deb (who wants it *all*)  8-}

�    Re: (a while back)  I don't think that women would "get off" watching
�    male homosexual erotic movies as much, because (I hope I don't start a
    
    "As much", I wouldn't know about, but I've known women who enjoyed male
    homosexual porn.  For all the reasons you'd expect.
    
    Ray

    
    >I've known women who enjoyed male
    >homosexual porn.  For all the reasons you'd expect.....
    
    What reasons would you expect, out of interest?
    
    'gail
    

�    What reasons would you expect, out of interest?
    
    Well, this is obviously second-hand, but... 
    
    Mainly, the same reasons some men enjoy some female homosexual porn: 
    You just get the "good stuff"; you don't have to waste attention on
    the pleasures of the "unattractive" half of the population.  Yes, some
    heterosexual practices are ruled out, but not all - and porn has little
    to do with reality, anyway. 
    
    I'd also guess there's an added pleasure in watching straightforwardly
    sexual material which is (necessarily) low on sexism.  Not necessarily
    low on misogyny, mind you; but the hardcore scenes obviously can't
    objectify women to the objectionable extent you usually (not always)
    find in het porn. 
    
    Ray