Here's just one way in which men prove their stupidity. They convince themselves that certain things are sexy that really aren't. I'm not talking about fetishes, which are up to the individual -- I'm talking about deep-seated turn-ons that are fundamentally wrong-headed. These are the ones in which only men's own delusions are to blame:
1. Lesbians are not sexy. I mean, they're sexy to other lesbians. And individual lesbians can be plenty attractive - I'm not saying as a whole that they aren't nice-looking folks. I'm saying that there's nothing inherent about a woman who prefers other women that should in any way turn a man on.
In fact, quite the opposite -- by definition, a lesbian is someone who isn't interested in guys. This definition should be a sign to guys that two lesbians together = sorry, dude, you're not wanted here; please try somewhere else. But for some reason, this situation turns men on more, apparently.
I thought of this recently (and this whole post, for that matter) as I read a column written by a woman who talked about a date she had with another woman. They were approached by a man, and when they made it clear that they were on a date, he did not say, "oh, sorry, I guess I'm not needed here then. I will now go over there." Instead, he said, "Wow, that's even hotter. Since you are both exclusively interested in women, you must want me, a man, all the more," or something to that effect. I found his reaction predictable but stunningly counter-intuitive and moronic.
Maybe this idea that lesbians are sexy to men was created by the porn industry? Perhaps it's better to watch to women going at it because you don't have to watch some repulsive guy in the mix. But porn can only appeal to men's stupidity -- it can't create it out of whole cloth.
I think the reason for this baffling attraction is the principle at the center of most men's sexuality, which is a horribly unwarranted and stultifyingly high level of self-confident myopia. Me and my needs are at the center of the world, they seem to think, so anything sexual going on is somehow for my benefit. Bar skanks capitalize on this by kissing in public, but the root of it is the bizarre subconscious notion that lesbians might be doing their thing for the benefit of men. And of course the very opposite is true: They're doing it because they're sexually repelled by men. I'm guessing women don't get hot at seeing two men kissing. If one or both of the men were attractive to them, I would presume they'd be disappointed by that.
Maybe men assume that lesbians must be more promiscuous, because, dude, she's so horny she's willing to do it with another woman! Which is of course, infinitely insulting to and delusional about gay people. I don't know; I think there are probably layers of this particular delusion that I can't even fathom.
2. Identical twins are not sexy. Again, individual twins may be plenty attractive, and I suppose since they're identical, then both would have to be similarly attractive. But there's nothing inherent to identical twins that should make them any more attractive than two female friends who are both attractive.
I heard about this one through a Coors Light commercial that listed all the things that guys supposedly love. At one point it went "And TWIIIIINS!!!" and showed two identical blonde chicks straight out Central Casting for Allegedly Attractive Women. I was baffled, and it took me a long time to figure this out.
Again, it's rooted in the male tendency to think everything is somehow sexual, for their benefit. Most people look at identical twins and think "Oh, weird" and then move on with their lives. I tend to look at them and say "Oh my God, clones!!!! It has occurred! Some kind of evil plot that you find in sci-fi shows, which I haven't exactly figured out the details of at this moment, but regardless, it's scary!"
But men apparently look at clones, I mean, uh, identical twins, and think "menage a trois!" They seem to think that because twins are freakishly similar-looking, they would thus want to engage in a three-way with fat, shlubby, beer-swilling losers. Which I sincerely doubt. I don't know why two identical twins would want to share that most private of human activities any more than regular sisters would, and I think regular sisters really, really, really, really would not. That's gross. That's incest, basically. That's kind of a taboo, guys, and a good one. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to have sex with one woman along with your brother. I bet he would piss you off in the middle of it by making a really annoying noise and then you'd start fighting and then that would turn to wrestling and then you would officially be gay.
3. Women with 0% body fat are not sexy. This is of course a familiar one, fraught with discussion and controversy, and has been a problem for decades. Models tend to be rail-thin and harsh-looking. It's a terrible role model for young girls and probably a cause of many eating disorders. The fashion industry tries to defend this by saying that clothes look best on thin people -- well, maybe that's because you only make clothes for thin people, smart guy. Maybe it would break new, exciting ground to make clothes for more than one body type. Shocking, I know.
A side issue to all this is that it all seems especially pointless since extremely thin women are not attractive. They're often painful to look at, in fact. They look either like corpses or like pubescent girls or boys, and if you think that's sexy, well, I have a jail cell with your name on it. Women are better when they actually look different from men, when they have curves.
This is not just me mouthing off -- this preference for curves is actually hard-wired into male brains, and has been for millenia. There's evidence of this wiring in the primate kingdom: In many monkey species, the females signal the fact that they are in heat, or "estrus," and can thus conceive, by having their breasts and butts swell up. This demonstrates that they have the excess caloric intake to be physically able to bring a baby to term. It's a sign of health. Humans are unique in that we don't have an estrus period, and can always conceive, and thus human women's curves are permanent year-round.
So why would men be more attracted to women who are terribly thin? Wouldn't that be a sign of unhealthiness? Maybe, in a sick, twisted subconscious way, that's what they want. Maybe they want a woman who can't conceive, as many anorexics can't because they don't have enough body fat. Maybe it's also a form of control, in that their extreme and difficult-to-attain preferences are meant to force women to work very hard to maintain a certain "ideal."
Many women are now getting so thin that they have visible muscles. They have ripped abs and biceps and stuff. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that if that's your choice, and you could say it's a signal of female strength. But to me, it makes women look awfully mannish. I don't want women to look like men. I'm not attracted to men. Maybe the preference for extremely thin women is a manifestation of some sort of latent homosexuality.
I'm throwing a lot of theories out there because this one is especially pervasive and especially confusing. This one's so pervasive that I think there are probably tons of causes. Another idea I've heard is that it's a class thing, that only wealthy women have the time and resources to maintain a very thin frame, while lower-class women have to spend their time working at desks and eating whatever they can whenever they can.
And signals of class membership change over time, of course. Back in the days of Rubens (that porn merchant), plumper women tended to be wealthier and were considered more sexy. They, like the monkeys in estrus, had the resources to be able to maintain some extra body fat. And in those days, it was more desirable and more rare to have the ability to carry a baby to term.
I don't know -- there are thousands of interlocking issues here. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
