Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I'd suggest you define right up front your equating "ogling" with
    "sexual arousal."
    
    Especially since several people have already said repeatedly that they
    are not the same.
    
    Karen

    What's the problem? Some women ogle. Some women, who may or may not
    ogle, are aroused by the male body (independently of their attraction
    to the person inhabiting said body). Some women, who may or may not
    ogle, are *not* aroused by the male body. Some women, etc., are only
    aroused by a male body belonging to a person they are attracted to.
    
    [Or does that takes all the fun out of it!] 
    
    I have no idea what percentage of who does what. I'm one of the women
    who does *not* find the male body, per se, arousing. That is, all those
    beefcake calendars and Chippendale dancers and Bon Jovi tight-jean
    album covers leave me totally bored. [This doesn't mean that my jaw
    wouldn't drop if I encountered some muscle-bound, thong-clad fellow on
    the beach, but my amazement would not be of the erotic variety; I'd
    probably stare the same way at a similarly-built and -clad woman.] Only
    once do I recall seeing a photo of a nude male that had an erotic
    impact on me (it was one of Mapplethorpe's, as it happens; maybe he had
    a better idea than Madison Avenue or Hollywood of how to show the male
    body that way). 
    
    Even when I've developed wild crushes on movie or TV performers, it was
    never the sight of their manly shoulders or pointed ears ;-) or
    whatever that turned me on, but the combination of who they were (the
    characters, I mean; clearly I have no way of knowing anything about the
    _actors_) and, to a lesser degree, what they looked like. [I say
    "lesser degree" because, while appearance does make some difference,
    when I find one of these media icons to be enamored of it's most often
    someone who is not "classically handsome" at all - Jonathan Banks of
    WISEGUY fame, for example, rather than the admittedly scenic - but not
    arousing - Ken Wahl...]
    
    But of course, if someone chooses to believe that I'm repressing my
    sexuality and don't know what I'm talking about, I suppose there's no
    way I could convince them otherwise. ;-)
    
    -b

(in response to 511.146 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "rebecca is right"                  21 lines   9-OCT-1990 14:55
    
> .144>    It is possible
> .144>    for a woman to admire a male body for "nice buns, muscled chest, high 
> .144>    cheekbones, hot pink kneecaps, whatever...", and still be *repulsed* 
> .144>    when its owner propositions her.
>
> 	Agreed.
>
>	The reason I replied was that even though the connection between
>    lusting and being harassed was not real justification, it's just plain
>    wrong to claim that women do not get turned on by the sight of a naked
>    body.

	No, it's not "just plain wrong"!  Women do not, ordinarily, get
	turned on by naked male bodies, per se, any more than they get 
	turned on by, say, longhaired angora cats or striped scarves, by
	themselves.  While the naked male body may be a catalyst for an
	aroused response, it in itself is *not* the turn-on.  It's not 
	even the major ingredient of a turn-on for most women.

>	Maybe not while sitting at their desks at DEC, but out on the
>    town on a Friday night, well, reality speaks for itself.

	Oh?  What town are you out in on Fridays where you see lots of 
	naked men?  The only cases of this I know of are flashers (streakers
	usually like daylight), and I don't know a single woman who finds
	flashers a turn-on.  (The nature of the advertising industry's trench 
	coat commercials would tend to corroborate this).

	As for shows like Chippendales, I suspect that the women who get
	aroused are *not* getting aroused at the male bodies in and of
	themselves, but at other factors, such as being *entertained* and
	*catered to* by naked males (kind of a refreshing "superiority
	trip" in our society).  More likely, they simply find them attractive,
	and aren't getting "turned on" at all.  I doubt they'd find the
	same naked men arousing at all in, say, a police lineup.

	    Sharon

    RE: .2
    
    For what's it worth, I'd say it sounds like you are not sexually
    repressed. You have examined how your own sexuality works for you and
    are comfortable living according to it.
    
    That's completely different from saying "I can't say I'm sexually
    attracted to anyone because only sluts do that kind of dirty thing."
    The fact you recognize that sexuality works for different people in
    different ways speaks highly of your level of sexual liberation as
    well.
    
    Although you could try to prove to me that you're not sexually
    repressed if you really wanted too... :-) [<- BIG :-)]
    
    -Erik  

	RE: .0

	If we're going to start this topic right, then you have to
	quit stating your interpretations of what I said as what I
	actually said.

	Let's start over.

	My original comment was that women don't usually "get turned
	on" (sexually) by simply seeing a nude male body (ie, as can
	be seen by a woman reporter in an NFL male locker room) the
	same way that men, on the average, seem to "get turned on"
	(sexually) by viewing a woman's nude body.

	Yes, women look at the male body, yes, women do appreciate
	certain assets a nude male body might have (nice pecs, nice
	buns, a hairy chest, etc).  But, in my experience, that
	appreciation is not sexual....it is not a "turn on", but rather
	simple admiration.

	You have to first see the difference between admiration of a
	nude body as opposed to "getting turned on" before this discussion
	can go any further.

	When I see a man nude and I admire his body (very rare, usually
	it doesn't even phase me that he's nude and it doesn't matter
	any more than if he's dressed), it's as if I saw him passing down
	the street, fully clothes, and I said "He's good looking."  Thoughts
	of sexual arousal don't enter my mind, I don't wet my pants, I
	don't dream of being in a sexual situation with him....I simply
	admire the lines and walk on.  If there's any thought process
	at all it's usually "I wonder what he's like when he opens his
	mouth to talk."

	Anyway.......subtle distinctions between the two.

	kath

    RE: .3
    
    >	No, it's not "just plain wrong"!  Women do not, ordinarily, get
    >	turned on by naked male bodies, per se, any more than they get 
    >	turned on by, say, longhaired angora cats or striped scarves, by
    
    I get nervous when you speak for all women. No, not all women are
    turned off by naked bodies.
    
    Many women are ashamed. Many women feel vulnerable. Many women become
    embarrassed, in front of a naked body. Of either gender. (Many men do
    too, male locker rooms are sometimes awkward). I think this has more to
    do with how our Puritan society conditions us to handle nudity than it
    has to do with human sexuality. 
    
    I think it is important to note the difference between being able to
    say you find someone (dressed, in the nude, etc) sexually attractive
    and between being sexually aroused by that person and between saying
    you would become so horny that you would attack them right there.
    
    On European and nude beaches I can spend a lot of time around nude men
    and women, and not become in the slightest way sexually aroused. I'm
    not in the frame of mind to be aroused. However I can say "She has a
    cute body" or "I find her sexually attractive" to a friend nearby. It
    doesn't mean that if you spoke and later dated that you wouldn't be
    aroused by that person. There's a difference between being aroused by
    someone (and moving to become romantic with them) and between finding
    someone sexually attractive.
    
    The women I am close to in my life have all been able to find a picture
    of a man (naked or clothed) "sexually attractive." Yet that doesn't mean
    that they would envision sex right there with him on the spot. Does
    that make sense? 
    
    -Erik 
    

    Re .4: How kind of you to say so.
    
    But, seriously, I made the remark about repression because, too often,
    I've seen people blandly smiling at others while informing them that
    they must be repressed because they wouldn't admit that they really did
    like whatever the bland smilers were postulating - and the more firmly
    the victims would attempt to state that, no, they really *didn't* feel
    that way, the broader those smiles would become... 
    
    -b

511.141  Kath,

	Are you implying that you covertly listen in on women's
	discussions when they feel they are alone?

No, I don't listen in covertly, and sometimes the women either
forget or don't care that they're not alone.  In most of these
situations, I'm the only male around;  sometimes I'll be reading
a magazine while they're talking in the same room, or when
they're talking loudly from an adjacent room, or when I tag along
with a group of women during a day at the beach or an outdoor
hike somewhere or whatever.  I have a lot of female friends precisely
because they trust me.

	Listen.  I would FREELY admit here if I felt "turned on"
	by the male body.  But I don't--I'm a naturist, I don't FIND
	the mere fact that a body is unclothed to be SEXUAL in any
	way.

I believe you.

	I am also recounting what the majority of MY friends and the
	women I've talked to have said....that basically they get
	very little if any sexual stimulation from viewing the male
	body.

And I believe them too, though my experience with women do/say
has been different.  Would you welcome females as friends if they
told you they feel sexually stimulated from viewing male bodies?

	I just have two questions for you.   Why are you listening in
	on women's private conversations?

I'm not.  See above.

        And how is it that you seem
	to know MY friends and my experiences better than I do?

I don't presume to know your friends and your experiences.  I
was referring to MY friends and MY experiences.  Why does it seem
you speak for most women?


Re: 511.140  Kath,

	Pray tell, when did you become so knowledgeable about women
	and the way they feel.

I watch the Oprah Winfrey show!  ;)  Nowadays, you can't help but
notice the way a woman feels -- about everything.  Women verbalize
how they feel nonstop, over and over and over again, in all walks of life,
up close and over the airwaves.  I don't speak for all men, and I
don't think you speak for all women, either.

	I'm going to say this one more time....perhaps you'll get it
	this time.

	THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPRECIATING A NICE BODY FOR THE
	WAY IT LOOKS AND VIEWING IT IN A SEXUAL WAY!!!!!

I don't doubt some women can do that; but isn't that like
personally encountering one of your favorite foods, and only
apreciating the "way it looks" without much desire to consume?
That seems a bit silly .... again, my experiences with women who
ogle and "appreciate" male bodies is that indeed the human
desires inside them can be sensed.  I wasn't born yesterday -- I
can sense human nature as well as anyone else can.  In my eyes,
to say that most women do not experience normal human desires, in
this case sexual desire, is in a way to say that women are
"above" being human.  You heard that stuff back in the 50s; I'm
surprised to hear it today.  Sorry, but it strikes me as rubbish. 

	I find the male body nice to look at, however I do not find it
	SEXUAL in the least (unless it's a sexual setting and I'm with
	someone special that I WANT to find sexually appealing).

I believe you.

	And have you ever thought that person the women that you hang
	around are not exactly the women that *I* hang around?

Of course.  You only hang out with "nice" girls who shut down their
sexual desires.   Donna Reed and June Cleaver here we come!

        I am not WRONG simply because YOU have different experiences.

No, I think you experience/don't experience precisely what you
say you do/don't.

        I think
	that as a woman I'm just a little more "privvy" to the way the
	the woman's mind works, don't you?

I'm not so sure.  The women in my life do not think the way you do.

	Have you ever thought that perhaps they are telling you they're
	oogling simply to "boost your ego" a little?  (Don't laugh...it
	happens quite often).  After all, perhaps they don't want to
	see you "pouting."

Wow, you ARE living in 1957!

	Don't tell me I'm wrong wrong, buster....I'm no more WRONG in my
	experiences than you are in yours.  Your mileage might vary and
	so will mine.  Until you get that thru your little head you aren't
	going to get ANYWHERE.....except perhaps a lower respect level
	for your condescending behaviour.

The more you speak, the less I feel you represent women of 1990.

Regards,
Paul

    RE: .7
    
    	That's more a problem of getting men to believe that when someone
    	says 'no', it MEANS no. ALWAYS. It also means that women will have
    	to say 'yes' to get yes. 
    
    >I've seen people blandly smiling at others while informing them that
    >they must be repressed because they wouldn't admit that they really did
    >like whatever the bland smilers were postulating - and the more firmly
    >the victims would attempt to state that, no, they really *didn't* feel
    >that way, the broader those smiles would become... 
    
   	I call that repression too. I've seen it as well. It goes both
    	ways. I've received a lot of abuse from people in the sexual
    	liberation movement as well for my own (what they would call) 
    	'conservative' views.
    
    	What works for people, works for people. Do what works for you and
    	don't feel guilty about it either way. Such a simple concept...
    
    	-Erik
      

    .6  Erik,
    
    Thanks for clearing up some points;  I agree with you on most of the
    concepts you ariticulated.  Feeling sexual desire at the sight of
    and/or in the presence of an attractive body does NOT mean, IMHO, that
    one would necessarily ACT on those desires; the person may be in a
    committed relationship or whatever.  Not acting on certain feelings
    doesn't mean the feelings aren't or can't be there nevertheless.
    I don't think there is a real fine line between being "sexually
    attracted" and feeling "sexually arousal."  Where does one 
    stop and the other begin?   Human nature is not that cut/dry.
    
    Paul
     

    According to Webster's Ninth:
    
    OGLE - verb - to glance with amorous invitation or challenge; to eye
    amorously or provocatively.
    
    OGLE - noun - an amorous or coquettish glance
    
    COQUETTE - noun - a woman who endeavors without sincere affection to
    gain the attention and admiration of men - COQUETTISH - adjective.
    
    Paul
    

Re: .8

Paul, Kath no more represents "the women of 1990" than you represent
"the men of 1990".  It's very easy to generalize, but it seems to me that
Kath is largely speaking on her own behalf and isn't making grand and
glorious statements on behalf of other women.  Please don't start attaching
labels to her opinions.


Re: all

I would like to question the assumption that keeps popping up that men, by
and large, are sexually aroused just by seeing a naked woman - any naked
woman.  This isn't true for me, at the least.   As Beth suggests in .2,
there's a lot more needed than just bare flesh.

					Steve

    .12  Steve,
    
    In .8, I said, "I don't speak for all men, and I don't think you speak
    for all women, either."  In terms of Kath representing women, she said,
    "As a woman I think I'm just a little more 'privy' to the way the woman's 
    mind works, don't you?"
    
    My "women of 1990" comment was made only to inform Kathy that if she
    is trying to convince me that she is a "little more privy to the way
    the woman's mind works" then she is having the opposite effect.  Her
    words are convincing me that she is not privy to the way the woman's
    mind works ... maybe the way it worked 30 years ago, but not today.
    
    I'm sorry if I am giving the impression of generalizing or attaching
    labels.
    
    Paul 

RE: .10
    
    >I don't think there is a real fine line between being "sexually
    >attracted" and feeling "sexually arousal."  Where does one 
    >stop and the other begin?   Human nature is not that cut/dry.
    
    Well, I dunno. For me there is.
    
    When I am at a nude beach, I can look at someone and say "Wow, what a
    cute body. Beautiful cyclist calves.". I find her sexually attractive.
    But I am not aroused. It doesn't show, a certain part of male anatomy
    is not aroused. It's not active. Since some people have a hard time
    with the concept of a nude beach, the same is true elsewhere. I see a 
    cheerleader at a football game. She is cute. I find her attractive. 
    Sexually attractive. I note it (like saying "Wow, nice sweater he
    has") and it's on to the next thing (watching the game, etc). 
    It's not a dwelling absorbtion.
    
    Perhaps it's semantics, but 'aroused' is a very action orientated word
    for me. When I am aroused by something, it sets my body in motion. It's
    action. Men bulging and women doing the equivilent excited natural
    response. It's not the same as looking at a sweater and saying that's
    nice. I wouldn't say that I was aroused by a sweater unless I was at
    Filene's with my charge card ready, already in the mood to buy clothes.
    
    It's the same reason why gay men can be in a locker room and not be
    'aroused'. It's the reason why going to a nude beach is in no way a
    'sexual thing'. I don't know how to articulate the feeling. But there's
    a very big difference to me, it's not a fine line but a solid brick
    wall between the two. Does that help any?
    
    -Erik   

    .14  I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that "sexual
    attraction" is, as you say, "not a sexual thing."  There are many
    degrees to which one can get aroused.  You implied that arousal almost
    always involves "action."  To me, it doesn't.  Your definition of
    "arousal" seems to be more - uh - powerful than mine!  Being "aroused"
    doesn't necessarily mean having a physical reaction, the kind you so
    graphically described.  (Gee, I'm so embarrassed!  ;) ;))  The
    "arousal" for me is usually in the heart center, where I take a deep
    breath, and say, "Wow!  Look at that!"  It might even involve a slight
    sigh or groan, and, yes, I quickly bring my attention to the next
    thing.   Sure, I sighed and groaned and took a deep breath when I first
    saw the stark beauty of the Grand Canyon in Arizona.  But I think being
    "sexually attracted" to a human body is still a little different than
    being attracted to the eighth, or whatever it is, wonder of the world. 
    Therefore, I still don't think there is a real fine line between being
    "sexually attracted" and being "sexually aroused."  Again, just because
    one's genitalia doesn't get stimulated, doesn't mean there can't be 
    "arousal."
    
    Paul

  Paul, have you ever been to a nude beach/whatever?  In that environment its
really not a matter of "woo boy, wouldya look at that!!" as much of, yeah I've
seen it before...  The environment makes up a large part of people's reactions:
much like the surveys which (I think) say that most people find skimpy
lingerie more arousing than pure nudity.  Maybe for the first few
minutes it might be
somewhat titillating because its a new sensation, but after that it becomes as
routine as going to a beach with people wearing bathing suits.

Jim

    
    >Therefore, I still don't think there is a real fine line between being
    >"sexually attracted" and being "sexually aroused."  Again, just because
    
    Is the problem the word 'sexually' before the word attractive? Do
    you see finding something attractive about someone (say, pretty hair, 
    dresses well, smells pleasant, moves neatly, slender fingers, nice 
    calves, speaks French, can solve dif'eqs, etc) as also being very close
    to the same thing as being aroused by them? 
     
    If I say I find someone attractive (their dress, their hair, their
    voice), it is not the same thing as being aroused by them. Are you
    aroused by their dress, their hair, their voice too, or is it the
    bigger issue of most American men being conditioned to seeing a bathing
    suit, a breast, a nice female smile as something purely sexual? I'm
    lost in seeing this instant connection to being sexually aroused (ie,
    to want sex). Does this make you unable to go to a nude beach? To use a
    co-ed shower?
    
    To go beyond this scope, I'm sure (assuming you're heterosexual) that
    you can say a guy has wonderful cycling calves, but not be sexually
    aroused by him or his calves. There is then a fine line there. Why?
    
    -Erik

    I've been to nude beaches, and I've been aroused, though generally
    I'm not. It is not just context, it is a complex number of factors
    that create attraction and arousal, and there are no strict rules
    about it for me. It happens when it happens.
    
    I've also been ogled, so it is obviously a truism that women ogle.
    Sometimes on my lunch hour I go running; I've seen women checking
    me out, and had some female co-workers yell across the parking
    lot "Look at those LEGS!". Another co-worker has her cubicle
    coated with calender photos of muscular men in little bikinis. And
    Chippandales was a local institution before it was closed.....
    
     
    I basicallly agree with Paul's analysis, that the line gets fine
    sometimes.
    
    -roger
    

    RE: .6
    
>    >	No, it's not "just plain wrong"!  Women do not, ordinarily, get
>    >	turned on by naked male bodies, per se, any more than they get 
>    >	turned on by, say, longhaired angora cats or striped scarves, by
>    
>    I get nervous when you speak for all women. No, not all women are
>    turned off by naked bodies.

	"Not turned on" is a far cry from "turned off".  And I don't speak
	- or claim to -	for all women; just the majority on the Poisson 
	distribution of the women whose opinions I'm familiar with on this 
	topic, obviously.  (As it happens, I only know one woman who is 
	explicitly turned off by naked male bodies.  But that is beside
	the point.)

	    Sharon

 Coming into the argument, I mean, discussion, at this point, I can see
elements of truth from both sides. In typical notes fashion, neither side
is willing to give an inch (even grudgingly), and both sides merely close
their eyes and hold tighter to their own version of the truth. :-)

 I think that the idea that men are much more likely to be turned on to the
sight of a naked female body than women are to be turned on to the sight
of an appropriately proportioned male body is a bit overblown. There may be
some truth to it, but it certainly isn't quite as cut and dried as it may
seem. I concur with Mike Z. Go to a "meat market" on any given friday night.
The proportion of men drooling over the attractive women and the proportion
of women drooling over the attractive men is roughly equal. I have often found
myself in a good place where I could observe these dynamics, and there really
doesn't seem to be much difference between the men and the women. And let us
not forget (homosexuals notwithstanding) that every guy that takes someone
home with him has a corresponding female counterpart. :-)

 So I don't think that woman and men are all that different once the inhibitions
have been loosened a bit. When women aren't worried about their "reputation"
and men aren't worried about looking like a wuss, you can toss 'em all in a bag
and shake 'em up and they'll all come out looking the same.

 And on the other side, I find that in many cases, women are more likely to
be attracted to the whole person rather than just the package than men are.
Is it biological or social? Dunno. And dunno if it matters. Just an observation.

 The Doctah

Re: .21

But Mark, isn't the use of the "meat market" as the basis for your observation
a form of self-selection?  Wouldn't the people who are likely to go to
such a place be those who place more emphasis on physical appearance?  How
can you justify generalizing those people to the population at large?

				Steve

>But Mark, isn't the use of the "meat market" as the basis for your observation
>a form of self-selection?

 Yep.

>Wouldn't the people who are likely to go to
>such a place be those who place more emphasis on physical appearance? 

 Of course.

>How can you justify generalizing those people to the population at large?

 Since the relative numbers of each sex are roughly equal (perhaps even tilting
towards an abundance of females), it follows that neither sex is _inherently_
more or less likely to use physical appearance as a factor of selection.

 Say one went to a library, and noticed that both sexes were equally likely
to use intellect as the chief factor of selection. One could easily say that
going to a library was a form of self selection, but the fact that no difference
were found in the behavior would tend to support the concept of similarity
of selection.

 I can't really think of a place where there is a statistically valid sampling
of men and women that does not include some form of "self-selection" to bias
the results in one way or another. But so long as the difference between the
sexes is not large, the hypothesis that men and women aren't so different is
supported, regardless of whether both sexes in a particular sample tend to
froth at the mouth or play the prim and proper act. N'est-ce pas?

 The Doctah

    
	When my man is naked, I get sexually aroused. From the
	sounds of what the other women are writing in here, I
	must have an over abundance of hormones that are working
	overtime.
	
	I've been know to stutter or gulp for a breath when
	a well built guy in tight pants passes by. 

	   
	As far as strip shows, etc....I don't go to them. I don't
	care for public/profiteering sexual displays.


	kits    
    

    .24  Thank you, kits, for demonstrating that sexual attractiveness,
         being attracted to a human body in a sexual way, can be different
    than gazing at the beauty of Niagara Falls or Waikiki Beach.
    
    In general, I think we're getting slightly off the track and, to a
    certain extent, getting bogged down in terminology.  This topic was
    created because it seemed to me and others that a certain concept was
    being bandied about as truth -- the concept that it is virtually
    impossible for women to ogle at a man's body, clothed or unclothed, 
    to be sexually attracted to, aroused by, and/or desirous of the body of
    a goodlooking man.  That somehow women were above this sort of human
    nature.  I think this is a myth, period.
    
    True, some women are not attracted to a nice looking man's body in a
    sexual way until a loving, meaningful, committed relationship has
    evolved.  However, my experience has been that a whole lot of women do
    ogle and do get "turned on" at the sight of or in the presence of a
    great looking guy.  I've seen this so many times in so many places --
    at the beach, in the workplace, in social settings, such as parties and
    pubs, and most other walks of life.  It's not EASY to conceal feelings
    of sexual attractiveness/desire, though some women try awfully hard.
    
    I've been to a nude beaches a few times in my life -- sometimes I get
    sexually attracted, sometimes I don't.  However, to say that women, as
    a breed, hardly ever get sexually attracted/turned on at the sight or
    in the presence of a great looking guy, is silly.
    
    And the bottom line is:  SO WHAT IF WOMEN DO!  A few women in this
    topic and in topic 511 have gone to great lengths to assure us that
    women, as a group, do not get turned on. (Tell that to the women who
    have pinched me in the rear and have rubbed certain parts of their
    anatomy against me in the workplace at various jobs I've had .... and 
    I don't even think I'm a great looking guy!)  It's as if there is
    something dirty or shameful about women getting turned on in a sexual way.
    It seems a lot of people out there just don't want this possibility --
    that women CAN get sexually aroused -- to enter their minds ... you 
    know, finding out for the first time that Santa Claus and the 
    Easter Bunny don't really exist, after all.  I guess some things never
    change.
    
    Paul

>      <<< Note 523.24 by IAMOK::MITCHELL "He got scrod at Plum Island" >>>

    
>	When my man is naked, I get sexually aroused. From the
>	sounds of what the other women are writing in here, I
>	must have an over abundance of hormones that are working
>	overtime.

	No, Kits, that's NOT what the women in here are saying.  The
	man you CARE for is a LOT different than just a "man on
	the street" or a "man in a locker room."

	The rampant twisting of what the issue is, is unreal.



	Are we talking about "naked men in general" or are we talking
	about professionals in locker rooms of the opposite sex,
	are we talking about being with your lover in the privacy of
	our own home...

	WHAT THE HELL is the situation we're discussing?  Personally,
	I'm discussing the "professionals in opposite sex locker rooms"
	scenario.

	Any other scenario and it would be a different discussion
	entirely.

	Can we all PLEASE discuss the same thing so we can at least have
	a solid basis for the discussion?

	kath

    Here goes (for me)
    
    1. (clothed) nice person, known or unknown, no sexual interest
     
    2. (clothed) nice person, known or unknown could imagine....
    
    3. (clothed) WOW! (enough said, walk into wall, or [ouch] fire hydrant)
    
    4. (naked) for purely physical reasons, no sexual interest [old etc]
    
    5. (naked) WOW! auto (not imune) response
    
    6. (naked) some I have a romantic sexual interest in WOW!
    
    7. (clothed) some I have a romantic sexual interest in.
    
    8. (naked or not) someone I must not have sexual interest in.
    
    
    How's that?

    .26  Kath,
    
    Based on everything you've said on this subject to date, it seems *you*
    may be twisting and playing games with these issues, Kath.
    
    In your response to .24 Kits, you ignored one of her key sentences. 
    She said, "I've been known to stutter or gulp for a breath when a well
    built guy in tight pants passes by."  She didn't necessarily say it had
    to be "her man" or any other man with whom she had developed a loving
    relationship.
    
    Why is it so difficult for you to even THINK about the fact that some
    women get turned on when, as kits said, "a well built guy in tight
    pants passes by"?   Is that thought so horrifying to you that you don't
    even let it into your head?   Would you befriend women "like that"?
    Is there anything wrong with women "like that"?
    
    Regarding your inquiry as to "what the hell are we discussing anyway"
    ...  in the base note I specified, "Some have suggested -- females
    mostly -- that it is virtually impossible for a woman, in or out of the
    mens locker room, to ogle at a goodlookoing guy's body.  I think that's
    ridiculous, based on my experience with women.  How do other men (and
    women) feel about that?"  I think that's pretty specific.  I even
    offered dictionary definitions of "ogle."  I didn't say these bodies
    had to be "naked" or partially clothed or fully clothed or whatever.
    
    If there is any issue-twisting going on here it seems you, in part,
    have had a hand in it.  Actually, it seems like avoidance and denial.
    Grow up, Kath.
    
    Paul

    Paul, I honestly don't think Kath is twisting anything.  Originally,
    this discussion was about naked men.  What most of the women have
    been saying is that it is not the nudity per se that is a turn-on,
    but attractiveness in general.  That, in general, the same men that	
    a woman would find attractive without clothes would be attractive 
    with clothes as well.  In a context like a locker room, the nudity
    is likely to be of little consequence, much as it would be at a nude
    beach (in a context like Kits being with "her man", it is likely to
    be of major consequence).

	A few undisputed facts:

	    Naked men, *by definition*, are not wearing tight pants.

	    Women do, on occasion, ogle at men's bodies.

    Nowhere does this translate into women going into men's locker rooms
    and ogling at the men simply because they're nude, which was, I believe,
    the original context.

	The point that some of us have been trying to make:

	    It isn't male nudity that would inspire women to ogle.
	    (It's physical attractiveness.  Whether or not the man is
	    wearing clothes doesn't matter all that much.)

		corollary: if a women reporter is going to ogle in a
		men's locker room, an NFL-supplied bathrobe isn't likely
		to stop her.

    None of the women have said anything about "women like that".  None
    have said it's impossible or abnormal for women to ogle at men's bodies.
    You're missing the point, Paul.

	Sharon

><<< Note 523.29 (Sharon)


	Thanks, Sharon.

	You've said it perfectly, and now I don't need to address
	anything to Paul. (Especially since I would blow up, since
	I feel he's intentionally twisted the original concept).

	I find it highly amusing that I'm being labelled a prude,
	a bitch and a child for making an observation about physical
	nudity in a locker room...

	My intent was not to generalize this concept to "oogling"
	in general, appreciating the opposite sex as a whole, or the
	friends I choose.

	My "concept" was directed at a specific scenario--a professional
	female news reporter being accused of getting "turned on"
	sexually in a male NFL locker room by simply the SIGHT of a
	nude male body.

	Thanks, Sharon.  I've learned even moreso than I'm not the
	best at getting my specific point across.  In fact, it seems
	lately that I pretty much suck at it.

	kathy

.29  Sharon,

Thanks for your entry.  Much of what you say makes sense. 

       Originally, this discussion was about naked men.  What most of
       the women have been saying is that it is not the nudity per se
       that is a turn-on, but attractiveness in general.  That, in
       general, the same men that a woman would find attractive
       without clothes would be attractive  with clothes as well.

Let me try to put this "nudity" issue to rest for good.  This
topic was *not* premised on the question:  Do women find nude
male bodies sexually attractive?  The intent was, as I thought .0
indicated, to ask:  Do women ogle and/or get sexually attracted
by the sight of, or in the presence of, a nice looking guy's
body -- clothed or nude or anything in between.  Clothing, or the
lack thereof, is *not* the issue here in this topic, as far as I
can tell, though back in topic 511, people were asking if it
were possible that Ms. Olson or any other woman could/would ogle
at and/or get turned on by the sight/presence of a guy's naked
body in a mens locker room.


    In a context like a locker room, the nudity
    is likely to be of little consequence, much as it would be at a nude
    beach (in a context like Kits being with "her man", it is likely to
    be of major consequence).

If you're asking here if it is possible for a woman to
get turned on or ogle at a naked guy in a locker room -- and
nudity is NOT NOT NOT NOT the intention of this topic -- I, based
on my experience with women during the 36 years I've been on this
planet, would say yes, it's HIGHLY possible.

	A few undisputed facts:

	    Naked men, *by definition*, are not wearing tight pants.

So, what's the point?   Women can be more attractive in tight
clothing than naked as well.  In fact, in my opinion, they usually are.

	    Women do, on occasion, ogle at men's bodies.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!  That's
all my point was ever about in this topic!  Personally, I'd say
it's more than "on occasion," having been to non-nude (as well as
nude) beaches and drawing my experience in many other walks of
life, where women -- usually the younger women -- ogle at a guy's
nice looking body; it's so obvious at times one would have to be
blind not to notice.

    Nowhere does this translate into women going into men's locker rooms
    and ogling at the men simply because they're nude, which was, I believe,
    the original context.

In this topic, 523, it is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the original
context or intent.  The context is ogling at a nice looking guy's
body, in or out of the locker room, clothed or unclothed or
anything in between-clothed.

	The point that some of us have been trying to make:

	    It isn't male nudity that would inspire women to ogle.
	    (It's physical attractiveness.  Whether or not the man is
	    wearing clothes doesn't matter all that much.)

Thank you!  I agree!  Though some women just MIGHT get turned on
by male nudity, yes?

		corollary: if a women reporter is going to ogle in a
		men's locker room, an NFL-supplied bathrobe isn't likely
		to stop her.

True.  And all reporters, male or female, are not always professional.

    None of the women have said anything about "women like that".

Sorry, but in my eyes Kath seemed to imply it over and over again.

    None have said it's impossible or abnormal for women to ogle
    at men's bodies.

THANK YOU again!  That's ALL I WANTED TO KNOW!   REALLY.

Best wishes,
Paul

    
    I may have missed his point, but I thought Paul moved the topic
    because he wanted to free this discussion from sexual harrassment
    issues and from just being about women reporters looking at men in 
    locker rooms and other professional settings.
    
    My impression was that Paul was asking his more generic question of
    "Don't women find naked male bodies sexually attractive too?" when he
    started the discussion in this (his) basenote.
    
    Perhaps we should let Paul describe what his question was really
    about. It's his basenote and it's his question and it's his concept, I
    don't really see how he could twist his own original concept.
    
    -Erik

    Hi y'all,
    
    I'm new to this conference, but the answers seem real obvious
    to me.  Some women get turned on by men, sexually, clothed,
    unclothed, strangers, lovers;  others don't, or combinations
    thereof.  Some women DO OGGLE, of that there is no doubt.
    
    It's an individual thing!
    
    Gene

    .30  
    
    Go ahead, Kath, blow up.  You've done it already.  One more time won't
    make any difference.
    
    I never called you a prude, a bitch, or a child.  I just said you're
    living in a timewarp, that's all!  Seriously, Kath, if you want to talk
    about namecalling, go reread your previous replies, especially the ones
    in 511.
    
    I've never been angry at ANY woman in these conferences until I started
    reading your entries.  As anyone who knows me will tell you, I am a
    big believe in the women's movement and in women's rights in general ...
    though I never liked the female mindset of the 1950s, the Donna Reed 
    set.  And maybe that's the cutting edge between you and me.
    
    Paul

    .33  Thanks Erik.  I tried to clarify the intent/context of this
    topic in my reply in .32.  If that isn't clear, I can try again to
    clarify what I thought this topic was all about.
    
    Regards,
    Paul
    

    
>    Perhaps we should let Paul describe what his question was really
>    about. It's his basenote and it's his question and it's his concept, I
>    don't really see how he could twist his own original concept.


	Well, now that I think I understand what Paul intended with his
	basenote.....

	It would be silly indeed to say that heterosexual women don't look
	at and/or appreciate a man's body...in general.  Hell, I do it
	quite often.  One specific occurance can't be generalized to
	cover the whole spectrum and should never be intended to.

	I guess there was a context switch that I was never aware of between
	the original discussion and the basenote of this discussion that
	I never picked up on.

	Sorry about that Paul......either I didn't catch the context
	switch or you weren't clear enough about the fact that you had
	made the context switch.

	Whichever.....


	I still hold my stance about women news reporters in male locker
	rooms and the lack of sexual stimulation, though!



	kath
	

>                       <<< Note 523.36 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>

	Listen, Paul.

	We have OBVIOUSLY had a disconnect about what this entire
	discussion was about.

	I thought you were discussing the issue I was, and you thought
	I was discussing the issue you were.

	We weren't.

	I've offered and apology and an explanation for what I thought
	we were discussing (but obviously weren't).

	Can't you just accept it at that without insulting me over and
	over?  I do NOT live in a time warp, I'm perhaps what I would
	consider a progressive woman of the '90s.

>    I've never been angry at ANY woman in these conferences until I started
>    reading your entries.  As anyone who knows me will tell you, I am a
>    big believe in the women's movement and in women's rights in general ...
>    though I never liked the female mindset of the 1950s, the Donna Reed 
>    set.  And maybe that's the cutting edge between you and me.


	I do not "live in the 50s" and I'm most definitely not in a
	"timewarp" and I'm SEVERELY insulted by that accusation.

	Why can't you just accept that there was a disconnect on what
	the context of the topic we were talking about was instead of
	continually portraying me as sometime that I most DEFINITELY am
	not.


	kathy

    .39
    
    I entered reply .36 before reading your apology and comments about
    misunderstanding in .38.  Thank you for trying to mend fences here.
    Though I never consciously tried to "switch contexts" after the
    basenote -- my intent is as it was in .0 -- I am willing to chaulk this
    up to a big misunderstanding if you are.  I now know better where you
    are coming from after reading .38 and .39.
    
    So shall we make peace?
    
    Paul
    

    NAW! fight some more!
    
    %^).
    
    

    	RE: .0  Paul

    	Well, let me say first off, that I'm glad most of you have stopped
    	yelling at Kath.  Reading the whole discussion in one sitting (just
    	now) makes it obvious that people were on different wavelengths
    	on this.  Glad it's settled now.

    	However, I'd like to comment on something you wrote in the basenote.

    	> This reminds me of an experience long ago, in one of my Northeastern 
    	> newswriting classes.  A female television sports reporter was a guest 
    	> speaker for our class.  Among other things, she was asked, "How do 
    	> you feel about interviewing male athletes in their locker room when 
    	> they are walking around naked?"  She replied, "Well, I've walked past
    	> the shower room a few times and I've looked in, and I saw the guys 
    	> showering, naked, and it's no big deal!" The female students thought 
    	> she was a real strong woman.  However, I, and several other men in 
    	> the class got very angry and resentful, simply because our society 
    	> at large -- and a whole lot of women -- think that men in general do 
    	> not value their sexual privacy, the way women value THEIR sexual 
    	> privacy. 

    	Please explain to me why this made you mad (and why you drew this
    	conclusion from a professional woman's comment that the naked men's
    	bodies were "no big deal")?

    	Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this:

    	Women don't get as many chances as men do (evidently) to walk around
    	naked in front of each other in semi-public places like locker rooms - 
    	but we do find occasion to be on a table for pelvic examinations (with
    	our privates exposed to the professionals who work in the doctor's
    	office or hospital where we happen to be.)

    	Now.  If a male nurse (and there are males who prep women for this
    	exam) were to say, "I've seen the vaginas of a great many women and 
    	it's no big deal" - I'd consider him a HELL of a lot more appropriate
    	in a pelvic examination room than if he'd said, "I get horny every 
    	time I see a woman's body in this position during an examination."

    	Same goes for a male gynecologist.  If the man can't be professional
    	and consider women's bodies "no big deal" in this situation, then
    	he probably isn't tending to his job properly (and ought to find
    	another specialty.)

    	The reporter who told your class it was "no big deal" to see naked
    	bodies wasn't insulting men.  She was being professional.  

    	Further, I think this woman was showing greater respect for these
    	men's bodies by NOT letting them become a big deal to her.  I'm
    	sure that if she were in a situation where men could see her body
    	in some professional capacity, she'd hope for the same professionalism 
    	(enough to think of her naked body as "no big deal" either.)  There's
	a time and a place for sexual attraction, but it's very seldom good
    	or appropriate in a setting where one or both people are in the process
    	of doing their jobs.  It's better to tune it out (so it becomes no
    	big deal in that particular situation.)
    
    	Do you see what I mean?  It has nothing to do with whether or not
    	men or women can be highly turned on (by the same people, even!)
    	in some other situation.
    
    	Your anger at her surprised me, and I just wondered if you realized
    	there's another perspective to consider on this.

    	By the way, I realize that this topic is not about nudity at all,
    	so this is a side issue completely...  However, it's not worth a
    	topic of its own, so maybe someone would be willing to hazard a
    	guess about this.

    	If nude bodies had the same impact on women as they have on men,
    	they why is most soft and hard porn aimed at a predominantly male
    	audience? 

    	As an example, why are there so many different male publications
    	like Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc., while the only similar
    	female offering (Playgirl) never became very popular?  (Playgirl
    	isn't even in business anymore, is it?  I can't remember seeing
    	a copy since 1974.)

    	Any thoughts on this?

    	P.S. If anyone is thinking that women might be embarrassed to
    	buy soft porn (or hard porn,) I doubt that's it.  Women could
    	get hold of these things one way or another, if it were an
    	important source of entertainment.

    	I'm sure some/many women *do* read/buy/rent soft and hard porn,
    	but there's still a significantly larger male audience for it.

    	What do you suppose accounts for this difference?

    	RE: .45  Mike Z.

    	Well, I'd agree that men are more willing to spend money on porn
    	than women are (even though women have more and more money these
    	days.)  And I agree that the porn is designed to appeal to men
    	for this reason.

    	It makes you wonder what "women's porn" (heterosexual style) might
    	look like, if there were such a thing.  There isn't, though, which
    	says something in itself.
    
    	By the way...

    	Burt Reynolds was the centerfold in Cosmopolitan, not Playgirl,
    	and they showed all of him EXCEPT the part that could have been,
    	er, relaxed.  (I happened to see that issue.)  ;^)

    	The few issues of Playgirl that I saw (admittedly only 2 or 3)
    	had handsome young men in a semi-relaxed state (everything visible.)

    	Most of the women I knew back then would look at the bodies, and
    	they were nice enough - but it wasn't that big of a deal to anyone
    	I knew.  It was a novelty, but the naked body by itself didn't seem
    	to have much of an impact (even though it would have made sense
    	if it did.)  We were all young and liked men's bodies.  I don't know
    	what the magazines lacked.  I honestly don't.

    	Some of the guys had very cute faces and pretty eyes - I remember
    	liking their choice of models well enough.

    Suzanne
    
    Playgirl still exists, they had it for sale in the book store where
    I worked last winter. I did flip through and issue out of curiosity
    one night. I do have to admit that I didn't find the pictures
    particulary exciting.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .42

    	Well, let me say first off, that I'm glad most of you have stopped
    	yelling at Kath.  Reading the whole discussion in one sitting (just
    	now) makes it obvious that people were on different wavelengths
    	on this.  Glad it's settled now.

Well, I think the "yelling" went both ways, but I am glad it's
settled now (I hope) too.  For those who want to see more
fighting and blood-letting, you may be in for a disappointment!
;)

    	> This reminds me of an experience long ago, in one of my Northeastern 
    	> newswriting classes.  A female television sports reporter was a guest 
    	> speaker for our class.  Among other things, she was asked, "How do 
    	> you feel about interviewing male athletes in their locker room when 
    	> they are walking around naked?"  She replied, "Well, I've walked past
    	> the shower room a few times and I've looked in, and I saw the guys 
    	> showering, naked, and it's no big deal!" The female students thought 
    	> she was a real strong woman.  However, I, and several other men in 
    	> the class got very angry and resentful, simply because our society 
    	> at large -- and a whole lot of women -- think that men in general do 
    	> not value their sexual privacy, the way women value THEIR sexual 
    	> privacy. 

    	Please explain to me why this made you mad (and why you drew this
    	conclusion from a professional woman's comment that the naked men's
    	bodies were "no big deal")?

I was angered for a couple of reasons ....

1.  That she would admittedly "look in" to the room in which men
    were showering made me angry.  She admitted to "looking in" more than
    once, by the way.  I think that shows a lack of courtesy and
    respect.  

2.  When she said, "it's no big deal" I processed that as meaning
    it was not only "no big deal" for her, but also ought to be
    "no big deal" for the men showering, either.  In other words,
    IMHO, she was saying that this sort of thing -- members of
    the opposite sex looking into shower rooms -- shouldn't be
    any "big deal" at all.

    That's what made me angry, the implication that sexual
    privacy is "no big deal" in general and that it shouldn't be any
    big deal to men to have a woman looking at them shower.  That's 
    why I said that sometimes it seems that society and women at
    large seem to believe that men do not value their sexual
    privacy nearly as much as women do.   And from a man's point
    of view, if you *do* value your sexual privacy you have to
    think about being considered a "wimp" by a large segment of the
    population.

  	Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this:

    	Women don't get as many chances as men do (evidently) to walk around
    	naked in front of each other in semi-public places like locker rooms - 
    	but we do find occasion to be on a table for pelvic examinations (with
    	our privates exposed to the professionals who work in the doctor's
    	office or hospital where we happen to be.)
    	Now.  If a male nurse (and there are males who prep women for this
    	exam) were to say, "I've seen the vaginas of a great many women and 
    	it's no big deal" - I'd consider him a HELL of a lot more appropriate
    	in a pelvic examination room than if he'd said, "I get horny every 
    	time I see a woman's body in this position during an examination."
    	Same goes for a male gynecologist.  If the man can't be professional
    	and consider women's bodies "no big deal" in this situation, then
    	he probably isn't tending to his job properly (and ought to find
    	another specialty.)

Well, I think you're talking apples and oranges here.  To me
these seem like two different things.  Male doctors and nurses
are there for the professional purpose of examining a woman's body
-- that's their job in that they are trained to do it and they
are paid to do it.  A female reporter is in a mens locker room
to gather information -- to ask questions about sports and take
notes, not to examine/look at at unclothed bodies.  I've been
unclothed in a hospital room, in the presence of female doctors
and nurses and don't think about or care about sexual privacy in
their presence.  THEIR JOB is to examine my body and make it
better for goodness sakes!!  However -- and this is a BIG HOWEVER
-- if I were showering in a locker room, and a female reporter
passed by and looked in, then I would get angry.  I expect to
have privacy in a situation like that.

This brings me to another flashback -- to junior high school,
when we 6th and 7th grade boys undressed and showered in the boys
locker room after gym class.  Occasionally, some of the female
teachers and guidance counselors would waltz right into our
locker room to talk to our gym teacher.  This made most of
the boys angry.  What would happen, do you think, if some male members
of the school staff -- male teachers -- strolled into the girls
locker room?  It would be nothing short of blasmphemy, I'm sure.
And this is just one more example where the sexual privacy of men
in our society is thought of as "no big deal" as compared with
the sexual privacy of women.

    	The reporter who told your class it was "no big deal" to see naked
    	bodies wasn't insulting men.  She was being professional.  

Well, gathering information is professional.  Telling us that
"looking into a shower room" where naked men are washing
themsleves is "no big deal" -- for her and those men -- I
think is unprofessional.  It may have been no big deal to her, but
she didn't consider it might be a big deal for them.  If I told
you that I, as a reporter, walked by a female shower room and
"looked in" at naked women, and told you "it's no big deal," how
would you feel?   How would most women feel?  Especially the ones
who were being looked at?  A lot of women might consider me a pig.  
A lot of men might not consider me a "real man."

    	Further, I think this woman was showing greater respect for these
    	men's bodies by NOT letting them become a big deal to her.  I'm
    	sure that if she were in a situation where men could see her body
    	in some professional capacity, she'd hope for the same professionalism 
    	(enough to think of her naked body as "no big deal"
        either.)

Your use of the word "professional" seems pretty loose.  No pun
intended.  ;)  ;)  The "professional capacity" of doctors and
nurses is to examine the human body.  The "professional capacity"
of a reporter is to gather information, take notes, report the
news, and write a story.

    	Your anger at her surprised me, and I just wondered if you realized
    	there's another perspective to consider on this.

Well, I respect your perspective, but I hope you can see where
this anger comes from.

Thanks,
Paul
  

    
    	RE: .48  Paul
    
    	Ok, I see your point.
    
    	The reporter didn't need to "look into" the shower to see the men
    	naked.  It was unnecessary and disrespectful (and not part of her
    	job.)
    
    	Thanks for the explanation.
    

    
    	Wow. This happy ending belongs in "I love it when..." :-)
    
    	-Erik

    Re:  Pornography for heterosexual women
    
    As far as I can tell, there isn't much available out there for straight
    women in the way of female-erotica material.  That which is available,
    in videos and magazines, probably isn't what straight women want to see
    to begin with.  Most "straight" videos are oriented toward men, and the
    vast majority of these have one or more lesbian scenes.  (I guess a lot
    of men would prefer to see two women having sex with other women instead 
    of seeing a man having sex with a woman.) Some women I know tell me they 
    have difficulty finding material "without boobs."   
    
    On the other hand, I think there *is* a big demand out there for female
    erotica.  There is a demand out there to satisfy certain female sexual
    fantasies.  Just look at the way young women SWOON over rock stars,
    like New Kids on the Block, as well as other male celebrities, like
    movie star.  (Talk about ogling! ;)  Maybe straight women would rather
    see strip shows -- I think "exotic male dancers" is the "official" term
    for it -- rather than videos or magazines.  Male beefcake calendars
    always seem to be in high demand as well.
    
    I know this next point will start a big rathole ... but... I tend to
    agree with Mike in general about one thing ...  If a woman gets horny
    and needs to release a certain amount of sexual energy, then she would
    have a much easier time of finding "the real thing" -- a nice looking
    guy -- with whom to release said energy.  Men generally say "yes" more
    often than women say "yes" -- for WHATEVER reason, be it that men feel
    obligated to say "yes" to prove they're real men or that women feel
    obligated to say "no" to be lady like.  Who knows?   So, heterosexual 
    men may turn to pornography in lieu of the "real thing," which
    women, I think, can attain easier.  
    
    Just when you thought it was safe to say something controversial
    again!!!  ;)
    
    Paul
    
    If this discussion keeps up, maybe someone ought to open another topic
    for it. 

    RE .48
    
    I thought that this should be easy to understand. He is correct and I
    interpret it the same way. The last paragraph in response .134 (I
    think) on the other note also said it all from the male perspective. I,
    like paul would object to having a 'voyuer' (sp) while I was showering.
    I have had female doctors examine my privates and believe, the shower
    incident _IS_ different. Even the doctors and nurses leave when you
    (un)dress unless you need help.
    
    There was a note in =wm about a woman who was being examined after a
    rape. She was in the sturrips with no privacy from the police who were
    there to take her information.  Same sorta thing (from the privacy
    point of view)
    
    Steve

    When I look at a man who I find attractive, I don't notice the lower
    extremities, probably the eyes more so than anything.  I don't think
    women are as blatant at "checking men out" as men are about checking
    out women.  Trying to dredge up my exact thoughts when I see someone
    cute, I'd have to say that I notice his upper body (mostly his eyes as
    stated previously) and in an instant, it registers in my brain "hey,
    he's sorta cute".  Then I ignore it and go about my business.  That's
    exactly what I thought this morning when my co-worker and I saw a cute
    guy in the caf this morning, anyway.  And I didn't look at his "curves"
    or anything else!
    
    On the other hand, my current SO is an "ogler" and pretty blatant.  I
    know he would never cheat on me, but it really ticks me off, because
    it's disrespectful.  Mom says to me "if he don't look, he ain't alive",
    and says my dad does the same thing.  My past SO's have "ogled" too, to
    the extent of almost getting into car accidents while driving down the
    highway!  And I don't consider myself to be ugly, so I just figure it
    must be a "male thing".  And I've noticed the same behavior in my
    brother, brother-in-law, uncle and the guys I work closely with.  So go
    figure ....
    
    I would probably be sick at one of those Chippendale's things.  Never
    have I been interested in joining the sweating masses of females
    panting over some guy stripping.  I sometimes wonder if women go to
    male strippers just to "get back at" men for going to female strippers. 
    Who knows, but I think these things demean women and personally, I'd
    never go to one.
    
    IMHO, of course.  Tammi
               

    .53  Right Steve.  To say that the police were there just to do "their
    job" in a "professional capacity" would not sit well with most women. 
    In fact, I think most women wouldn't care if the police didn't "get
    their story" if it meant a violation of their sexual privacy.
    
    .54  Thanks for sharing your views.  However, from what I can tell,
    a lot of women do their fair share of ogling at lot more than just a 
    guy's nice set of eyes.  Many women stare at a guy's rear end.  In fact,
    statistics show this is the most OFTEN looked-at part of a guy's
    anatomy. (How many guys out there have been goosed by women?) Many 
    women also stare at crotches.  I've seen it with MY own eyes.
    I respect the fact that you don't look at a good looking guy's "lower
    extremities" -- clothed or unclothed -- but my point is a lot of women 
    do.  And my other point is:  So what if they do?
    
    Paul
      

	When I look at a man, I take into consideration the *total*
	man....eyes, shoulders..and yes <gasp> below the belt...
	gosh...men have legs too !!   :-)

	
	Yup !  I check men out............must be my overactive
	hormones working overtime again.

	
	kits
	

    .54  BTW, Tammi
    
          "...Never have I been interested in joining the sweating masses
           of females panting over some guy stripping.  I sometimes wonder
           if women go to male strippers just to "get back at" men for
           going to female strippers.  Who knows, but I think these things
           demean females ..."
    
    What if these "sweating masses of panting females" go to these
    shows because they actually enjoy it?
    
    Paul
    

    
    	RE: .53  Steve
    
    	> I AGREE...why did this take sooo long?
    
    	Well, it hasn't been discussed up to now, so all it needed was
    	some slight clarification.
    
    	Now it seems clear.  I do see a difference when someone "looks"
    	when it isn't necessary nor part of the person's job.
    

    
.54>    I would probably be sick at one of those Chippendale's things.  Never
.54>    have I been interested in joining the sweating masses of females
.54>    panting over some guy stripping.  I sometimes wonder if women go to
.54>    male strippers just to "get back at" men for going to female strippers. 
.54>    Who knows, but I think these things demean women and personally, I'd
.54>    never go to one.
    

Umm.. Tammi, you're missing out on a lot :-).. No, really I have been to a 
Chippendale's thing, and it was wondeful. It was done with the men on 
stage, I didn't notice any sweating masses of females, what I did notice 
was some VERY nice choregraphed music and dancing by men. The stripping 
that did go on was done very tastefully, and professionally.  Never once 
did I see anything that I wouldn't see on a beach.               

BTW: I didn't go "to get back at" men, I went to have an evening out with a 
bunch of female friends, and had a wonderfully good time.

    
    Sounds kind of normal to me.....doesn't one usually look at more
    than just the head???
    

>                       <<< Note 523.55 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>

>    In fact, I think most women wouldn't care if the police didn't "get
>    their story" if it meant a violation of their sexual privacy.

    What?  Most rape "victims" that are being examined just want the
    asshole that did it to be caught.  They have no feeling nor understanding
    of what "sexual privacy" is.....they are distraught, they usually
    have no comprehension that the policeperson is even OBSERVING the
    examination.

    You're putting much too much stock in women and their demand for
    sexual privacy.....especially in a highly emotional state.

    After a rape, a woman usually has NO concept of what sexual
    privacy is......
       

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, you've stated it enough times here that I think we get the
    point that if any of us say that we don't enjoy "oogling" that you're
    just going to dismiss us as being "not of the norm" and dispute
    our beliefs.

    It's beginning to sound very condescending and tiresome.. Please....
    stop discrediting what we, as women, feel and think.  Perhaps its
    not what YOU have observed, but our experiences and our ideals are
    VERY real and very important to us........

    Please.....

	kath

.62  Kath,

       How can we listen to you, when you discredit us all the
       time?

Sigh.  I thought we cleared up a lot of this stuff already. First
you apologize to me and then you attack me, personally. I thought
we had made some peace and had worked through a lot of this
stuff.  Please make up your mind whether or not I am hostile to
women's concerns.   Actually, it's hard to believe I am the kind 
of guy you have portrayed here, given my history of
sticking up for women's rights.

    What?  Most rape "victims" that are being examined just want the
    asshole that did it to be caught.  They have no feeling nor understanding
    of what "sexual privacy" is.....they are distraught, they usually
    have no comprehension that the policeperson is even OBSERVING the
    examination.

    You're putting much too much stock in women and their demand for
    sexual privacy.....especially in a highly emotional state.

    After a rape, a woman usually has NO concept of what sexual
    privacy is......
       
Please do not imply that I am insensitive to women getting raped
and sexually assaulted.  A few very close females in my life
have been raped, and they have confided to me all the gory details!  I
understand what a "highly emotional state" is because I wanted to
tear these "assholes" apart, limb from limb.  And how do you know *I*
have never been sexually/physically assaulted?  I was merely
speaking to the propriety of a male police officer being in a 
hospital room with a nude woman and comparing it with the
propriety of a female sports reporter being among nude male
athletes in a mens locker room.

    Also, you've stated it enough times here that I think we get the
    point that if any of us say that we don't enjoy "oogling" that you're
    just going to dismiss us as being "not of the norm" and dispute
    our beliefs.

Again, I thought this stuff was behind us.  But let me be very
clear about my response.  I don't dispute the fact that you,
Kathy, "don't enjoy 'oogling'"  I *believe you* when you and
others say you don't enjoy ogling.  That's fine.  You are
entitled to your turnons and turnoffs.  Great.  However, I am
entitled to my personal opinion about ogling in general.  And my
personal opinion is that a lot of women, I would say most, do
enjoy looking at the body of a nice-looking guy.  My opinion is
that a lot of women *do* ogle.  You apparently don't agree.  You
have your opinion and I have mine.  What's so difficult about
that?

    It's beginning to sound very condescending and tiresome..

I hear tiring condescending comments from you too.

    Please....stop discrediting what we, as women, feel and
    think.

I'm not discrediting anything.  I respect how you, Kathy, feel
about "ogling" and such.  However, you apparently do not speak
for all, or even most, women, IMHO.   Who are you speaking for?
Kathy or womankind?  The line seems to get blurred here.

   Perhaps its not what YOU have observed, but our experiences and
   our ideals are VERY real and very important to us........

Again, who are you speaking for?  Yourself or for women as a
group?   Perhaps it would help to specify next time.

I am finding that women's experiences and women's ideals vary
widely.  Kits' experiences and ideals and feelings, for example,
seem to differ with yours.  Am I *really* discrediting women?
Unlikely.  A woman, IMHO, can discredit womankind just as well as a man.

Paul

    My personal experience tells me that women and men are indeed quite
    different when it comes to ogling, and how ogling is perceived by men
    and women, so maybe here's where the misunderstanding lies.
    When many men ogle and the "object" is attracting, they are positively
    ablaze with fantasies of what they'd be doing with that body given a
    bit more of intimacy. In most men's world, attraction means desire, no
    ifs and buts, it's wired-in behaviour, for nature dictates male animals
    to spread around their genes as widely as possible.
    Women indeed are programmed differently. They are more rational when it
    comes to love and sexuality, for evolution has programmed female
    animals to look for more than a bulky biceps, the ideal male provides a
    family with security during the long education time required for slowly
    growing "pups" as is the case in more complex animal species. Only that
    guarantess the success of the pups and justifies the long time invested
    in the gestation and education of children.
    That's the biological part, to cut a long story short. I just hope
    nobody feels offended by the terminology...
    Women ogle, too, but it just provides them with a sort of esthetical
    experience and they can fully unlink it from their libido. More than that,
    some of them would feel that extremely attractive and well-built men
    are a bit threatening, for such a specimen surely isn't the type of
    person you can rely on for child-care etc...
    I have trained decathlon and swimming for 8 years and could pride
    myself of having a nice body and generally looking good. Let me tell
    you, it doesn't help too much with women, at least not with the ones
    I've been after. On the contrary, I had to first fight against the
    misconception that I was the self-centered narcissus I look like. For a
    good relationship, personality of the men is the cutting edge for a
    women. It's unbelievable for many men, but it'd make things easier, and
    men more self-assured, if they'd realize it. 
    Of course female-friends have teased me, for example when lying at the
    beach, and telling with a nasty smile that maybe it'd great to end up
    in bed together, but, heck, it was a game... they know too well what
    effect these games have on men (it seems our IQ decreases alarmingly
    with every positive sign we get, and we have to control ourselves to
    inhibit druming on our chest with both fists..), and of course they
    test the effect every now and then, I don't blame 'em, it must be a
    funny thing to witness... But they aren't for REAL in these
    situations...
    Sometimes, after a long party and lots of wine and conversation,
    the defenses run low and women succumb to our assaults. But, heck, if
    it went too fast, I guess you folks have noticed the effects it has the
    morning after...self-recrimination, a destroyed friendship... At least
    that's my experience. 
    Being rational in a certain way when it comes to love is a common
    "women" attitude. Just accept that women operate a bit different than
    we men do, for they've got a lot more to lose in a relationship...
    Oh well, this reply is surely so plastered with the "men do this" and
    "women are that" that it will sicken me when I reread it, but keep in
    mind I'm talking from my own experience here, I'm not dumb enough to
    think this to be a great psychological study of the depths of men's and
    women's minds and libidos... But in my own life, bearing this in mind
    has helped me to understand many situations a lot better...
    ...Paul

>                       <<< Note 523.63 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>

>Sigh.  I thought we cleared up a lot of this stuff already. First
>you apologize to me and then you attack me, personally.

	Paul.  I'm not "attacking you" per se, anymore than you're attacking
	us.

	There have been multiple women in here that have expressed their
	opinions (that were very much in line with my own) and to each
	and every one of us, you have said [paraphrased].

	"I grant that you're that way, but you're "obviously different"
	than the majority of women on the face of this earth, because I
	think so."

	You discredit our viewpoint by telling us that we're "different"
	than the average women--in a sense, "blowing us off" and not
	treating our feelings are important as well.  How many women is
	is going to take to stand up in this conference and say this
	before you realize that there are a LARGE PERCENTAGE of women
	that feel this way?

>Please make up your mind whether or not I am hostile to
>women's concerns.   Actually, it's hard to believe I am the kind 
>of guy you have portrayed here, given my history of
>sticking up for women's rights.

	And it's hard to believe that I'm the kind of woman that you
	repeatedly portrayed as.  I've never considered myself racist
	in the least, yet just last week in another conference I was
	called "racist."  It really got me THINKING that perhaps we
	aren't all PERFECT in our stance.....

	Please, if you want to understand what I'm saying re-read every
	note that you have addressed in this string to women that have
	said the same sort of thing that I have said.   In everyone
	one of them you say "Yes.....BUT..."


>Please do not imply that I am insensitive to women getting raped
>and sexually assaulted.

	I'm not implying that you're insensitive.  I'm saying that
	a policeman watching a rape victims examination is VERY
	different than a woman in a man's locker room scenario.  From
	ALL aspects.  I know, Paul....I've been than "woman in the
	hospital room."   Because of the emotional dynamics involved
	in a rape situation, the two scenarios aren't even comparible
	in the least.......

	"Sexual privacy" is NOT a woman's utmost concern at the time,
	in fact, it's very doubtful that the woman is going to even
	recognize the policeman is there.

>that a lot of women *do* ogle.  You apparently don't agree.  You
>have your opinion and I have mine.  What's so difficult about
>that?

	Nothing is "difficult" about you having your own opinion.  What's
	difficult is when you so casually brush off those of us
	that differ from you without even listening to what we're
	saying.

	Let me ask you one question....what's the use of discussing
	your opinions on life if you're not willing to re-examine those
	opinions to see if they're correct.




	Forget it.  I give up.....  You obviously hold an opinion that
	I feel is wrong.  that's okay.....  But it's really felt
	belittling to me when you continually say "so what's wrong with
	admitting it" and stuff like that.

	Like I should be "admitting" something to myself and to you and
	that I'm LYING--or that I'm just a freak of nature or something.


	Generalizations are almost ALWAYS a bad thing, IMO.

	kathy

>     <<< Note 523.65 by SELECT::GALLUP "Drunken milkmen, driving drunk" >>>

>	You discredit our viewpoint by telling us that we're "different"
>	than the average women--in a sense, "blowing us off" and not
>	treating our feelings are important as well.  How many women is
>	is going to take to stand up in this conference and say this
>	before you realize that there are a LARGE PERCENTAGE of women
>	that feel this way?


	I would hardly say that the few women who contribute
	to this conference and perhaps agree with what you
	have to say make up a LARGE PERCENTAGE of women.

	There is life outside MENNOTES..and outside DIGITAL.


>	Generalizations are almost ALWAYS a bad thing, IMO.

	yup !



	kits

    I find the nude male body a total turn off, but an attractive clothed
    male body may get a glance or two from me. Especially as he walks away.
    My preference is for men with 20 or 30 extra pounds evenly distributed
    over there body. Thin men and body builder types don't appeal to me.
    
    Just my female oppinion.
    
    +pat+

    
    I think that a male body, nude or not, is more beautiful than the
    average female's body.  I've been an ogler for many, many years.  I
    love em all......  Crotch watching at lunchtime is one of my more
    pleasanter pasttimes.....
    
    The ladies who don't find the male body attractive or erotic, must be
    frigid old hags.
    

.65

	Paul.  I'm not "attacking you" per se, anymore than you're attacking
	us.

Us?  Please speak for yourself.  I don't feel angry with anyone
else here, except you.  I think it would be a mistake to take my
alleged "attacks" as directed toward womankind, instead of toward
you, individually.  

	There have been multiple women in here that have expressed their
	opinions (that were very much in line with my own)

Well, something must be different between you and "multiple
women" because your comments are the only ones that are offensive.

        and to each
	and every one of us, you have said [paraphrased].
	"I grant that you're that way, but you're "obviously different"
	than the majority of women on the face of this earth, because I
	think so."

In this notes conference it is truly, scientifically impossible
to ascertain how "the majority of women on the face of this
earth" feel about this issue.  So what we're left with here are
our raw, unprocessed opinions.

When you say, "I don't 'ogle' at men" or whatever, fine.  I don't
dispute or disagree with that.

When you say, "Women in general do not 'ogle' at men" or
whatever, then I disagree, and I am entitled to disagree and
point out that I have seen a lot of women ogling at men.

The problem here, I think, is that you casually interchange "I" and "my"
with "women" and "our".   

	You discredit our viewpoint by telling us that we're "different"
	than the average women--in a sense, "blowing us off" and not
	treating our feelings are important as well.

Your continued use of words like "us" and "our" is making me
uncomfortable. In my eyes, you keep blurring the distinction
between how you, personally, feel and how women in general feel. 
I think your feelings and those of other women are important.
I also think women's feelings vary more than you think they do. 
That's why I started this topic -- to have a healthy exchange of
ideas and viewpoints.  However, when you suggest that "Most women
feel the way I do" then, yes, I will blow it off.

        How many women is
	is going to take to stand up in this conference and say this
	before you realize that there are a LARGE PERCENTAGE of women
	that feel this way?

Oh?  Sounds like *you're* the one trying to coerce ME to "admit" to
things!

Be serious.  This conference does not constitute a "gallup poll."
;)  You're exaggerating and generalizing.  I haven't seen
anything in this conference to indicate that a LARGE percentage
or a SMALL percentage or an ANYTHING IN BETWEEN percentage of
American women feels the way you do.  This notes topic and our
tiny slice of society does not represent what a LARGE PERCENTAGE
of American women feel.  It can't.  We simply share our opinions
and perhaps learn and grow in the process.  You seem to be
overly concerned about whether or not I believe a LARGE
PERCENTAGE of women agree/disagree with you, personally.

        >Please make up your mind whether or not I am hostile to
        >women's concerns.   Actually, it's hard to believe I am the kind 
        >of guy you have portrayed here, given my history of
        >sticking up for women's rights.

	And it's hard to believe that I'm the kind of woman that you
	repeatedly portrayed as.

Well, I guess we don't know each other.

        I've never considered myself racist
	in the least, yet just last week in another conference I was
	called "racist."  It really got me THINKING that perhaps we
	aren't all PERFECT in our stance.....

I don't know enough about you to comment on this, one way or the
other.

        In everyone one of them you say "Yes.....BUT..."

What am I supposed to say after each response with which I
disagree?  "Oh thank you.  Your personal opinion has enlightened
me.  Now I know how most women are.  To hell personal life
experiences!"

         >that a lot of women *do* ogle.  You apparently don't agree.  You
         >have your opinion and I have mine.  What's so difficult about
         >that?

	Nothing is "difficult" about you having your own opinion.  What's
	difficult is when you so casually brush off those of us
	that differ from you without even listening to what we're
	saying.

I hear *precisely* what you, Kathy, are saying about women in
general.  And I don't agree.  When I disagree, however, you,
Kathy, say that I am attacking and discreting womankind.   I
respect your viewpoints -- but they are just that, YOURS.
What I hear you saying is, "If you don't agree with my viewpoint,
then you are anti-female and you don't understand womankind."

	Let me ask you one question....what's the use of discussing
	your opinions on life if you're not willing to re-examine those
	opinions to see if they're correct.

I am very willing re-examine those opinions.  That's why I'm
spending SO MUCH of my time discussing these issues.  But so far
nothing you've said is making me want to abandon any previously
held opinions; in fact, everything you've said is having the
opposite effect.

	Forget it.  I give up.....  You obviously hold an opinion that
	I feel is wrong.  that's okay.....

Okay?  Doubtful.

        But it's really felt
	belittling to me when you continually say "so what's wrong with
	admitting it" and stuff like that.

For the thousandth time, I *believe you are sincere* when you say
that you, personally, feel this way or that way.  I'm not trying
to get you to "admit" anything.  

	Like I should be "admitting" something to myself and to you and
	that I'm LYING--or that I'm just a freak of nature or something.

How dramatic.  You seem to take everything so personally.  In the
words of Richard Nixon, "I won't dignify that with a comment."

Paul

    Re .68: What's the matter, UOB - SOAPBOX been shut down again? ;-)
    
    -b (the FOH)

    RE: Paul FWIW- I find your comments torwards Kathy more of an attack
    than Kathy's.  
    
    I have a diplomatic solution for this confrontation.  Some women do
    ogle and some women don't.  That's the way It was this 12th day of
    October,  1990.  Now sign the peace treaty as ordered by the UN. :')
    
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    and I find Kathy's more of an attack than Paul's.
    
    wanna fight, mike?
    
    %^).
    

    if you'd like a broader sampling of what men and women find erotic, try
    looking at their erotica.  
    
    soft and hard porn for men abounds and i'm confident everyone here has
    seen at least a little bit of it right?  it consists of pictures, more
    or less explicitly sexual, but mostly nude (yes, a person is still
    effectively nude with garters or chains or thongs), and stories,
    extremely specific and explicitely sexual.
    
    soft porn for women is everywhere, and harder stuff exists, too (it's a
    little harder to get).  soft porn is mostly implied and verbal - voila
    the romance novel, with its references to "his swelling manhood" (take
    a guess) and ocean waves (her climax) and zero reference to intercourse
    per se.  the harder stuff is still 90% verbal, but is extremely
    explicit - voila anais nin and lonnie barbach (although nin wrote her
    stuff for a MALE client).
    
    soft core porn is BIG business - and if you take all the playboy,
    penthouse, and hustler sales, i doubt they'd be bigger bucks than the
    romance novel sales.
    
    from that, i'd say that women, as a whole, are stimulated SEXUALLY
    (yeah, like unambiguous sexual arousal) by a situation and a
    personality more than by a physical object.  and men, as a whole, get
    more from the object and need less of a setting/personality to let
    their imaginations loose.
    
    re ogling - yeah i do it.  but to be sexually attracted OR sexually
    aroused by what i see, i have to ask my imagination to kick in and help
    out.  if i do not take that conscious step of engaging the imagination,
    even the most overhwelmingly good looking person - clothed or not -
    will not get me sexually attracted or sexually aroused.  i think this
    may be what kath is trying to say.
    
    lee

   > soft core porn is BIG business - and if you take all the playboy,
   > penthouse, and hustler sales, i doubt they'd be bigger bucks than the
   > romance novel sales.
   
    According to the flyer for "Not a Love Story" (an anti-porn film)
    sales of porn in North America exceed the sales of all other forms
    of publishing put together. I find it pretty odd <--- disclaimer.
    
    Mark. 
    

    Re  .72
    
    Mike, I would loooooooove to sign a peace treaty and end these
    hostilities for good .... but.... but ... or should I say "YA BUT"?  
    ;) ;)  ... but ...
    
    I feel a little uncomfortable affixing my signature to any treaty that
    has as its preamble:
    
                  "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States do ordain and
                   establish that Paul's comments are more of an attack
                   than Kathy's .... "   ;)
    
    Go back and draw up another peace treaty without all the 
    who-attacked-who-more-than-who stuff, and I'll be happy to make peace!  
    
    Cheers,
    Paul  

Re:-2 Don't know how they qualified porn. My other amazing porn industry fact is
that if all the porn in the U.S was produced by a single company it would be
about #40 on the fortune 500, which is somewhere around the Rank Xerox level.
(Source:'Pornography and Sexual Violence', Everywoman).

Less interestingly but more relevant: 10% of porn is targeted at women: this
including a new breed of 'romantic porn'. (Source: Network Seven, Channel 4
Television).

    re: peace treaty
    
    	I have to take Pauls side on this one.  I think he is bringing up
    some valid points here.  And granted that there is life outside digtal
    and Mennotes, I can say that I feel he is speaking for the majority of
    men.  I consider myself fairly average and I have most of the same
    thoughts so I would say that most other men will too.  I don't see that
    Kath has put all the appropriate things on the table.  She is taking
    the personal attack bit a little too much.  This is a conversation on
    "DO WOMEN LOOK AT MEN".  Not topics about "Women who get raped ask for
    it" and "Men are all pornographic idiots".
    
    	I'd like to know why Kath feels that she is speaking for the entire
    women populous when she says what she says about women not looking at
    men.  Like I said in another note, I can see it from the female point
    of view and I think she is wrong, yeah I said wrong.  Most of the
    females out there, maybe not the computer-techno-weanies, enjoy looking
    at the male body (mostly in as little clothing as possible and as
    permitted by law over seeing a man fully clothed.)  From what I see
    from my sisters and her friends, which gives me a wide range of
    women,  If the body looks good in clothes, than it would look twice
    better out of them.  The snickers and stares are worth a thousand
    words.
    
    Well, I think I've dug my grave deep enough,
    
    
    Paul

    re .79:
    
    Nah, don't do the same you're criticizing Kath for, don't come with
    that "I think Paul is talking for most men", for he surely is not. I,
    and I'm a man, feel differently about this.
    Most women I have known ogle in a way that is totally different from the
    ogling of men. Have a naked guy dancing "performing" like some women do
    in obscure tourist pubs in Thailand and you'd just cause repulsion in
    most women. They can look at nice naked male bodies without becoming
    aroused at all. And, definitely, they are far more impressed by a guy
    who brings along some witty conversation and makes them laugh heartily
    than by some Tarzan lookalike comes over with the game of sexual
    pressure from the start.
    Most women, when they go "watching" and "teasing" are just playing,
    just fooling around to have a good time, and laugh tears at the
    reaction they cause in the average man.
    You know, I often get the feeling that many men that put on the mask of
    "warrior for women's rights" in fact don't really want to open every
    door for every woman's own way of personal and professional
    fulfillment, but in fact just want women to be and to feel just the
    same as men do; so the "game" gets a bit easier to play. And if they
    don't, heck, it's switching to condescension for not being brave enough to
    "live it out" (as "every man" would do, so it's just being sexist in a
    more subtle way).
    So nobody's talking for "most men" of "most women" here. It's
    understood we talk about "most men and women WE KNOW". And I,
    for one, agree with Kath's view. 
    ...Paul ..another Paul, that is!

    I haven't read all the notes yet, but from what I've read there is one
    fundamental thing about humans that is getting missed here; each of us
    is different.  I know that's not new.  Here's another one; we tend to
    hang out with people like ourselves.  That's not new either.  I've
    actively looked for people different than me because I am a curious
    person.  I have found that there are women who would love nothing more
    than to pull those tight little black bikini briefs off Mel Gibson,
    exhaust him and go look for another.  There are also women who would
    love nothing more than to appreciate his Lawrence Olivier style of
    acting.  (yes my tongue is firmly pushing out my cheek).  But the point
    is there are all kinds of women.  'All women' isn't going to cut it
    here.  
    
    
    Women have been repressed in many ways.  (I know, another profundity) 
    Many I have known would never let their true feelings be known on this
    subject especially in a public forum like this.   But I really don't
    know what all the excitment is about; if a woman wants to look at me,
    even in a sexual way, I really don't care.  Her feelings and thoughts
    are her own.  If she acts on those thoughts in a way that makes me
    uncomfortable, that's different.  But look?  Hell look all you want!
    
    
    Patrick
    

    in re  a few back..
    
    kath didn't say that women didn't *look* at men, or at least that
    isn't what I remember her writing, what she said was that men's
    bodies of and by themselves aren't sexually arousing to women or
    at least most women. 
    
    From the women I've talked to and my own experiences, I agree with her.
    
    Bonnie

    .82  Hi Bonnie,
    
    I guess we all have different life experiences around these issues.
    Some women ogle and some don't.  For every two women who ogle at men,
    you could probably show me two women who don't... and vice versa.  And
    that's fine.  As far as I can tell, women aren't all the same.
    
    Paul

	There is still a very large disconnect in this discussion.

	I thought it was resolved days ago.  If two opposing sides
	can discuss the same scenario, then there really isn't
	any point to holding the discussion at all.

	kathy

    paul
    
    I didn't say that women didn't ogle, only that I feel that for
    the vast majority, ogleing ne sexual arousal in women while
    for men it is the reverse.
    
    bj

    .85  Bonnie,
    
    I understand you didn't say that women don't ogle.  I also respect your
    viewpoints, feelings, and experiences.  Though I think men and women are 
    different in many ways, I would respectfully disagree with your view 
    about the "vast majority" of women regarding this subject.  
    
    Have a nice day,
    Paul          

>    From what I see
>    from my sisters and her friends, which gives me a wide range of
>    women,...

Actually, Paul, you might want to revisit this assumption.  Your 
sisters were raised in the same environment as you (heck with 
environment, same "family").  And their friends are likely to be 
compatible with you and how you were raised.

The category of "women" is much, much broader than that.  You might 
want to expand your knowledge beyond "sisters and their friends."
That range seems kind of narrow to me.


							--Gerry

    
>    I didn't say that women didn't ogle, only that I feel that for
>    the vast majority, ogleing ne sexual arousal in women while
>    for men it is the reverse.
    
The disconnect that I see in this conversation revolves around the
term "sexually aroused."  (Correct me if I am wrong...) What I am
hearing is that most women experience more of an aesthetic, warm-fuzzy
attraction when viewing an attractive body, and that men experience a
more intense, physical arousal when viewing attractive bodies.  Sounds 
like some biology might be coming into play, here, no?

Could this be the disconnect???


						--Gerry

    .88  Ger,
    
    You're on to something, but I think "sexual arousal" encompasses a 
    much wider variety and combination of feelings, thoughts, reactions,
    and so on --  more than the two flavors you cited.  For example,
    most of the time when I ogle, my sexual "arousal" isn't the
    "intense physical" reactions that you said were common to most 
    men.  In fact, it often involves the "aesthetic, warm fuzzy" stuff.
    In fact, intensity need not be lacking warm fuzzies, just as warm
    fuzzies need not be lacking intensity.  (Does that make sense? ;))
    So sexual attraction/arousal isn't an either/or thing, as far 
    as I can tell.
    
    Paul

    
    re: .88
    
    When I'm looking at a complete stranger who happens to be attractive,
    the feelings are purely sexual.  I reserve "warm_fuzzies" for people
    I care about.  I don't *know* the individiual I'm looking at so
    the only response posible is the physical.  
    
    L.J.  (just one opinion from a lone female who doesn't want to
           get yelled at by anyone in this conference  :*)        )

    Is is so bad to *admit* animal (type) attraction ?  Hey, we are animals
    of the highest form.  Just like all men don't mentally strip every
    woman they see, all women don't look for charm, wit, and a good
    personality ....
    
    The answer to the question .... some do, some don't ...
    
    Jerry

>    Is is so bad to *admit* animal (type) attraction ?



	Not in the least.  I'd gladly admit it if I felt it.


	kathy


	

    
    Here's a thought I'll toss into this discussion.
    
    Is it possible that women are not sexually stimulated in ogling
    men because somewhere deep inside thay have this.."good girls don't
    that kind of thing" voice calling out to them.The voice that came
    from Mom and school and teachers and nuns if you were so lucky.
    
    I have no idea...it's just a thought.
    

    .91  Jerry,
    
         "Is it so bad to *admit* animal (type) attraction?"
    
    No, not at all.  It's part of being human.
    
    Paul
    

	What I find most interesting are the girls/women who
	are *teasers*. This type will come up alongside a
	man and rub up against him, invade his space...and
	if he takes it as a come_on, she will get offended.

	This is an immaturity that some women never outgrow.

	They get their kicks by turning on....and then 
	turning down guys.

	kits

RE:93 or the little voices in mens heads that ogling is what is expected
of them ?
 

    Re  .93
    
    Well, first, IMHO, I think some women are "sexually stimulated in
    ogling" and some women aren't.  Gee, that's a nice safe statement! ;)
    To answer your question whether women are motivated by the "good girls
    don't" voice inside them from "mom, school, teachers, nuns," etc), well
    ...... women would be better at fielding this question than I.  However,
    drawing on my limited experiences as a man .... my experience with
    interacting with women has shown me that several women around my own 
    age (36) and older have shared with me that this "voice" is indeed there 
    and must be dealt with, one way or the other.  My experience with most 
    younger women is that they tell me this kind of "voice" is hardly there 
    at all.   So those are my two cents, for what they're worth.
    
    Paul      

    
    Exactly....we've been programmed that it's ok...women have been
    programmed that it's not.
    

	..but once a women gets de_programmed.....it's
	full steam ahead   :-)



	kits

    
    Good point...people(notice I said people not singling out sexes)around
    our age have had to endure a somewhat more regimented education at home
    and in school with a lot of archaic thinking shoved down our throats.
    

    
    OOpps..that's re.97....
    

    
    I like th way that girl thinks...:-)
    

    RE  .96   "Or the little voices in mens heads that ogling is what is
               expected of them?"
    
    Yes.  My experience, growing up as a boy and as a man has been that
    indeed this voice is definitely there inside males, IMHO.  The voice 
    that says, "Real men are always sexually stimulated, always say yes, 
    always are ready for sex, always want it," and so forth.  Some women do 
    get quite surprised when I choose to turn down or ignore some of their 
    come-ons.  I am not speaking for most/all men, and I know some men will 
    disagree ... these are just my personal opinions.
    
    Paul
    

    Re   .99
    
    That gal has spunk!  8)  
    
    P.
    

    RE:    <<< Note 523.95 by IAMOK::MITCHELL >>>
    
    >	                This type will come up alongside a
    >	man and rub up against him
    
         That comment has surely made ONE person in here turn red.
    "Why Mistah Bruno, I SURELY didn't mean to do that!"
    
                                 Greg
    

    Hmmm...I find it a little poor that this note gets away with a foggy
    statement like "some women do, some don't", for if you'd check the
    replies by women you'd notice that 80% of the women that noted in here
    do NOT get sexually stimulated by ogling, and 20% do sometimes!
    (figures are not exact, I admit, but that's really the way I perceived
    the replies to this note before everybody became entrenched...) Let's
    have a democratic procedure in here and state that "based on the
    replies to this note, MOST women do NOT get stimulated by ogling". It's
    on the safe side, I bet.
    My experience, too, is that most women have less problems in
    articulating what they feel than men do, so let's not turn the roles in
    here and say that they just suppress their real feelings due to
    education and peer pressure. I don't buy that, at least it doesn't
    apply over here in Europe, I'm pretty sure. Besides, this noting is so
    anonymous that I don't think anybody could be conditioned in his
    writing by what would be "fitting" for him or her to write.
    ...Paul

re  .106   Paul,

    Hmmm...I find it a little poor that this note gets away with a foggy
    statement like "some women do, some don't", for if you'd check the
    replies by women you'd notice that 80% of the women that noted in here
    do NOT get sexually stimulated by ogling, and 20% do
    sometimes!

I don't think this topic proves anything, one way or the other,
about American women at large or even about women who work for
high tech computer companies.  It is far from being an accurate
scientific poll;  it's merely a collection of opinions.

    Let's have a democratic procedure in here and state that "based on the
    replies to this note, MOST women do NOT get stimulated by ogling". It's
    on the safe side, I bet.

No, I personally am not going to buy into that conclusion, though
you are certainly entitled to, and I respect, your own personal
opinion.  For me, coming to this conclusion "based on the replies
to this note," would be a grave mistake.  The replies in this
note do not and cannot represent what "MOST women" feel in our
society.  To me it seems like a pretty flimsy, inaccurate,
unscientific foudation on which to establish what "most women"
are like.  The only thing these replies prove is that, yes,
some women do and some women don't.  Based on my own personal
experiences in life to date, it seems to me that most American
women do, in one form or another, at one time or another, ogle at
nice looking men in a sexual way.  This is just my own personal
opinion, and so far I have found no sufficient reason to change
or abandon that opinion.  I *have* been trying to be objective
about it by simply stating that "some women do and some women
don't."  I would disagree with your characterization of this
topic as "getting away" with anything.

    My experience, too, is that most women have less problems in
    articulating what they feel than men do,

OK, I can generally agree with this.

    so let's not turn the roles in
    here and say that they just suppress their real feelings due to
    education and peer pressure. I don't buy that, at least it doesn't
    apply over here in Europe, I'm pretty sure.

Well, my personal experience has been that male and female role
conditioning has been pretty strong for boys & girls here in
America.  I don't know what roles/expectations are given to
European boys and girls, or the intensity at which they are
given, so I can't comment on that.  

    Besides, this noting is so
    anonymous that I don't think anybody could be conditioned in his
    writing by what would be "fitting" for him or her to write.

It's not that anonymous.  Everyone who I work with throughout
this company can tune in and read about my personal opinions
regarding highly personal subjects.

Best wishes,
Paul

>      <<< Note 523.105 by DEC25::BRUNO "Never give up on a good thing" >>>

     
    >>	                This type will come up alongside a
    >>	man and rub up against him
    
  >       That comment has surely made ONE person in here turn red.
  >  "Why Mistah Bruno, I SURELY didn't mean to do that!"
   


	Are you saying that there are women in THIS company
	that carry on like this?? And in Colorado ??

	<gasp>  [insert look of shock]    


	kits

    re;103
    
    So Paul, are you a real man? ;-)
    
    RE: 106
    
    Paul,
    
    I disagree that the '"some do and some don't" is vague.  It's more
    true in my opinion that your offered remark.  Remember, the memebers
    of this file in DEC are not necessarily a representative sampling.
    
    RE:  the note.
    
    Yes, I've been known to ogle.  In general, I wouldn't say I'm carried
    away with urges for immediate gratification everytime I've ogled, but
    I've certainly seen men who, well, let's just say fantasies are free!
    
    Christine

I had a discussion with a lesbian friend of mine, who was once
married.  In the discussion, she described what it is like for men to
get turned on (and, as far as my experience was concerned, she was
right on the money).  And then she discribed what the _mechanics_ of
her "turn on" was like, and it was very different.  I can't go into
details, but one thing that she said is that it is relatively common
for her to stay stimulated for up to a few days, the stimulation
building with things like dinners, candle lights, fantasy, hugging,
and so forth. 

So, I highly recommend that heterosexual men ask how their women get 
turned on, and really, really listen.  The more I read and listen, the 
more I like Dave Barry's article on sex that compared the male and 
female sexual mechanics to the breeding of a mosquito (who lives and 
dies in a day) with an elephant.  Know what I mean?

I _rarely_ argue "Biology!", but I think it plays itself out very 
differently in men and women.  (Show me a guy who stays turned on for 
two days, and I'll show you a guy with part of his anatomy turning 
blue.)


							--Ger

    RE: .110
    
         Mike, you beast.  You're just jealous because the hot Russian Dish
    didn't offer YOU altoids at your first meeting.
    
    RE: women ogling
    
         What a bizarre conglomeration of ideas, motivations, etc. we have
    here.  Some appear to be trying to say that women's biological reactions
    are more rational and respectable than men's.  Others are trying to
    claim knowledge of a majority view based upon a MINUTE sampling.  The
    basic truth being the wimpy "some do, some don't".  Beyond that, this
    is all a guessing game.
    
                                   Greg

	When the object of my ogling walks by, I do not have
	rational or respectable reactions, nor do I want them.

	To ogle is to lose oneself in a short fantasy of delight
	and sinful mental pleasure.


	kits
	
    
        

>I think it plays itself out very 
>differently in men and women.  (Show me a guy who stays turned on for 
>two days, and I'll show you a guy with part of his anatomy turning 
>blue.) 
    
    	Sorry Ger, I don't agree with that at all. Yes, I know many men
    	who can stay romanticized or even blatant horny for several days as
    	well. This is not the same thing as being physically aroused. Women
    	would have similar problems too if they were physically aroused for
    	72 hours straight. (ie, 'running dry')
    
    	I do not think men and women approach sexuality differently just
    	because of their biological differences. Women can be into instant
    	gratification and men can be into nice slow romanticism that lasts
    	for days too.  What your lesbian friend and you describe for how
    	the men you know get turned on does not map onto all men.
    
    	-Erik 
                                                                 

    Well, I oogled about 30 hard hats on my train yesterday and yes, it was
    sexually exciting and my mind was going 100 miles a minute wishing they
    would all grab me and rape me right there in the train........
    
    Can't want for more than that.......
    
    

Re: .115

Gina, I never knew you had a hat fetish....  

			Steve

 She has an attention fetish.

    .114  Thank you, Erik.  You make some good points.
    
    Paul
    

    RE:      <<< Note 523.108 by IAMOK::MITCHELL >>>

    >	Are you saying that there are women in THIS company
    >	that carry on like this?? 
    
         ...and they'll slice your giblets if you don't react.
    
                                   Greg

         

    .113  Kits, you are without a doubt destined to burn in hell.
          But what a way to go!  ;)  ;)
    
    .112  Greg, As this topic approached the "platinum" level, I found it 
          much easier (and safer) to simply state what you call the "wimpy 
    truth" of "some women do, some women don't."  It's a nice, neutral truth.
    When I do offer my own personal opinions, and start describing my own 
    personal life experiences with women, as they relate to this subject, I 
    invariably get accused of discrediting, attacking, and belittling 
    womankind.  
    
    I would much rather be a wimp at this point, Greg.  ;)
    
    Cheers,
    Paul

	Paul,

>    When I do offer my own personal opinions, and start describing my own 
>    personal life experiences with women, as they relate to this subject, I 
>    invariably get accused of discrediting, attacking, and belittling 
>    womankind.  
    

	And to me that is a crying shame..this being a notesfile
	for men.


>    I would much rather be a wimp at this point, Greg.  ;)
 

	And I wonder how many other men feel this way ? That if
	they open their mouths they will get pounced on..so they
	resign themselves to read only.

   
	kits

It is my experience that men offering their own personal experiences, labelled
as such, do not get "pounced on" by anyone.  But those men who then generalize
their personal experiences to others often run the risk of being contradicted,
especially by those who say "you don't speak for me."  When evaluating
criticism, it is prudent to keep this distinction in mind.

I think it is healthy that this conference has a good mixture of vocal men
and women, each sharing their own perspectives on life.  As a moderator,
I encourage that and try to keep to a minimum the name-calling and personal
attacks that often ensue when someone offers an opinion as "fact", and
is then unable to back up their claim with anything except personal belief.

If anyone feels that they have been unfairly attacked for their disclosure
of personal experiences, I encourage them to write to me about it.

However, I'd also suggest that it is pointless to expect that there will
ever be universal agreement on any particular issue.  Diversity is the
spice of life - if we all agreed on everything, the world would be boring!

				Steve

    re .111
    
    Bravo, Gerry, very true!
    
    re. "some do, some don't..."
    
    Oh well, one can't argue with a non-statement like this, so let's
    accept it...
    Still, I get the feeling that this is a bit of the frustrated
    scientific's "if the statistical results don't support your theory,
    the measurements were wrong..."
    ...Paul

    I have observed that in general males tend to get turned on more by
    visual images than females do.  For example: Playboy, and all the
    girlie (VISUAL IMAGE) magazines. Yes there is Playgirl too but in
    general women don't seem to be as interested in physical images as
    males. 
    
    Most men are interested in personality and emotional intimacy too...
    but physical attributes seem to matter more to men. 
    
    From an evolutionary standpoint men are 'supposed' to spread their
    genes around and a quick turn on enhances Natures goal in this.  Woman
    can 'afford' to sit back and let the men fight their way to mate with
    them. I believe Nature has 'hard wired' mens and womens attitudes to
    fit these roles.
    
    I am not suggesting all people are a bunch of rutting rabbits with no
    checks and balances.  Just that in the purest form that we are wired to
    have sexual urges which meet Natures goals. 
    
    Jeff

.122> However, I'd also suggest that it is pointless to expect that there will
.122> ever be universal agreement on any particular issue.  Diversity is the
.122> spice of life - if we all agreed on everything, the world would be boring!

I wish I could say that I didn't agree with you.  I would hope that there were
some issues on which humankind could achieve universal agreement such as War,
Abortion, Equality, Human Rights, etc.  The Strategy of Life seems to be the
quest for a better reality but I get the feeling that our Tactics are all wrong.
We tend to keep making the same mistakes over and over again; kind of like the
same issues surfacing over and over again in some Note strings...  Are we really
learning any new truths?

    Erik,
    
    I liked the point you re: socialization.  I think for many women, it's
    very true.  I have female friends who agree with me on sex/ogling
    issues and those who don't.  We are all in same age groups and in one
    case in particular, the Catholic guilt and good girls don't attitude
    has been so strongly enforced that this poor girl will never really
    enjoy a healthy (I know, it's a subjective term) sex life.
    
    Christine

    
    I still wholeheartily disagree with .111, .123, and .124. I wish I had
    more time to go into it here, but I firmly believe that all that was
    mentioned there is caused by socialization and is *not* biological.
    
    >I have observed that in general males tend to get turned on more by
    >visual images than females do.  For example: Playboy, and all the
    >girlie (VISUAL IMAGE) magazines. Yes there is Playgirl too but in
    >general women don't seem to be as interested in physical images as
    >males. 
     
    Did you ever think that this may be partially caused (amoung the *tons*
    of other social norms) by giving our young boys Playboy's to read at
    their point of sexual exploration and give our girls Harlequin romances
    to read for their soft porn/erotica? We pressure boys to know
    everything about sex to the point they want to find out what the
    mechanics of it are (thus pictures) and the girls are pushed into
    reading about the emotional aspects of sex and relationships.
    
    I also wonder about the biological claims of women hitting their sexual
    prime in their forties and that men reach theirs at 18. Women are so
    stigmatized about enjoying sex that I think it takes many that long to
    get comfortable with it and truly enjoy it w/o all the 'catholic gulit'.
    And young men are pushed into it at a very early age. I know some 30 yr
    old ultra-religious men who have personal issues about sex who haven't 
    reached their sexual 'prime', and I know some women who have achieved a 
    very satisfying and happy sex life at eighteen. It takes many women
    until their 30's just to feel comfortable enough to explore their own
    sexuality enough to the point where they can reach orgasm in sex. Women
    aren't supposed to do that exploration. But these people aren't
    'normal', right? Their biology is screwed up? No, the socialization to make
    them fit in, for once, didn't work. The young women didn't give in to
    pressures to avoid being sexual and the man didn't give in to 'REAl men
    what sex all the time'.
    
    In very few cases in anything I have ever read or seen in sexual
    freedom and human sexuality contexts has it ever had to do with
    biology. It most often has everything to do with GENDER roles
    transformed into SEX roles obtained through the tremendous social
    pressures we put on people to conform to THE standard, not do what
    comes naturally to them. I think we comb natural instincts out of our
    men and women such "Men only do <what we call> 'male' things, women
    only do 'female' things, and that's it." Argh!
    
    -Erik    
         

    
    	Sorry about that Christine, I deleted my note for one second to
    	clean up a potentially insensitive phrasing, and I messed up your
    	note order.
    	
    	Now you could claim to be psychic! :-)
    
    	-Erik

>>    Well, I oogled about 30 hard hats on my train yesterday and yes, it was
>>    sexually exciting and my mind was going 100 miles a minute wishing they
>>    would all grab me and rape me right there in the train........
    
>>    Can't want for more than that.......
  

	Gina -- this is an appalling and repulsive statement.  It shows
	great insensitivity to people that been the victim of rape and/or
	physical attack.

	But, then, insensitivity is your goal as a noter, right?

		Greg  
    

    Erik,
    
    Didn't you know that I know all. ;-)  Even tho you messed up
    our order, I still agree with you!  for tales of the future,
    call me at 800-IREADMINDS ;-)
    
    Christine

    
>    Most men are interested in personality and emotional intimacy too...
>    but physical attributes seem to matter more to men. 
    
I don't think that it "matters more" to them, in global life sense.  I 
think that it is hooked into their sexual arousal more strongly than 
with most women.  

I think it is important to separate romantic involvement (falling in 
love) with sexual arousal.  

FYI  I understand completely that I am operating on generalizations 
here, and that there are going to be some men whose sexual arousal 
doesn't correspond to what I'm saying.  But I'd put money down that 
most (75%?) do.  I understand fully that I could be wrong, but I need 
to "see" that I am wrong, experientially.  Hearing, "You're 
generalizing, and you're wrong, Gerry" doesn't help me.


							--Gerry

RE .125
    "
I wish I could say that I didn't agree with you.  I would hope that there were
some issues on which humankind could achieve universal agreement such as War,
Abortion, Equality, Human Rights, etc.  The Strategy of Life seems to be the
quest for a better reality but I get the feeling that our Tactics are all wrong.
We tend to keep making the same mistakes over and over again; kind of like the
same issues surfacing over and over again in some Note strings...  Are we really
learning any new truths?"
    
    You seem fairly certain that there are absolute answers to War,
    Abortion, Equality, Human Rights, etc and that EVERYONE should buy into
    some universal truth about them. I whole hartedly disagree! Suppose the 
    universal truth on one of these norms was something you disagreed with
    violently?
    
    Now back to ogling
    Steve

.132>                                                             Suppose the 
.132> universal truth on one of these norms was something you disagreed with
.132> violently?

Then it wouldn't be a universal truth...

.132> You seem fairly certain that there are absolute answers to War,
.132> Abortion, Equality, Human Rights, etc and that EVERYONE should buy into
.132> some universal truth about them. I whole hartedly disagree! 

I said "I would hope that there were some issues on which humankind could 
achieve universal agreement".  Suppose there are some of these "universal 
truths" out there...  This would mean we are just not smart enough to see them
and/or that we haven't evolved far enough.  The question I have is "What are the
tactics for ferreting out these truths if they exist?".  Perhaps the answer may
found in looking at the NECESSITY for these issues (War, Abortion, Equality, 
Human Rights, etc).  I don't know, do you?

    It took me three days (off and on, of course) to read through all
    133 responses to this notesfile!  First of all, I was VERY surprised
    that 80% (true statistic?) of the women do not get 'turned on' by
    an attractive (dressed or undressed) male.  I must be very oversexed.
    I truly find that a well built, dressed or undressed, male to be
    sexy and I most certainly do get sexually aroused.
    I was raised by VERY strict Catholic parents, attended Catholic
    schools, church EVERY Sunday and was definitely part of the 'good
    girls do not do, or think those things' generation.  Fortunately
    I had a firm desire to escape that trap and have been a much healthier
    female for doing so.  It took much effort and years of re-adjustments,
    however, it was well worth the training.
    Basically, I'm just very surprised that so many women felt so
    differently than I do.  This is not a subject that I've confronted
    my friends on, although I never hesitate to ogle when we are 'out
    on the town' together.  More than likely they are quite aware of my
    views on sexuality and choose not to share their lack thereof. 
    I certainly hope that my children are not promiscuous, however,
    I do hope that they have a very healthy sex life.  
    My thoughts are all over the board here, however, I did not think
    I was unique, and maybe I'm not.  Think I'll take a pole of my own
    starting with my personal friends.
    Interesting . . . .     

>                     <<< Note 523.134 by FROSTY::SHIELDS >>>
 
>    an attractive (dressed or undressed) male.  I must be very oversexed.
>    I truly find that a well built, dressed or undressed, male to be
>    sexy and I most certainly do get sexually aroused.
 
	
	<Whew>  Thank you Ms. Shields !!  I was beginning to
	get a complex !   Welcome to the oversexed club !!



	kits

    .135
    
                 "Welcome to the oversexed club !!"
    
    No, welcome to the human race.
    
    Paul
    

    
>    No, welcome to the human race.
 

	Well, that's what I firmly believe Paul, but it
	appears that some people think if a woman looks/
	oogles a man that she is oversexed. 

	So, whatever/whoever thinks what....I'm just happy
	to be me.

   
	kits    

    If oversexed means no hangups or frustrations, I like oversexed women.
    
    Like my better half, Kits and quite a few other female friends.
    
    Charles

	I don't remember anyone using the word "oversexed."


	Nor do I remember anyone saying anything WRONG about women
	that do have a high sex drive.


	However I do remember people implying that women that DON'T
	have a high sex drive have hangups and are frustrated.



	Why can't some of you FRIKKEN accept that people are different?  Why
	does it always have to be "I'm better than you, so PHFFFT!"?


	Why are we continuously cut down and treated like we don't belong
	in the human race because we aren't as easily sexually stimulated
	as others?


	What is so awfully terribly wrong about being different?  And
	what's the big deal with needed percentages and surveys and all
	that--if we're all just "different" what does it matter "how many"
	are like you and "how many" are like me?


	This is not a popularity contest.  I would no much rather be Kits
	than Kits would want to be me.  If we were all the same what sort
	of diversity would life have?

	Different != Better || Worse;


	kathy	

>     <<< Note 523.139 by SELECT::GALLUP "Drunken milkmen, driving drunk" >>>


>	I don't remember anyone using the word "oversexed."

	I'm guilty. I said it. I said I was cuz I oogle every
	now and again.




>	Why can't some of you FRIKKEN accept that people are different?  Why
>	does it always have to be "I'm better than you, so PHFFFT!"?

	I can't remember anyone saying that anyone was better than
	anyone else.


>	Why are we continuously cut down and treated like we don't belong
>	in the human race because we aren't as easily sexually stimulated
>	as others?

	Jeesh !  Keep your panties on !  No one said that ! 


>	What is so awfully terribly wrong about being different?  And
>	what's the big deal with needed percentages and surveys and all
>	that--if we're all just "different" what does it matter "how many"
>	are like you and "how many" are like me?

	Well, I think all this started Kathy, because you decided
	to tell us all that most women felt like you did cuz  you	
	talked to some women that you worked with.



	I've always said....Different strokes for different folks.

	kits

>                     <<< Note 523.140 by IAMOK::MITCHELL >>>

>	I'm guilty. I said it. I said I was cuz I oogle every
>	now and again.


	Well, I hope you understand that it isn't true...

>	I can't remember anyone saying that anyone was better than
>	anyone else.

	General feeling I got.  No one said it per se.  But reply
	.138 does imply it.

>	Jeesh !  Keep your panties on !  No one said that ! 

	I felt that .136 fairly clearly implied it.  Again, my perception.

>	Well, I think all this started Kathy, because you decided
>	to tell us all that most women felt like you did cuz  you	
>	talked to some women that you worked with.

	No, I told what MY friends and the women *I* know feel.  There's
	a distinct different.  I didn't say that "most women" felt
	that, I made generalizations about the women that I know.  I would
	never try to or want to speak for you.



	kathy

I believe Kath was referring to Paul Cioto's .136 in which he implied, at least
to me, that women who didn't get sexually aroused by the sight of men were
not part of the human race.  I can certainly see why Kath might take
offense at this.

I sent Paul mail about it.  I think perhaps he could have chosen better wording.

					Steve

>     <<< Note 523.141 by SELECT::GALLUP "Drunken milkmen, driving drunk" >>>
 

>	Well, I hope you understand that it isn't true...


	That what isn't true?? That I'm oversexed ?�?


>	General feeling I got.  No one said it per se.  But reply
>	.138 does imply it.

	Aww....him??  Don't pay him no mind.... Charles is
	an oversexed Dutchie  :-}


>	I felt that .136 fairly clearly implied it.  Again, my perception.

	Well, If you felt he clearly implied that...then you
	and he should talk it over.


	
 >  I would never try to or want to speak for you.

	As I would never try or want to speak for you my dear.


	Have a nice weekend.
	
	kits

    re: .142
    
    Steve, when I first read .136 I felt that Paul was simply implying that
    it's OK to "ogle" (can't we come up with a better word than that?) and
    that it shouldn't take the negative connotation that words like
    "oversexed" convey.  Upon rereading it, I believe that it could be
    misinterpreted to mean that human being's "ogle" and that people who
    don't must not be human.  I don't believe that was the intended
    message, however.
    
    Who was it that wrote "Do not write to be understood, but write so that
    you cannot possibly be misunderstood."?
    
        - Larry

Re: .145

I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you're looking on from.
But I do agree that there is entirely too much antagonism in this topic.

For me, the answer to the base note's title question is "Some do, some don't".
I don't have a problem with that.   Others seem to feel that that's not
good enough, and that one must pin down a "standard behavior" that every
woman gets measured against.  And if I were a woman being so measured, I might
indeed become indignant about it.

Long ago I learned that people would frequently interpret my words and actions
in ways completely unfathomable to me, and this caused a lot of friction.  I
took care to observe how people reacted to what I said and did, and learned
what it was I was unconciously doing that was ticking people off.  Over time,
I learned to control that behavior, to be more tactful and to not react
defensively to every perceived affront.  The net effect was entirely positive.

I see in others some of the behaviors I once saw (and, occasionally, still
do see) in myself.  I think I understand better, and can do better at
seeing things from others' perspectives.  It's a painful process, and one that
never ends.

A couple of months ago, I had an exchange with a well-known noter to whom
I said that their writing style, and not content, was irritating people and
turning them off.  The noter in question didn't believe me and assured me that
the REAL problem was with everyone else.  And so it goes....

					Steve

    Re.... my comments in .136.
    
    I would like to set the record straight for Kathy, for our objective
    moderator, Mr. Lionel, and for anyone else who believes I said "women
    who don't ogle are abnormal" in .136, regarding the precise nature of 
    what I said in .136.
    
    My comments in .136 consisted of this:
    
       "No, welcome to the human race."
    
    That's all.  This comment was addressed to Kits, who was concerned that
    her feelings of sexual arousal were being portrayed as "oversexed" in
    this topic.
    
    My meaning was to tell Kits that, in my opinion, her sexual feelings
    were part of human nature, not oversexed.  Nowhere in this six-word
    reply did I say, imply, or intend to imply that "women who don't feel 
    the same way you do, Kits, are 'abnormal' and 'not human,'" which is what
    I have been accused of saying.
    
    Let's be clear about this.  In my personal opinion -- for whatever it's
    worth at this point -- women AND men who do NOT ogle, who instead look
    at others and approach others in a non-sexually arousing way, in a
    romantic way, are ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO part of human
    nature.   I don't ogle all the time -- though some people believe guys
    should always ogle in order to be real men -- and I still consider
    myself "part of the human race."  Some women ogle and some don't. 
    Period.  Both ARE ARE ARE ARE human.  Both are not ABNORMAL.  If 
    anyone doubts my sincerity in this, send me mail privately and let's
    talk.
    
    Yes, Steve, you sent me mail privately about .136, just as you sent me
    private mail about some other replies.  For the record let me just say 
    I am disappointed, and I feel intimidated, by what in my eyes are your
    biased, distorted, unfair, and unfounded accusations.  I realize how
    difficult your job as moderator must be, but to publicly tell everbody
    that you sent me mail and figuratively slapped me on the wrist for
    saying something as benign as "No, welcome to the human race" and
    reading all kinds of horrible things into said statement is just 
    too much.  I feel stifled and muzzled in this topic, and there is no 
    reason for me to continue to note here. 
    
    Therefore, Mr. Moderator, you can say what you want here without my
    interference.
    
    Happy Trails,
    Paul
    
    P.S.  Kathy, for my part I apologize for the level of hostility that 
          has evolved here between you and me and for whatever I
    contributed to said hostility.  Prior to this topic, I didn't know 
    you and you didn't know me.  Perhaps if we had gotten to
    know each other under different circumstances we would have approached
    each other in a more friendly manner.  This is something I regret.
    
    BTW Steve, save yourself the time of writing to me again and telling me
    how I am not genuine about this apology to Kathy.  I am VERY sincere
    and genuine about it and I meant every word of it.
       
                                                             

    
    RE: .129
    
    Greg, I do not believe Gina would truly wish to be raped by 100+
    men.  I do however believe she may have fantazied about it.  What
    you see as insensitivity I see as merely stating a plesant mental
    exercise she decided to indulge in.  If anything I think your 
    comments might be construed as insensitive.
    
    Some of us dream about things we would truly never wish to have
    happen.  I didn't get the idea from Gina's note that she ever
    meant this in seriousness.  Even if she did, who am I to say what
    she wants is *wrong*.  It's what *she* wants for herself, not for
    me or anyone else.
    
    
    
                                  L.J.
    
    p.s. Yes I know I goofed on the spelling.

>                    <<< Note 523.148 by USWRSL::SHORTT_LA >>>



	You obviously don't read SOAPBOX.

	As far as I can gather, Gina is deadly serious.  And I do
	believe she prides herself in that stance.

	right Gina?


	kathy

    
    Re:  .135 & .134
    
    Kits:
    
    I'm truly surprised at the wave of hostility I/we began.  I thought
    by coming forward with my views I would only encourage others to
    do so as well.  It seems that quite a few people have taken offense
    to our expression of 'opinion', 'discussion'.  Why does everyone
    take the position that fingers are being pointed at them individually?
    I love reading notes to open my mind to different viewpoints.  Why
    are so many getting so angry.  Frankly I respect ALL the opinions
    expressed in this file and was only trying to express my feelings.
                  
    Funny how things can get so twisted.  
    
    Shields
    
    
    

>                   <<< Note 523.150 by CGHUB::SHIELDS >>>
 

>             -< KISS (Keep It Super Simple) My own version . .  >-


	I LIKE that !!!  :-)

    
    
>    I'm truly surprised at the wave of hostility I/we began.  I thought
>    by coming forward with my views I would only encourage others to
>    do so as well.  It seems that quite a few people have taken offense
 
	Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
	that they like to ogle now and again. 



>   to our expression of 'opinion', 'discussion'.  Why does everyone
>    take the position that fingers are being pointed at them individually?
 
	I think insecurity plays a big part in reading accusations
	in what people write, even though it is not directed at any
	individual person.

>   I love reading notes to open my mind to different viewpoints.  Why
>    are so many getting so angry.  Frankly I respect ALL the opinions
>    expressed in this file and was only trying to express my feelings.
 
	I love reading notes of differing opinions myself. It's when
	people jump in saying that your views/opinions are wrong, and
	express anger over what you said, that is upsetting.

                 
>    Funny how things can get so twisted.  
 
	Yeah....but thank goodness this is just a notesfile ..
	and is not real life.  :-)
   

	kits    
    
    

	>Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
	>that they like to ogle now and again. 

    
    And there you have it!  the truth finally comes out!  Good thing too!
    I was wondering when someone would be so bold as to say the truth....
    
    the truth being that only males can be the insensative ogling beasts
    that they are....
    
    :-)


    Tongue firmly...

    	You folks do realize that when someone says, "I don't feel xxxx,"
    	they are the only ones who can say for sure what they are feeling
    	and why.

	Implying that someone is lying when they say they don't feel
    	something (for whatever reason) is unprovable and unfair.
    
    	Why not just admit that people don't all define "ogling" the same
    	way - so, by some people's definition of it, they honestly and
    	sincerely never "ogle" and don't see anyone else ogle either.
    	Meanwhile, others happily ogle and witness the rest of our species
    	happily ogling with them at every available opportunity.

    	If people don't define this term the same way, it isn't proof
    	that anyone lied about how they feel.

>        <<< Note 523.153 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet." >>>

 >   	You folks do realize that when someone says, "I don't feel xxxx,"
 >   	they are the only ones who can say for sure what they are feeling
 >   	and why.

	And that's the way it should be. Each person expressing
	their own opinion, without fear of someone else putting
	them down for it.

	
>	Implying that someone is lying when they say they don't feel
>    	something (for whatever reason) is unprovable and unfair.
 
	Where did this come from. Who implied that who was lying ?
   
>    	Why not just admit that people don't all define "ogling" the same
>    	way - so, by some people's definition of it, they honestly and
>    	sincerely never "ogle" and don't see anyone else ogle either.
>    	Meanwhile, others happily ogle and witness the rest of our species
>    	happily ogling with them at every available opportunity.

	No one said that there were not oglers and non_oglers...there
	may even be oglers who deny ogling and non_oglers who in fact
	ogle.

>    	If people don't define this term the same way, it isn't proof
>    	that anyone lied about how they feel.

	Again...where did anyone say anything about anyone having
	lied?

	kits

    Then there are those who like to *look* but don't get
    aroused by just looking.
    
    BJ

	......and it's all kinds of different people that
	make this old world go 'round. It's what makes
	life interesting.  What a silly old bore life 
	would be if we all thought the same.


	kits

    	RE: .154  Kits

    	> Where did this come from. Who implied that who was lying ?

    	Here's an example:

	   "Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
		that they like to ogle now and again."

    	Describing someone's denial about ogling by suggesting that they
    	DO ogle, but refuse to admit it (for whatever reason) amounts to
    	a gentle implication that these "some women" aren't telling the
    	truth.

    	If you said you don't like ice cream and someone said, "Well, you
    	probably just don't think it's cool to ADMIT that you like to eat
    	ice cream" - wouldn't you wonder why your word on the matter wasn't
    	good enough for them (and why they chose to believe something else
    	about you instead?)  

    	See what I mean?

>        <<< Note 523.157 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet." >>>

 
>>	   "Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
>>		that they like to ogle now and again."

  >  	Describing someone's denial about ogling by suggesting that they
  >  	DO ogle, but refuse to admit it (for whatever reason) amounts to
  >  	a gentle implication that these "some women" aren't telling the
  >  	truth.


	Again you twist things in order to attack someone.

	Read it again Suzanne. Where did I mention anywhere what
	anyone had said. It was meant that some women might be
	reluctant to reply or write in this conference.

	kits	
	
    	

    	RE: .158  Kits

    	What is your problem?

    	I wrote my reply as gently as I could (so as not to upset
    	you by disagreeing with your point.)  I didn't say a damn
    	word about your character, Kits.

    	> Read it again Suzanne. Where did I mention anywhere what
	> anyone had said. It was meant that some women might be
	> reluctant to reply or write in this conference.

    	YOU read it again - let me include the text you quoted yourself
    	(to which you responded by suggesting that some women won't
    	"admit", etc..)

    	>>I'm truly surprised at the wave of hostility I/we began.  I thought
	>>by coming forward with my views I would only encourage others to
	>>do so as well.  It seems that quite a few people have taken offense
 
	> Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
	> that they like to ogle now and again. 

    	If you weren't responding to the comment about the hostile reaction
    	of people who wrote notes, then why did you quote it before your
    	text?

    	If you had gone off on some kind of tangent about people who do
    	NOT reply, then I'm sorry.  It wasn't clear from what you said.

>        <<< Note 523.159 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet." >>>
 
>                                 -< Chill. >-

	
    	
 >   	What is your problem?

	My problem is you taking peoples words and twisting
	them...and continuing on relentlessly.

	

>    	>>I'm truly surprised at the wave of hostility I/we began.  I thought
>	>>by coming forward with my views I would only encourage others to
>	>>do so as well.  It seems that quite a few people have taken offense
 
>	> Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
>	> that they like to ogle now and again. 

>    	If you weren't responding to the comment about the hostile reaction
>    	of people who wrote notes, then why did you quote it before your
>    	text?

	See the line "....I would only encourage others to do so as 
	well."  ?????��!!!!!

	That is what I was responding to.

    	And the way to pick apart and attack parts of peoples notes
	comes very close to harrassement.  You take the joy out of
	noting.


	kits

    	RE: .160  Kits

    	Jeeeeeeez, Kits.  Take it easy!  It's not the end of the world
    	when someone disagrees with you, ok?

    	>>I'm truly surprised at the wave of hostility I/we began.  I thought
	>>>by coming forward with my views I would only encourage others to
	>>>do so as well.  It seems that quite a few people have taken offense
 
	>> Me too !  Perhaps some women think it is not PC to admit
	>> that they like to ogle now and again. 

    	> See the line "....I would only encourage others to do so as 
	> well."  ?????��!!!!!

	> That is what I was responding to.

    	But he isn't talking about the people who didn't respond, though.
    	He's talking about the hostility that resulted even when he thought
    	he would only encourage others by what he said.

    	But, whatever...  If you don't think some women here refused to
    	admit feelings they were really having, then we don't have a point
    	of disagreement.  What a relief, eh?  ;^)

    	> And the way to pick apart and attack parts of peoples notes
	> comes very close to harrassement.  You take the joy out of
	> noting.

    	Well, Kits, I'm sorry if I upset you.  Now that it turns out that
    	you don't think anyone here refused to admit ogling because it
    	isn't PC (or whatever,) then we're fine.  We don't disagree about
    	anything else.

    	It's going to be ok, honest.

	RE: Kits

	Suzanne wasn't the only one that seems to have "misread" your
	intent with that comment.

	When I read that I felt like you were slamming me and others
	who have stood up here.  If felt like you were saying that we
	were just refusing to admit we felt the way you do.


	I'm FAR from being PC, Kits.  I'm also not a liar. I'm sorry,
	but I must have "misinterpreted" your intent as well.


	Written as it stands, it's VERY misleading.  I'm glad you
	clarified it (but I still don't read that intent in the original
	note).

	Anyway.

	kathy

    kits,
    
    I have to admit that I read your reply the same way that kath and
    Suzanne did, i.e. that women do ogle but they don't admit it here
    because it isn't PC.
    
    So, given the fact that the three of us are quite different, I don't
    think that was an unreasonable misreading of what you meant.
    
    I still think that the distinction is between looking or ogling which
    both kath and I (and I think Suzanne) have said we do, and getting
    'turned on' by a random good looking male.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	RE: .163  Bonnie
    
    	Thanks (to Kath and you - both.)
    
    	P.S. Actually, I haven't stated whether I ogle or not.  ;^)
    

>        <<< Note 523.161 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet." >>>

 
 
 >   	But he isn't talking about the people who didn't respond, though.
 >   	He's talking about the hostility that resulted even when he thought
 >   	he would only encourage others by what he said.

	You never ever let it rest do you?

>    	But, whatever...  If you don't think some women here refused to
>    	admit feelings they were really having, then we don't have a point
>    	of disagreement.  What a relief, eh?  ;^)

	expect when you feel you have gotten the last word in..  :-)


>    	Well, Kits, I'm sorry if I upset you.  Now that it turns out that
>    	you don't think anyone here refused to admit ogling because it
>    	isn't PC (or whatever,) then we're fine.  We don't disagree about
>    	anything else.


	You don't upset me Suzanne.......You exasperate me at times 
	though.

	I didn't say that I didn't think anyone here refused to admit
	ogling because it isn't Pc or whatever.....I didn't say or
	admit to anything.  I have my own thoughts...thank you.

>    	It's going to be ok, honest.

	Gee..thanks Mom  :-)


	kits

>     <<< Note 523.162 by SELECT::GALLUP "Drunken milkmen, driving drunk" >>>
 

>                      -< This is a stupid discussion. >-

	so you had to jump right in..eh ?/    :-)




>	Suzanne wasn't the only one that seems to have "misread" your
>	intent with that comment.

>	When I read that I felt like you were slamming me and others
>	who have stood up here.  If felt like you were saying that we
>	were just refusing to admit we felt the way you do.

	It's amazing.....I explain what I meant.....and the digs
	keep coming.  Guess that what happens when you are not
	part of the *sisterhood* .


>	I'm FAR from being PC, Kits.  I'm also not a liar. I'm sorry,
>	but I must have "misinterpreted" your intent as well.

	I never called you a liar kathy.


>	Written as it stands, it's VERY misleading.  I'm glad you
>	clarified it (but I still don't read that intent in the original
>	note).

	I think people tend to read what they want to in anything
	that is written in here.  And..lots of people look to
	find something that they don't like....just so they can
	pick the note apart and attack someone.

>	Anyway.

	yeah...anyway


	kits

>     <<< Note 523.163 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "We won't play your silly game" >>>

     
 >   I have to admit that I read your reply the same way that kath and
 >   Suzanne did, i.e. that women do ogle but they don't admit it here
 >   because it isn't PC.
  
	I expect that you would.
  
>    So, given the fact that the three of us are quite different, I don't
>    think that was an unreasonable misreading of what you meant.
 
	whatever.
   
>    I still think that the distinction is between looking or ogling which
>    both kath and I (and I think Suzanne) have said we do, and getting
>    'turned on' by a random good looking male.
 
	why don't you define 'turned on' Bonnie ?   

	Isn't this wonderful...........I can't believe how picky
	everyone is........

	kathy..you are right......this is a stooopid discussion.
	No wonder Paul decided to book out.
   

	kits

    
    	Well, despite all the other accusations launched at people in
    	the last few notes, at least we know for sure that the women
    	who denied ogling aren't being accused of ogling but refusing
    	to admit it in the interests of being PC.
    
    	Progress!  (I guess.)
    

    RE:  Kits,
    
    I have agreed with your viewpoints and don't consider you or
    myself oversexed.
    
    RE:  Kath, Suzanne, Bonnie
    
    Well, I read the same notes everyone else did.  I think I can
    understand how you all reacted because of some of the emotion
    that has been generated by this topic.  I don't think Kits
    meant any disrespect to anybody, I think she was maybe feeling
    as tho others were implying she was a freak because she had
    these feelings.  I know Kath is feeling like others are saying
    she's not normal due to phrases which seem to imply that she
    won't admit something (i'm not referring to Kits' note, which
    started this recent discussion).  Somehow, instead of a question
    of whether or not women ogle, along the way, it became a matter
    of are you normal if you do or don't.  We're all normal aren't
    we ;-)  ?  It's just a personal matter as to looking and getting
    excited and looking and not getting excited.  I believe the women
    who look and don't get excited and vice-versa.  I respect that.
    When people are getting to the  "but you won't admit it" stuff, 
    I can see how that can be offensive/misleading, but in some cases,
    I have interpreted that in relation to the "catholic guilt" syndrome.
    In my experience, that does exist for some women, and that's where I
    think some of this admitting stuff comes into play.  There have also
    been misunderstandings about whom is speaking for whom.  Some of
    Kath's note (to me) seemed as though she was speaking for all women
    when I first read them.  Actually, I still kind of get that feeling,
    but I've had other communication with Kath, so I realize she's really
    speaking for herself and her experiences.  I think some folks missed
    that point.  Maybe this would be smoother if we all agree that one
    is not more or less normal that the other and that we can all only
    speak from our own experiences and not for a majority.
    
    finally, yes, I do ogle.  Sometimes it's arousing, sometimes not.
    The only person I know who will argue as to my "normalness" is my
    mother!
    
    Christine

    kits
    
    
    'turned on' to me means to be in a state of sexual arousal,
    with all the attendant physical symptoms. I don't believe
    I can describe those in a notes file by Digital rules.
    
    in re the 'I expect you would.' or 'whatever' do you really
    think that Suzanne and I and Kath are so much alike that we
    all spout a party line? If you do, you dont really know
    any of us particualarly well.
    
    If not, would you like to elaborate on the reasons for your
    apparent sarcasm?
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    
    Of course I don't ogle - I'm in management, and that would be
    harrassment!

	Do I oogle?  Yes..... No.... It depends.... How are we defining
	"oogel" anyway?  (more to the point,  how the heck do I spell it??)

	I *enjoy* watching attractive *people* walk by.  On more than one 
	occassion, I have turned to watch  a male after he passed me by.(1)

	I have never been sexually turned on by simply watching a man pass
	by.  Unless he happend to be my SO   8-)

	I have been to the 'all male revues's... *in my experience*, 
	it is the man who expresses his personallity through the
	dancing who receives all the attention.  At the last one I 
	went to, (and yes, I've been more than once), my friends and
	I discussed this.  One guy, who was physically a extremely 
	good looking, very well built by all the current standards,
	barely got any tips at all.  On the other hand, this cute
	little guy, with no more muscles than the average guy on the
	street, had women lineing up waiting for him.  The difference?
	He was laughing & having a good time, joking with the women,
	kind of saying "this is all a great joke, share it with me"...
	*HE* was the one who had women running their hands down his
	chest, sitting on his lap to have their picture taken, not the
	more muscular handsome types.  

	My point?  I believe that most women are not physically turned
	on by physique alone.  Yes it's a part, but if it was a major
	part,  how did Woody Allen or Henry Kissenger ever become a
	sex symbol?

	Instead, Women are turned on by the complete package, which
	can be expressed by how he moves & behaves,  but seldom are
	they 'turned on' by a still life photo.  Most women may 
	admire it,  but seldom feel the urge to 'jump his bones'.

	this , of course, is not to say that I have not been turned on
	by a specific male body at the beach, or walking naked across
	my bedroom floor.... 8-)   but then i've already known the 
	'whole package'.....(blush)


	Of course, this is based on my experience, and knowledge of
	the women I know.  I also believe that age plays a part.  When
	I was younger, the physical side seemed more important....
	new and unexplored territory, don'cha know.... But as I became
	involved in relationship with real men (as opposed to adolescent
	daydreams)... the pure looks no longer did much, if anything.

	mary


(1)	(A major point here, I and most women I know, are very discrete
	in our watching, and seldom, if ever, intrude on the 'watchee's
	privacy.... Statistics will show that the vast majority of 'cat
	calls' and whistles are NOT done by women....)

	
ps	all of this corresponds to my life experiences, and in no way is
	intended to invallidate others.  just adding to the 'poll'.

pps	and before anyone can question it, I've never been accused of
	being a prude,  or even being 'undersexxed'!

    
    Well, I guess I do, occasionally.  :-)
    
    I remember a really awful day hiking.  As with many awful experiences, 
    it wasn't ALL bad -- I spent quite a lot of my time behind a man who 
    had a really nice bum and nice legs.  He was wearing these flimsy royal 
    blue nylon shorts.  Helped me up the slope.
    
    CQ 

    .172
    
    Thanks Mary, That's the point I've been trying to make (I think
    anyway ;-) )....
    
    Bonnie

    This notesfile is amazing, it sometimes looks to me as if discussions
    get useless because no one would ever admit he chose the wrong word to
    express his opinion. Instead of saying "oh sorry, my fingers were
    faster than my brain when I wrote that!" there seems to be a tendency
    to argue about the "definition" of a word. The whole discussion turns
    into a re-editing of former notes and a tricky word war, instead of
    trying to make clear what the *bottomline* of one's argumentation is.
    The discussion's context becomes foggy because the individual positions
    suddenly become undefined and ductile...
    To me, it was absolutely clear that the women who noted that they
    didn't get sexually aroused when ogling were told they are not being
    honest. Whoever says it's not thee case ought to be punished with
    re-reading all replies to this note! We've heard it all from "Catholic
    sense of guilt" to "education" etc., which might be a valid point somewhere
    else, but I don't think that people with communicative problems and
    tamely succumbing to peer pressure would bother to note in here in first
    place, one doesn't need a PhD in psychology to see that...
    Oh well, it seems the point is reached when the argument has all the
    characteristics of a political discussion...it's not the position you
    disagree with, it's the person! Talking about trench wars, the Somme
    wasn't as bitterly disputed as every inch in here!
    Just my opinion...Paul

    Peggy,
    
    I did not intend to imply that I thought those who don't are
    liars.  All I meant to say is that in my personal experiences
    with women (friends), I do know of several individuals where
    our Catholic upbringing has colored their views on anything
    remotely sexual.  I actually have a friend who considers sex
    with her husband to be her duty and is not to be enjoyed.  Sorry,
    that's off the track.  I want to make it clear that I don't 
    think the women who don't ogle are supressing/hiding/refusing
    to admit something.
    
    Christine

    
    
    
    What a mass of excrement this topic has become!
    
    	Greg

I must admit that it does seem to have run its course.  I'll disable further
replies - if anyone has something new to add, send me mail and I'll
reopen it.

					Steve