Why don't women objectify men the same way?

Has it got anything to do with the male gaze, versus the female gaze?

Much has been written about the male gaze, but to be honest, I don't know very much about the female gaze at all. Does it even exist....?

Women, generally speaking, conform to the male gaze. Gay men also conform (generally speaking) to the male gaze.

Men don't conform to it (short, perfunctory head hair, make-up not used to enhance features, no need to remove body hair, comfortable (if well presented) clothes and shoes; they work with what God gave them) and many lesbians (generally speaking) don't either.

The male gaze seems to demand a very aesthetically accessible, and pleasing, image.

The female gaze, if indeed it exists, does not, so much. Talk to many women - and this thread seems to back it up - and they will say that it was only after they got to know their partners that they really became attracted to them. Or, someone they didn't have feelings for either way, deepened into something significant, when the person's personality came to the fore. So attraction for women (generally speaking) is often about more than just physical appearance.

How much of this is innate, and how much of it is socialised though, I don't know. But maybe objectification of those they find sexually attractive is a natural consequence of the male gaze, whereas that outcome doesn't happen when attraction is based on more than just physical appearance.

Would love to learn more about the female gaze, if anyone is aware of anything out there.

I think its also rarer to admit you are driven by lust if you are a woman. When I met dh instantly I wanted him physically we spent all night snogging.I told all my friends he was the fittest man I had ever met and I couldnt stop looking at him. We literally used to meet up for 3/4 hours a night just to look at each other and kiss.That very first week we decided to get married!! Been married over a decade now.

It was all based on looks when we decided to get married I suppose I had seen him a total of 3 times when the marriage was arranged.

There us a thread going about attractive men in chat. Thats just who you want to shag why on earth would you care if they support you

I have never looked at a man and thought can he support me not even my own dh as he doesnt work.. I see men every day I would have sex with and I havent a clue who they are/what they do. I dont think they are objects but Im human.

AICM, I'm not sure how true that is. Because infants are dependent for a long time and because mothers have reduced calorie gathering capacity to a greater or lesser extent after birth, plus increased calorie need for breast feeding, some investment in supporting the offspring gives more success in gene perpetuation.

Hmmm. Human menopause allows grandsire support for infants. Human female interest in infants remains keen even after menopause, maintaining a drive to nurture even unrelated offspring. A huge deal, unique, a big re-arrangement of energy that allows other evolutionary behaviours to act in parallel because it counterbalances what you talk about.

Serial monogamy with infidelity behaviours are apparent in both genders, with infidelity static in men regardless of age age but bell-curve patterned for women, peaking to be equal with men in their 30's. Could be that creates an ideal timetable for reproduction that supports loyalty driven infant investment in the 20's while maximising possibility of reproduction in the 30's- closer to the grandsire menopause window for offspring support.

Ok so by talking objectification we're talking just sexual objectification here? If not then there is the capacity and precedent for either gender to objectify one another. Women have been objectified for many things other than sex, like for example as little more than domestic appliances.

As for men, yes I think we have been objectified as providers historically although less so these days dependant on economic band, and is possibly an instance of male privilege being increased as a result of feminism as there is less onus for a man to be the only breadwinner. We have also been objectified in the most extreme sense in times of war as little more than meat for the grinding gears of the war machine.

Worth noting that currently (in my country at least) there is no conscription, you can realistically expect most partners to contribute economically to the household. I am hard pressed to think of a better time historically to be man.

Why then do we struggle as a society to reach parity between the genders? Going back to sexual objectification for a moment I am hard pressed to even equate objectification of men by women as even a remotely bad thing, which may sound counter intuitive but bear with me a moment. When women objectify a man sexually as far as I can see it is never coupled with a sense of entitlement and ownership. After all I would argue it is perfectly normal and natural to find people attractive initially according to ones orientation. I would be interested to consider the homosexual community as what are the usual dynamics when women are attracted to women or men are attracted to men?

My point was men can see a woman/picture of a woman and get a sexual response because they do not care whether she is any use as a mother, but may be if she is young/fertile etc.
Women need to see a man as a person who will support her as well as be a good physical specimen, so just the picture does not provide the full information for a sexual response.

"Humans are also unique in requiring parental input for years post birth, whilst with most animals it requires only a few months."

Agree with this, which is why I don't think elephants etc are a direct comparison.

Anyway, we're straying somewhat from the main point - objectification, of the page 3 variety, seems more likely to be a response to socialisation than evolution, as it's not possible to impregnate a newspaper page.

AICM, I agree that is not true. It is certainly someone speaking, but it isn't evolution.

I generally agree with Melissa. I do objectify men. I can name famous male models - Jeremy Young is very pretty and popular at the moment.

And society is increasingly objectifying younger men, not to the extent it objectifies women, but a lot more than it used to. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

To be able to really objectfy someone - to look at a person as an useful object instead of a person you need to either: Be a sociopath, or simply someone from a group of people that can look down on the Other and lesser and do not have to care about their humanity.

ABland but the effort men make in the process (5cc of protein) means that a 99% failure rate is not an issue, human women make such a significantly larger effort.
Humans are also unique in requiring parental input for years post birth, whilst with most animals it requires only a few months.

I think women are socialised to see men as full human beings and that's why they don't objectify them to the same extent.

Men are socialised to see women first and foremost as potential fucks or at least eye-candy (which is why so many men can't see the point of women they don't fancy being around) so it's much easier for them to forget that women are human and objectify us.

ABland

Logically your argument makes sense. I'm not sure I see it in animals. In most mammals the males fight to establish who is the strongest and they then breed with as many fertile females as they can. The females only seem to breed with the strongest male. I think deer are a good example of this. In elephants the males seem to no part in bringing up the babies.

It's not quite that simple in humans. But I do remember a scene outside of a Yates pub once that did seem depressingly similar to this. To be honest I think the deer had more dignity, and probably intelligence, then most of this group of "humans".

"But could it be that you find looking at a naked woman more sexy precisely BECAUSE women are so widely objectified. We are accustomed to seeing women portrayed in an 'on a platter' way (the boobs thrust out, the back curved to make the bum look rounder, the parted lips and post-coital expression) . We really only see that sort of thing in men in perfume/aftershave ads. "

Excellent point.

"Evolutionary speaking men want to father as many children as possible and to pass on their genes and are always on the look out for attractive females to mate with "

AICM, I'm not sure how true that is. Because infants are dependent for a long time and because mothers have reduced calorie gathering capacity to a greater or lesser extent after birth, plus increased calorie need for breast feeding, some investment in supporting the offspring gives more success in gene perpetuation.

Your op doesn't make sense (weirdly). Women can't objectify men in the same way because we (women) have thousands of years of history of oppression, not to mention our (women's) present.
An individual woman might objectify an individual man but society as a whole always objectifies women. Even male only porn or naked male models are generally posed in positions of strength and power wheras their female counterparts are generally in more submissive positions

Literally, I used to enjoy coming to the FWR board on MN.

But it's overrun with teenage boys lately!

I think everyone is different and believe all these men do this and women do this theories are to guilt trip women. A lot of inadequate men are scared of a womans sex drive/who she is attracted to thats why some groups try to control women.

Evolutionary speaking men want to father as many children as possible and to pass on their genes and are always on the look out for attractive females to mate with

Women are on the look out for just a few attractive males to pass on their genes and mate with.

This leads to the average males of most mammals being more sexually selfish than the average female. I'm not criticizing men for this just saying that form an evolution point of view men and women view sex differently.

You fill up my senses
Like a night in the forest
Like the mountains in springtime
Like a walk in the rain

Annie, are you writing a book on feminism and trying to get us to write it for you?

But could it be that you find looking at a naked woman more sexy precisely BECAUSE women are so widely objectified. We are accustomed to seeing women portrayed in an 'on a platter' way (the boobs thrust out, the back curved to make the bum look rounder, the parted lips and post-coital expression) . We really only see that sort of thing in men in perfume/aftershave ads.

There was a chap who did a series of photos of himself posing just like some female models. Wish I had the link. It was only one seeing a man adopt these poses you could really see how ridiculous, unnatural and uncomfortable they are.

Another chap redrew female superheros as men, sticking butts out etc, which also showed the ridiculousness.

Standinginline, I'm similar. I can admire and appreciate a good looking man or a man with a beautiful body, but it feels a bit like looking at a nice painting or piece of architecture- kind of 'wow, how lovely', but just their appearance alone isn't usually enough to make me feel an actual sexual draw to them.

The men I've been most sexually attracted to in my life, are ones I've known quite well, and have all been quite witty and wordy- it's those qualities that set off real lust for me. Obviously, I would need to find them physically attractive as well, but it isn't enough on its own.

lol ,Melissa 83 ,I did say thats why I don't find images of men that sexually enticing.

Ah yes I hate this idea that women are attracted to money. I never have been in my life. I was always brought up to think I'd earn my own money.