digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Why men like to gaze on the female form

telegraph.co.uk — Men find photos of the opposite sex much more "rewarding" than women, new research claims today.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NGNR, on 10/11/2007, -30/+100From Scrubs,

    Dr. Kelso: [to Todd] Remember, we look...but we don't touch.

    S03 Ep 15
    • PsychoticClown, on 10/11/2007, -6/+65I find the approach of The Todd much more pleasing.
    • noshytsherlock, on 10/11/2007, -2/+139"new research" ?? I learned in high school years ago that men are visually stimulated and women aren't
    • da_bradler, on 10/11/2007, -3/+190all I took out of that article is I really want to see that keeley girls boobs
      edit: thank god for google http://www.wetstation.net/blog/attachment/1150220138.jpg
    • dancallahan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+63The Todd appreciates hot regardless of gender.
    • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+149"Why men like to gaze on the female form"
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Boobs!
    • da_bradler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+82double edit:
      boobies http://www.keeleyhazellfans.com/biography.html
      I'm doing my own study how many people find looking at these pictures rewarding
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38Keeley Hazell - England's finest
    • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -20/+7"double edit:
      boobies http://www.keeleyhazellfans.com/biography.html "

      wtf, did someone drive over her stomach in that photo?
    • Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29Buried under Cpt Obvious -_-
    • HotGore, on 10/11/2007, -6/+73Reward=jerking off.
    • artofwar420, on 10/11/2007, -15/+3Oh my Jeebus! Keeley is ***** amazing. Holy crap, I'm blown away. I don't think I've seen somebody hotter than her, ever.
    • dchaosdx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7@PsychoticClown

      Cyber-five!
    • theOster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42"Men find photos of the opposite sex much more "rewarding" than women"

      yeah, coz women have the undesirable ability to be able to talk
    • sherbetboy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13@PsychoticClown

      Dude, E-Five!
    • MightyGiant, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2"Men find photos of the opposite sex much more "rewarding" than women"

      Wait... so we find photos of the opposite sex more rewarding than photos of women?

      Lojban FTW
    • Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Even women will agree that women look better than men. It's the curves — women tend to wear clothes that emphasize those curves, whereas men tend to wear looser clothing. Women tend to put more effort and thought into making themselves look more attractive. Men are also hairier... whereas women are more often smooth and pleasing to the eyes and hands.
    • ZanCakes, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10I personally as a woman, do actually find the female figure far more attractive than the male figure - I am bisexual, but I don't feel that that has much to do with it; in fact many of my straight female friends agree with me...
      It actually kinda funny - my boyfriend gives ME heck for checking out a hot waitress and not vice versa.

    • WillAnderson07, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep."
      - Elaine, in "The Apology"
    • ProfessorRiffs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8zancakes' comment is brought to you by Hot Topic.
    • hosannadrftwood, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Most heterosexual men can look at a woman's body and, regardless of form or shape, can be aroused.

      Most women, on the other hand, need to see a fit body on a man--washboard abs, nice pectorals, the whole package--or else they won't even consider looking twice.

      In other words, breasts and ass are sufficient in male arousal. Whereas, penises are hideous alien-looking doodads, and women need a nice body to be visually distracted from such a thing.
    • kjcdude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10"Men consume more pornography than women"
      Well if i didn't read that article i would of never known.
    • merher, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1The Todd is gay in real life.
    • livetheride, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@da_bradler

      Do some URL hacking, get even more boobies:
      http://www.keeleyhazellfans.com/gallery/

      Best one:
      http://www.keeleyhazellfans.com/gallery/keeley_hazell10.jpg
    • Endeavorer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4@livetheride

      Thats sooo overphotoshoped. Look at the bottom where here ass touches rock. Unless she's Jesus and can sit on a rock without touching it, its impossible.
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@zancakes: *YAWN* attention whore.

      @livethride: It's shopped because she's glowing.
  • 1jaxstate1, on 10/11/2007, -38/+4I bet that's not the case here on Digg.
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/11/2007, -25/+16maybe they prefer to gaze upon... oh, say, a nice, well-formed Mac?
    • ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Apple follows very strict mechanical design rules.
      Humans have thousands of years of self conditioning.

      From HMS Pinafore
      Dick Deadeye : "From such a face and form as mine the noblest sentiments sound like the black utterances of a depraved imagination. It is human nature -- I am resigned."
    • plbland, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1...divx?
  • enthused1286, on 10/11/2007, -30/+8Im not a scientist and I could have told you everything in this article... haha
    • howzitgoin88, on 10/11/2007, -5/+186Breaking news: Scientists discover that the Pope is Catholic, and bears really DO ***** in the woods!
    • samgab, on 10/11/2007, -24/+5I'm confused. So if a bear takes a dump in the woods and there's no-one around to see, does it still smell bad?

      And what if the bear just ate the one person who did see it, does that person change the smell?
    • Jerim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8This isn't about DO we find women attractive, it is about WHY we find women attractive. You can say breasts, legs, butt or any other body part; but why do those things captivate men so much? The question is why do men have this inward need to lust after women? Is it evolution, or were we just made this way? Or is it something else entirely?
  • chicken101, on 10/11/2007, -3/+136What are these women you speak of? Explain your magic, sorcerer!
  • mushy99, on 10/11/2007, -10/+84What a load of bollox. The women at my place of work do nothing BUT talk about well formed men. Some have screensavers etc,... Never heard such crap in all my life.

    I bet the guy who wrote the article is pig ugly and wants to believe he's got a chance.
    • planksconstant, on 10/11/2007, -15/+105you like staring at boobies, but girls don't like staring at penises.

      its that simple
    • 68024, on 10/11/2007, -5/+78Maybe the women in your place of work are really all men...
    • StarCrusher, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29Uh...Is there an opening where you work?
    • matude, on 10/11/2007, -3/+34@planksconstant

      But women Do like to stare at mens abs and fit bodies. So it's not that simple.
    • 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -4/+52planksconstant, I don't particularly enjoy staring at vaginas, so I'd say it's actually pretty balanced.
    • MateyO, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29"For men, the reward of seeing a woman is strongly influenced by physical attractiveness, but for women physical attractiveness has little or no impact,"

      Thus leaving an in for ugly men with money. If they'd shown a similar set of pictures of ugly men with cars, money and jewlery, you'd find similar reward centers stimulated in the women.
    • msgyrd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Men and women enjoy looking at each other. The difference is men enjoy it more, not that women can't enjoy it at all.
    • moofer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"What a load of bollox..."

      Uh... it's bollocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks
  • scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Wait, aren't women the opposite sex to men?
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -7/+42No, they are complementary sexes. I would like to know the source of the "opposite sex" claim; talk about a misnomer.
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Complementary, jayhawks? I take it you aren't married! ;-)
  • TAREcanada, on 10/11/2007, -15/+0You mean they had to research to figure this out?! haha!
  • poet, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Liking to look at the female figure has nothing to do with money. Some 'tards calling themselves scientists.
    It's about human nature and popular culture. Even more so it could be called beauty.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Rewards are about human nature too, genius. What we find rewarding (and punishing) are influenced by our evolution. So, let's just stop there and point, innanely to "it's evolution." Might as well say "it's God" if that is your claim. It is just as dogmatic.
  • mushy99, on 10/11/2007, -79/+5Anyway, on to something much more important :

    http://www.digg.com/world_news/No_end_to_Madeleine_family_agony_Please_digg_this_as_high_as_possible

    Can I ask everyone to please give 1 digg to make sure that Portugal don't turn their backs on the poor kid. There is 1 sick person out there that needs to be caught.
    • anonymouse99, on 10/11/2007, -57/+1Well as you've digged this down you obviously all dont give a ***** about a poor defenceless kid who's probably being abused by a sick individual. You're just as sick as the sicko out there.
    • GeorgeStone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37Newsflash: This comment thread is about "Why men like to gaze on the female form" Not "Why negligent parents started caring about their kid".
      Sure it's bad, But we might as well face it. She's dead.
      Lessons learned:
      1) Don't leave your toddler alone for 30 minutes at a time while staying in a strange country
      2) There are sick people in the world :SHOCK:
    • Filippo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2mushy99, STFU and stop spamming other digg articles, we will digg that one up if we want to.
  • jayhawk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33this comment page is worthless without pics.
  • 1b2a, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Summary: So guys like porn.

    What's new?
  • graemee, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30Gee, 3 Billion year of evolution may have something to do with it. That whole procreation/sex thing.
  • zsz7, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7boobies
  • lesface, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Not all men wanna look at nasty fishy women
  • doctechnical, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Wow. I would have thought "Because we're men" to be answer sufficient.
  • hedonictonic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+57the study was done on only 20 men and 20 women. thats hardly enough of a study to be claiming any kind of unique findings, particularly concerning matters of sex and attraction.
    meh.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Hedon, why don't you tell us what sample size IS necessary for it to be enough. And those Gallup polls couldn't possible be representative of Americans.
    • mercurysquad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8That's how psychology experiments work. It's an experiment, not a survey, you can't always test 15,000 people in your lab. For some experiments with sound prior theoretical basis, even 5 agreeing observations is enough to establish a conclusion.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Thank you mercury. There is this fallacy that people hold to, called intuition. It serves us well in our daily survival, but is pitifully inadequate and misleading for determining principles. Now, in all fairness, many (perhaps most) studies in social science research are underpowered, but when you find a "statistically significant" result, lack of power is not the problem. When you create a well-designed, well-controlled experiment, you are afforded that luxury of not needing hundreds or thousands of people to detect an effect. This has, apparently, a large effect size, and as you all know sample size necessary is inversely correlated with effect size.
    • gaspy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4There are some math methods to determine the proper sample size to fall within a desired error margin... I won't bother you with the details... generally speaking a sample size of 50 results in 15% error margin, 1000 samples result in a 5% error margin and 10000 samples result in a 3% error margin.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Gaspy, a heuristic for margin of error is 1/sqrt(sample size). In a survey, the margin of error is about 3% for a sample size of about 1000, which is why most polls use sample sizes between 1000-1500.

      In experimental research (at least in the social sciences), standard error of the mean (standard deviation/sqrt(sample size) is used to reflect the variability of the measure with respect to the population. There are also confidence intervals, which are directly related to standard errors.
    • calvmari, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Mercury

      With that kind of experiment, your external validity is hosed.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4 Nature has decided that men will be the ones who pick their mates mostly via physical fitness and women and will be the ones who choose theirs mostly by ability to succeed. I hope a lot of money wasn't wasted to find out what we have all known for thousands of years. And Duh, of course the brain corresponds to these realities.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5And in just two years of research, we discover how brilliant diggers think they are. If this site were representative of human intellect, I would fear for the future of scientific inquiry.
  • syafthegeek, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Boobs, nipps hehhe
  • 02evad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25I totally thought the headline of this was "Why men like to GLAZE on the female form", that would have been sweet.
    • crashflow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+40Sir, I need you to put down the donut and step away very slowly...
  • davecor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32We are hardwired to love women's bodies, it's what keep the species going.

    Here is my own crackpot theory why porn is so damn popular...
    100,000 years ago there were no bedroom doors - our ancestors got to watch a LOT of sex and was part of the normal human mating behavior. Watching sexual prowess may have been how you selected your next coital partner.

    Like I said... it's a crackpot theory.... or just a huge rationalization for my own behavior ;-).
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -23/+3davecor,

      so how does your crackpot "theory" account for the fact that women don't seem to respond the same way. How could the species keep going if women (according to your speculation) aren't hardwired to "love men's bodies?" So, either women don't love men's bodies, yet somehow the species keeps going (negating your reason why the species keeps going) or women do love men's bodies, yet that finding counters the behavior found in this study... or, of course the alternative explanation.

      Can you flesh out your speculation for us a bit more? A few operational definitions, some controlled empirical research; some rational thought?
    • davecor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@ Jayhawks...

      Settle down Skippy! Have I touched a nerve? If every opinion posted here required a comprehensive worldview and bibliography this place would be a barren bore.
      I think women are engineered to favor a stable provider among a great many other things. Men's consumption of porn is vastly disproportionate to that of women - I think that is plainly evident.

      Instead of freaking out, why not just give us your alternative theory? (and I'll listen to your ideas without demanding a double-blind study as proof)
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3dave, read through the posts on this topic. The authors, among others, already doing the research on this topic and publishing it. I can rely on that. They are making it public, they are presenting their methods, their anyalyses and their conclusions. The sheep in here are reading an article ABOUT a study written by a journalist, who likely has zero training in anything to do with scientific research. The "nerve" that has been touched is the apathy that people have for scientific research or their willingness to just point to a dogmatic explanation (e.g., it's evolution) rather than see why further research is done to understand WHY we do what everyone claims to know. That is the focus of the article described in the link. Some of the sheep in here seem to be happy with "we know a fact" (men are attracted to the female form) ... the end. That is the point where the science really begins, yet the commentary suggests dismissal of anyone seeking to understand the factors that influence attraction.... for them, it seems to just be enough to know that we are attracted.
    • Walker2323, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Settle down, virgins! This conversation is not a good way to actually see one of those aforementioned female forms.
    • davecor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ Jayhawks...

      I never understand people who complain about a group of people they have voluntarily chosen to associate with.
      It's like ordering food you hate and then complaining about it. I would NOT participate in a forum where I felt participants are "sheep".

      The only conclusion for your presence then, is that you relish the discord you sow. Every forum has its trolls.
      If you feel diggers are such an infuriatingly unsophisticated crowd, I would imagine there are other forums worthy of your superior intellect.
  • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Read the original article here:
    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3465j3457k7l6620/fulltext.pdf
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3that's what I like about digg-sheep... digg down a link to the original research yet comment incessantly about the Telegraph article about the original research. Science is doomed if diggers' comments serve as foreshadowing.

      Go back to your FPS.
  • VirginMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+53Men like to see women's boobs, women like to see men's wallet. That's natural because man seeks a woman with good reproductive health and woman seeks a provider.
    • Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4"women like to see men's wallet."
      Qft. Don't digg it down, it's true.
    • FlyingFredCurry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To summarize:
      Woman = sex object
      Man = success object
  • crashflow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"whether people would work harder on a computer to see a photo they were interested in."
    just look at the number of proxy sites and how to's on workarounds for site blockers at work. to make an even better test, they should set up a proxy site, post it on digg and check the logs on where people actually risk their jobs to waste their work hours on.
  • alehbye, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0I thought we already established why men like to "gaze upon the female form." It is, however, very technical and may need more scientific research.

    T&A. =)
  • Ultramagnus0001, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1They had to do a research for that
  • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4From the article (emphasis added):

    "We ELIMINATED photos whichwere blurry or small, photos with animals or displays ofwealth, photos in which emotionally salient objects such asguns, snakes or motorcycles were visible, photos with subjects
    in PROVOCATIVE SEXUAL POSITIONS or WITH NUDITY and photos inwhich the subjects appeared to be younger than 18 years old."

    no boobs, boobs.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Not only girls on photos look better than ones next door, you can stare at them at no charge.
  • Psht, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Maybe this has to do with the fact that women can pretty much have it whenever they want to in real life instead of relying on pornography. The obvious example of this is a bunch of hornydrunk guys, myself included, that go out to a bar and hope to hook up with some chick. Women, on the other hand, can pretty much pick and choose...most guys go home alone and need porn, women dont :p
  • joot2112, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Funded by the Institute of No ***** Sherlock! Seriously, did they need to do a STUDY to realize this?
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Yes, they did need to do a study like this. Read the original article if your literacy skills allow.
      http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3465j3457k7l6620/fulltext.pdf
    • joot2112, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Oh, I see. When you couch a patently obvious hypothesis in esoteric terms by tenure-seeking mental masturbators from Duke, it's supposed to sound a lot more justified. I read the article and still think it's a waste of human effort.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2joot, you aren't really going to tell us about how an investigation into the how and why of human behavior is a waste of human effort, but you posting on digg is somehow valuable?

      So, did all of your graduate school applications get rejected or did you not get the 4.0 this semester that you were accustomed to because some hard-ass professor actually made you do some work and you thought you knew it all? You sure to have a thing against academics. I suppose mental-masturbation at least has some value to people who know how to read a research article compared to the masturbation you usually partake in, where only a kleenex gets the benefit of your "wasted effort."
  • Anteros, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I like the way they have "naked keeley" at the top and then a few inches down "keeley naked" just in case you were in any doubt
  • Travisx2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You hear that Diggers!
    All you have to do is leave the basement and talk to a few of them.
    They really don't care what you look like.

    Go Get em!!!
  • flylikegumby, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1so where's the article explaining why people breathe air, like sunny days and cloudless skies?
    • austinfrank, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Seriously. This has to top the list of "no *****" research studies recently performed. Please please tell me that no taxpayer dollars were spent on this, in any country.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1You doubt that there are many? Do the research, you will find plenty of research addressing the topics you mention. The impression that I get from some of these posts is that somehow, when we know a fact, that is the end of the road; there is no sense of inquiry. Science has explanation and understanding as goals, not just "it exists" statements.

      Just as the described study examines WHY men like to look at the female form (more than 'we like to look at women' or dogmatic 'evolution did it' claims), a study of WHY we breathe air does more than say "we breathe air"... there are tomes on WHY and HOW we breathe, the role of the sun in our lives, coverage including, to name just two, being a source of energy for plants, to providing light for our photoreceptors.

      As an aside, I like cloudy skies... thick, grey clouds...throw in a little thunder and lightning and I am good.
      Quit being so damn apathetic people.

      edit: austin did you read the damn study or just the article, or worse yet, just the comments of the sheep?
      http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3465j3457k7l6620/fulltext.pdf
  • Str!ckland, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Can't wait for the next study; "Chocolate, tasty?"
  • Cherubim, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Women prefer to look straight at a guys face and not the rest of his body.

    In general though, women only want cash and ***** with the former being paramount.








  • wxjunkie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Straight women enjoy the female form, too, but straight men usually do not.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4straight women enjoy the female form too, but straight men do not?
      Huh? Straight men do not enjoy the female form, eh?
  • dchaosdx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6i agree with the article's summary: "Men find photos of the opposite sex much more "rewarding" than women, new research claims today."

    that's because photos can't say "stop looking at me you fat, balding, college dropout!"
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1...or you zit faced high-school kid with the pasty white skin caused by days in the basement under a single compact fluorescent bulb "duh"ing the scientific endeavor because you know everything.
  • biggrz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2THIS JUST IN: The Sun is hot!!
  • drivebymaster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3FINALLY they have caught on lol...please point out any more obvious ***** if you can
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1People like to repeat incessantly as evidenced by your post. You're welcome.
  • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0All they really needed to do is show ME those pictures and I would have told them the same thing!

    And they would have saved a lot of money.

    But really man. Spending money on research about such OBVIOUS crap is a waste!
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Why don't we just stop the scientific endeavor and say God did it? That would be much simpler. Clearly, the authors didn't waste their energy on this research for this group of digg sheep.

      A simple demonstration from a psychology class: give two groups of students OPPOSITE research findings (but don't tell them this) and ask them to rate their level of surprise at the outcome, after knowing the outcome. You find that 80+% of people in BOTH groups answer that they were not at all surprised by the outcome. Yet another aspect of human behavior that is being studied.... hindsight bias. Of course, God did it, would be much simpler.
    • loserlife17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1what the hell's a digg sheep?
  • Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Holy crap.. they needed to do a study for that? I could have told them the same answer in 15 seconds flat.

    Men are far more (sexually) visually stimulated.... women are more intellectually stimulated..

    Anyone with a half a brain that is post pubescent should know this! *LOL*
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yep, once again, the brilliant sheep come out with "here is a fact, the end."
  • scatmasterjj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Where is the obvious tag?

    Sorry wrong website. I'll go back to my fapping corner.
  • jenlazee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I think the stupidest part about this study is that it makes a sweeping generalization. People are products of their environment. Boys are taught to be visual and girls are not. I can bet you that this study will change in the next 20 years with the popularity of the internet and how easy it is now for BOTH sexes to see what the opposite sex looks like naked. As a 28 year old female... I was not exposed to pornography that showed what men looked like until my early 20s... any child now who can function at a computer can see whatever they want now. Had I had the internet at my fingertips at a young age... I CERTAINLY would have been looking at a lot of naked men.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Boys are "taught" to be visual? Explain. How are they taught to be visual? Are they taught the same way they are taught to speak? to read? to solve an equation? to jump out of the way when a car is coming at them? Each of these acts are demonstrations of learning, which come about by a confluence of "teaching", some explicit, some not.

      Human male and female environments growing up are far more similar than they are different. To explain this in terms of an environment only explanation is as short-sighted as trying to explain everything having "a gene" that causes behavior. (Social) science IS about making generalizations about human behavior; it is about discovering principles (general rules) that underlie behavior. I think you miss the point of doing research and perhaps confuse an influence with a sole cause. This is commonly done among non-scientists; people hear "cause" and they conclude that someone is claiming the "cause" as the sole explanatory variable for a behavior. An analogy is the lay person's misunderstanding of the term "theory" as a scientist uses it; they mean very different things, yet may people hear "theory" and dismiss it as some sort of half-baked guess that has little or no support.

      Human behavior is complex; environments are complex; genetics is complex, etc.... When complexities interact, the results are usually complex.
    • Maggoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@jayhawks71

      I note you interest in not becoming a digg sheep. This is fair enough.

      You then proceed to insult digg users literacy, whilst writing several A4 sheets of paper on this subject that you feel very passionate about.

      Could I please request, that you find a short pier, and take a long walk?

      Or at least publish your own paper? it's a sunday, for heaven's sake, if you're a genius regarding the female form, I suggest you go find yourself a female, to spend your weekends with.

      M
  • coolguy2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2scopophilia trained from the phalocentric gaze of the televisual apparatus. There's your problem
  • Chronomaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The article aims to explain why, but never explains why. The closest we got was that looking at women triggers a payoff reaction in our heads. It didn't explain much more. Seriously. If you just wrote 'Men like to stare at naked women.' in place of every sentence, you'd have the article.

    Does the shapes of the body excite us? Is there some color or ratio that we subconsciously confirm which cause these reward reactions? We all know that men like the female form, moreso than women like the male form, but WHY?
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1First, no you wouldn't have the article because there were no naked women in the study. In fact, you did not read the research article (not the stupid Telegraph account of what the article is about) or you would have known this.

      The problem with the average person reading a research article is that out of the larger context of other research (for example, the research cited in the article and advanced understanding of the influences on human behavior), the average
      person simply lacks the expertise to place value on the findings. The evidence is pretty clear from the comments here that most of the people here lack any expertise on human behavior or any ability to understand the nature of the scientific endeavor (that it is more than just saying "men like women").
    • kodek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Dude, say "sheep" again and all the "digg sheep" will beat the crap out of you. You said the same thing about 50 times in this article alone.
    • Chronomaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@jayhawks71

      I was hardly made aware of the fact that the 'article' wasn't the article at hand. See, it's these kinds of things where we hate links to blogs and the like, because then it involves reading layers farther than one would expect.

      In other terms, what does it take to read the actual ***** news around here?
  • scbysnx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1this thread is useless without pics
  • bicyclethief, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1C'mon now, we like it way more than curry.
  • rajaal1977, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If this isn't solid research on which to base a Pornography dependancy hypothesis, then I don't know what is. The only question is, who will be the experimental subjects?
  • hrothgarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Men's brains are "hard wired" differently than women's brains. These differences begin in the womb and aren't a product of environment or learning, although many, including some in the social sciences, would have us think otherwise in order to achieve egalitarian social goals. There are certainly exceptions, but men are naturally better at some pursuits and women at others as a result of evolutionary psychology. Men are also "turned on" more easily by attractive images of the opposite sex than women are. This is an aspect of their nature. One wonders why those fields that men tend to dominate are automatically considered more desirable or important than those traditionally filled by women? Our society would benefit of it better understood and accommodated these differences rather than wage war against them.
  • mikeligalig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Because women are more beautiful than men...
  • waterboy4453, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1we needed a study to tell us this?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.