Something About Sex.

[PhoenyxAngel]

Maybe I'm more of a man on the inside, but I'm not sure how porn is aimed more at men? Because when I view porn I don't see it as something geared towards anyone. But that's just me.

I must have been a man in a past life...

 

[Shu]

I don't want to be mean here, but this topic is flat out inconsistent. I see porn, cars, men not being the providers..

I don't know exactly what the aim of this here thread is actually. I'm going to take a shot in the dark though.

1) Porn caters towards men: Agree or Disagree?

I would say.. not entirely agree. I know some women who like to read pornographic novels (romance novels) and some who get their rocks off on porn as well, whether it be a stimuli during sex or masturbation or even for educational purpose. I don't see anything in porn that is really "geared" towards women, in fact it's pretty gender neutral.

2) Women being the caretakers of men: Agree or Disagree?

This is pretty poor. In fact I actually see it the other way around more times than not. Whether or not I see it should be either one of them taking care of the other... is not my say. It's whatever. I have many many personal experiences of folks going through the divorce and the woman getting all she wanted.. but then goes ape shit when she figures out the man moved on and is fine on his own. Most divorces I see are honestly just to get the attention of the man, since most men in marriages go numb after some of the loony tune women out there in the world lay into them. Not everything is as it "seems." I don't defend women or men when it comes to relationships.

3) Men are more visual: Agree or Disagree?

100% agree. I'm talking about stats here. I'm not going to have visualized someone very well by reading a book. No offense, the image in my head will never be as good as seeing an actress on the screen or a swim suit model. (this is not about porn anymore you dirty people). I can think of a woman's complete curves and everything else and the face, but it's like a visual.. it's the caching of memory in my brain. If I never knew what a woman looked like and I tried to visualize it, well there we be no mental footprint of a woman in my head. Like when I say "damn.. she's hot" I usually say that because I compare her to 200,000 + women in my heads, and then say.. damn something stands out about her. Whether it's a cute smile, or a way she is pulling of a certain look. My wife is the master at this. She knows how to pull pretty much anything off around me to make my jaw drop. It's because they know.. as well what us men "look" for.

Aka we are more visual.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

What do you mean pretend? I don't know you.

Maybe you've mistaken my opposition to something you said as a personal jibe and that's really not like me. You seem like an alright guy. If I disliked you we wouldn't speak.

K. Thanks, bro.

If you take it to the level of obsession, it may be. But we're not at that level here. We're talking about simple attraction.

That would be fine if attraction were completely instinctual, but its not. Attraction isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

I'm saying that's not the sphere of this discussion.

Why?

Pretty much isn't an entirety. Also the dictionary apparently disagrees with you, as it states "true of all members," which is an entirety.

100% is an entirety.

99.9% is more or less the same.

You did a terrible job explaining yourself. But I think I understand it now, after rereading it for the fourteenth time. I think what you're saying is that if men were visually driven, there would be no gender gap because men would pay attractive women more simply for being attractive. But then you argue against yourself by saying the gender gap is simply the impetus of millennia where women were secondary. Also, women who are more attractive do get paid more, and are more likely to be given/maintain a job simply based on their looks.

If men were 'visually driven', blind men may be doomed to lives of zero sexual gratification.

What I'm saying is, men have had more freedom, rights and privelege than women for thousands of years. Women weren't allowed to own land, vote, etc. Until 200-300 years ago, it was legal for men in the United States to beat (see: discipline) their wives.

Men having more freedom, rights and priveleges translates to them being catered to more in terms of sex, porn and other things.

I have to put words in your mouth because you either spout a bunch of nonsensical crap, or just say 3 words and expect people to glean your meaning from them.

So are men visually driven or not?

I said men are visually driven, you said my point is untrue. Now you're backtracking. Make up your mind.

I never backtracked.

WHY are men the largest consumers of porn? Because they like SEEING naked women. Visually driven.

Not visually driven. Easier to satisfy.

There's a reason women read romance novels as apposed to just watching some porno. We're stimulated by OUR minds. Men are just visually stimulated, as the others said, it's why porn is consumed and aimed towards males the most.

It's not a generalization it's just... how it is.

Men aren't visually driven. Its just easier for them to get off. A box of kleenex and a picture is more than enough for most.

Women need more. A man can be satisfied with a cheesy scene in porn. A woman won't be satisfied by it unless it also contains a good story and decent acting. Its not that women aren't turned on or attracted based on visual cues. Its just that it takes more to satisfy them and for them to achieve climax.

Its not necessarily a result of differing visual perceptions between gender or people being geared differently.

Saying men are "visually driven" is bad science and pro materialism wankery.

First of all, if I were a theoretical ass hole and I was confident in my douchebagerry then I personally wouldn't feel compelled to indoctrinate anyone to be like me. I wouldn't really give a flying hoot if the guys I talked to followed in my footsteps to charm every girl I deemed to be hot and or sex-able. I would be far more concerned, as a douchebag of a male specimen, with copulating with as many females as I possibly could 'cause hey life's short and I need my pleasure. And I'm a douchebag. Secondly, I'm aware that there are some men who exemplify these traits and objectify women, turning them into nothing more than objects. Yes, it can work for some unsuspecting female but still this has nothing to do with physical attractiveness; it still boils down to personality traits and that is more environmentally-tinged than it is biologically-tinged. I feel like I'm repeating my--oh wait, I am.

No, I wouldn't, hypothetically speaking. Maybe I wouldn't propagate any ideologies, if my own methods are working well to lure in men and/or women. However, this has nothing to do with your original point of men being visually driven creatures. You're going off on a tangent. Honestly, that's all I want to address, your original point, that is.

You just contradicted yourself 100000000.

If you were an ass, the way you would achieve maximum copulation is by convincing women all men are assholes and that anyone who claims to be a nice guy is just an asshole pretending to be a nice guy because nice guys don't exist.

Just because someone's an ass doesn't mean they're stupid or don't have the sense to try politically maneuvering their way towards achieving their goals.

No.

Yes?!

Where? Quote it for me because either I'm missing something you posted or you're seeing something that you didn't type.

I said multiple times that what I said was a generalization and that everything said on the topic of human behavior is a generalization.

Think of the woman who married and claims to have had sex with the berlin wall, the man who claimed to have sex with more than 1000 cars and the guy who was turned on by women injuring him with cars.

Say things like men are "visually driven" are generalizations. Everything said on the topic of human sexuality is a generalization.

I hope that was clear enough..

There's nothing wrong with it, inherently; it just falls short due to the lack of empirical evidence to support one's claims.
There's no meat, no substance, it is merely regurgitated opinion after regurgitated opinion. It holds no weight and is therefore not a feasible argument.

Empirically prove which Presidential candidate is the right candidate to vote for.

Oh, wait. It can't be done.

Have you ever wondered why that's the case?

No, it's observing when a person's argument holds no weight because there is no factual/statistical basis of which they can make their claims from.
Basically, if you have no evidence, then how am I supposed to believe what you're stating is true? Different story.

See the above response to what you've said ^.

Again, where did you say it was a generalization? Did you address it to me because I don't think you did. And you don't have to directly state your opinion as a fact, it can be interpreted as such depending on one's wording.

Its a generalization...... for the 10000000000th time.

None of your points are cohesive and none of them hold any factual weight. That, and a man is visually stimulated by females' bodies. This can be viewed through the visual imagery of brain activity and one can highlight the different area of the brain that are stimulated when a man is aroused to further support this claim. There is evidence of this. This however does not correlate as I and many others have stated, to a man being an asshole. Those are two different concepts that I'm trying to outline to you. That's all.

Why are my points not "cohesive"?

And, why do they not "hold weight"?

What you're citing is a generalization. What makes it better than my generalizations?

Heh.. Link me to your purported "brain activity correlated with visual cues in men" study / scientific research, plz.

Lest it be said you lack evidence for your views!

There is nothing for me to "remember" because I do not recall you having ever directly stated to me that what ever you presented was not a fact but a series of generalizations. Again, unless you did this, in which case I urge you to point it out.

Everything & anything someone says on the topic of human behavior is a generalization.

Criticizing me on that point is like criticizing me for breathing. Well, everyone does it, so what's the purpose in pretending anyone doesn't?

 

[Squid]

Men aren't visually driven. Its just easier for them to get off. A box of kleenex and a picture is more than enough for most.

Women need more. A man can be satisfied with a cheesy scene in porn. A woman won't be satisfied by it unless it also contains a good story and decent acting. Its not that women aren't turned on or attracted based on visual cues. Its just that it takes more to satisfy them and for them to achieve climax.

Its not necessarily a result of differing visual perceptions between gender or people being geared differently.

Saying men are "visually driven" is bad science and pro materialism wankery.

You do realise in every single example here you used something visual when describing how men get off

A photo, a cheesy porn scene. Oh riddick

 

[Richard B Riddick]

You do realise in every single example here you used something visual when describing how men get off

A photo, a cheesy porn scene. Oh riddick

Well, are you willing to say women aren't turned on by a hot guy who looks good? That visuals mean absolutely nothing to them?

What's the sense in pretending that only men can appreciate visual aesthetics?

I would contend: women can appreciate visual aesthetics just as much as men. They just aren't as easily satisifed by them.

 

[Squid]

Well, are you willing to say women aren't turned on by a hot guy who looks good? That visuals mean absolutely nothing to them?

What's the sense in pretending that only men can appreciate visual aesthetics?

I would contend: women can appreciate visual aesthetics just as much as men. They just aren't as easily satisfied by them.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the whole thread. I don't think anyone has ever said that women aren't visually driven at all. Of course women are. Women like looking at nice things, just not as much as men do.

A girl can think about something or read a sexy book or something and then their imagination does the rest where as a guy would much rather see something than read a romance book I don't think I've ever met a guy who'd rather read than watch porn.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the whole thread. I don't think anyone has ever said that women aren't visually driven at all. Of course women are. Women like looking at nice things, just not as much as men do.

A girl can think about something or read a sexy book or something and then their imagination does the rest where as a guy would much rather see something than read a romance book I don't think I've ever met a guy who'd rather read than watch porn.

K, stopping in for just a sec.....

1. Men are visually "driven".
2. Women are visually "driven" also. Don't believe me? Just think of how much time girls on this site spend raving about how "hot" Tom Felton and other male celebrities are.

Hence, its pointless to say men are visually driven as its a redundant statement.

We can probably agree that women can appreciate visual aesthetics as well as men.

What differs between genders is mere visuals aren't enough for women to achieve sexual gratification. Whereas, it is enough for men.

Women need more stimulation than just visuals or appearances. Its not that they don't recognize or appreciate aesthetics of visuals. Therefore to suggest men are visually 'driven' and women are not is a poor observation.

And, before you say...... ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, buttttttttttttttttttttt..... reading doesn't deal with aesthetics or apperances.

Yes, it does. When a character is described as having blue eyes and an afro those are visual cues. Also, I'm pretty certain reading stimulates the visual cortex aspect of the brain.

Blah, blah.

 

[Squid]

K, stopping in for just a sec.....

1. Men are visually "driven".
2. Women are visually "driven" also. Don't believe me? Just think of how much time girls on this site spend raving about how "hot" Tom Felton and other male celebrities are.

Hence, its pointless to say men are visually driven as its a redundant statement.

We can probably agree that women can appreciate visual aesthetics as well as men.

What differs between genders is mere visuals aren't enough for women to achieve sexual gratification. Whereas, it is enough for men.

Women need more stimulation than just visuals or appearances. Its not that they don't recognize or appreciate aesthetics of visuals. Therefore to suggest men are visually 'driven' and women are not is a poor observation.

And, before you say...... ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, buttttttttttttttttttttt..... reading doesn't deal with aesthetics or apperances.

Yes, it does. When a character is described as having blue eyes and an afro those are visual cues. Also, I'm pretty certain reading stimulates the visual cortex aspect of the brain.

Blah, blah.

...I just finished saying that women are visually driven... do you actually read anything anyone posts??

All I said was Men are more visually driven than women and any man (besides you) seems to be happy to agree with that as every other guy in this thread has said exactly that

...wow.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

...I just finished saying that women are visually driven... do you actually read anything anyone posts??

All I said was Men are more visually driven than women and any man (besides you) seems to be happy to agree with that as every other guy in this thread has said exactly that

...wow.

1. If both genders are visually driven, what's the point in saying "DUR, MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN, YO"? Especially considering its accompanied by the implied notion that women are NOT visually driven?

2. Like I said, its not that men are "more" visually driven than women. Its that men are easier satisfied and it takes less for them to achieve sexual gratification. A picture is enough for most men. Its not enough for most women. Its not that women don't appreciate appearances, or are not visually driven, its just that it takes more to satisfy them.

 

[Squid]

1. If both genders are visually driven, what's the point in saying "DUR, MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN, YO"? Especially considering its accompanied by the implied notion that women are NOT visually driven?

2. Like I said, its not that men are "more" visually driven than women. Its that men are easier satisfied and it takes less for them to achieve sexual gratification. A picture is enough for most men. Its not enough for most women. Its not that women don't appreciate appearances, or are not visually driven, its just that it takes more to satisfy them.

This is a creepy topic and i hate talking about this because it's awkward but as a woman, I do not look at a mans willy or a mans legs or whatever and go "hmm he has a nice crotchal region!" where as men look at a woman's tits, legs, hips, whatever and more often than not it get's them excited

As a girl I do not look at porn and think it is exciting at all, to me most visual things are not that great. I am sure it's not just me, it's probably like that for a lot of girls. Girls are into romance, girls are into nice gestures, those kind of things, i think that's what gets a girl more excited rather than anything visual. But, we can think someone is hot too because we are visually driven as well but not to the extent that men are.

and yes men are more easily to satisfy but that doesn't mean they aren't also more visually driven than women.

I'm not fighting with you btw, I am just talking with you so please don't take this as some kind of attack like you always do, just discuss it without the little comments you usually add.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

This is a creepy topic and i hate talking about this because it's awkward but as a woman, I do not look at a mans willy or a mans legs or whatever and go "hmm he has a nice crotchal region!" where as men look at a woman's tits, legs, hips, whatever and more often than not it get's them excited

As a girl I do not look at porn and think it is exciting at all, to me most visual things are not that great. I am sure it's not just me, it's probably like that for a lot of girls. Girls are into romance, girls are into nice gestures, those kind of things, i think that's what gets a girl more excited rather than anything visual. But, we can think someone is hot too because we are visually driven as well but not to the extent that men are.

and yes men are more easily to satisfy but that doesn't mean they aren't also more visually driven than women.

I'm not fighting with you btw, I am just talking with you so please don't take this as some kind of attack like you always do, just discuss it without the little comments you usually add.

Cosmo For Guys pulled this great social experiment: What Girls Look at.


"Anthony wants to find out which one of his body parts girls look at when they first meet him. Four hidden cameras are placed on his body to conduct this experiment: a crotch cam, a bicep cam, a butt cam, and a glasses cam (so the viewer can always see what/who Anthony is looking at). All videos are being recorded onto HD DVRs that are placed in Anthony's backpack.


Anthony walks around New York City and approached different girls, asking them for directions. The video is a montage of some of the girls who chose to take a peek at either his butt, his crotch, or his biceps.


What do YOU look at when you first meet a handsome young man? His chest, his legs, his face, his teeth?"

If I remember correctly... every woman he approached looked at his crotch at least once. In some cases, multiple times.



Women "aren't" visually driven?

Heh...?

.

Alrite, Toni. While you may be nicer and more prude than some of the woman in this experiment... It is possible women are just as clued into visual cues as men are. Possibly, moreso.

So, yeh......... whatever, rite?

 

[Sepalcure]

If I saw him on the street then I would look at his face first, not his crotch. Penis is penis. There's really nothing visually exciting to me about them because once you've seen one or two or even three then they all just sort of look the same. At least for me. But yeah, I'm with Toni on this one, I'm not visually "driven" by porn when I do watch it. God, admitting that is so weird, lol. But yeah it's not the visual aestheticism that gets to me, in fact most pornographic material that's visual bores me. What excites me more sexually are words: words for me to read, words for me to hear. It's the description of what could be done or will be done that primarily drives my arousal and I would say that this is what sexually arouses most other women as well. Most of us, (and by us I refer to most females)are statistically more driven by emotional contextualization than visual cues. Some men however are exceptions to the scientific observation of men's amygdalae and hypothalamus being stimulated during sexual activity.

"Sexual desire in women is extremely sensitive to environment and context," says Edward O. Laumann, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and lead author of a major survey of sexual practices, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.

They just view the role of sex differently. "Women want to talk first, connect first, then have sex," Perel explains. "For men, sex is the connection. Sex is the language men use to express their tender loving vulnerable side," Perel says. "It is their language of intimacy."

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20040308/activity-of-brain-may-explain-mens-sex-drive]To[/url] answer that question, Hamann and his Emory colleagues used sophisticated MRI brain imaging to look into the brain activity of 28 male and female college students. The students looked at arousing photographs of heterosexual couples engaged in sexual activity and sexually attractive opposite sex nudes and at "neutral" photographs -- pleasant pictures of men and women in nonsexual situations.

"We found that the [brain areas] amygdala and hypothalamus were more activated in men than in women when viewing identical sexual stimuli, even when females reported greater arousal," writes Hamann.

There is also additional evidence that probes into the anatomic facet of what directly is triggered in a man's brain during sexual arousal.
The scientists mentioned in the following article took scans of 28 male and female college students who were active participants. They scanned the limbic regions of their brains and concluded that on average, these men had more activity in the amygdalae and the hypothalamus which are responsible for: survial instincts/what is perceived as being threatening or what is harmless as well as a stronger sexual drive.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

There is also additional evidence that probes into the anatomic facet of what directly is triggered in a man's brain during sexual arousal.
The scientists mentioned in the following article took scans of 28 male and female college students who were active participants. They scanned the limbic regions of their brains and concluded that on average, these men had more activity in the amygdalae and the hypothalamus which are responsible for: survial instincts/what is perceived as being threatening or what is harmless as well as a stronger sexual drive.

The problem with fields like sociology and psychology is they're moreso fuzzy science areas as opposed to empirical.

And, the problem with purported research relating to "brain activity" is we still don't know precisely how the brain functions.

These two facts conspire to cast into doubt conclusions or theories set forth by purported academics.

You're not so much disagreeing with what I said so much as my interpretation of it. Actually, you're not even doing that. You're just reciting another person's opinion in blind faith without really thinking about it..

 

[Saints&Storms]

I wish men would only look at my arms, but no; women have to deal with creepers fallowing us with their cars around a parking lot to ask if "we're models" possibly trying to kidnap us.

But I guess I need some cheep video to prove that

Anyway that video is hilarious and a sham. The fact that you would post that video and try to be serious is really hilarious actually. Anyone with that high tech equipment would and could have the video editing skills to easily stop a camera in the women's mid eye motion and falsify a glance at his crotch.

Let alone the fact that the whole video could be staged.

Video. Therefore obviously fact.

 

[The Witch]

Cosmo For Guys pulled this great social experiment: What Girls Look at.


"Anthony wants to find out which one of his body parts girls look at when they first meet him. Four hidden cameras are placed on his body to conduct this experiment: a crotch cam, a bicep cam, a butt cam, and a glasses cam (so the viewer can always see what/who Anthony is looking at). All videos are being recorded onto HD DVRs that are placed in Anthony's backpack.


Anthony walks around New York City and approached different girls, asking them for directions. The video is a montage of some of the girls who chose to take a peek at either his butt, his crotch, or his biceps.


What do YOU look at when you first meet a handsome young man? His chest, his legs, his face, his teeth?"

If I remember correctly... every woman he approached looked at his crotch at least once. In some cases, multiple times.



Women "aren't" visually driven?

Heh...?

No, not every woman looked at his smooth as a ken doll crotch. Some of them, at most, looked at his biceps. First off, that video is so effing retarded it's not even funny. Most of those "caught glances" were to his bicep--OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, NOT A BICEP!! D:

Second of all, MOST of those "caught glances" towards his crotch weren't even genuine. Most of the time they counted times when the girls were just looking around. & the chick on the train was too far away to determine if she was staring at his crotch and so was the chicks at 2:35.

You know what I think? I think that guy's just a self absorbed asshat and was sooo into himself that he just THOUGHT that women were checking out his crotch, when really the douche doing this just counted the times the women were just looking around. This video is so effing bogus and the douche bag in it is an idiot for using this method. I feel bad for the people that thought this gave good answers to what women stare at.

Also, DID YOU NOTICE HIM STARE DOWN HER SHIRT AT 49 SECONDS?



But riddick, now I see your true agenda here. This whole time you've been trying to make it seem as if you were just interested in proving that men weren't visually stimulated so that women know that there are "good guys" out there... when really you're entire problem was that you just wanted to make it as though women do the same, as a way to put them down . Why do you hate women, Riddick? D:

 

[Sepalcure]

Read all of it from beginning to end to get the full effect.

Riddick, you're hilarious. Also, your little "video" as evidence of women being just as visual as men is just ludicrous. Clearly the dude in it was obviously full of himself and videos like that could've been staged or scripted. Credible evidence? I think not. Speaking of evidence guess what I found moar.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n4/abs/nn1208.html
Men are generally more interested in and responsive to visual sexually arousing stimuli than are women. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the amygdala and hypothalamus are more strongly activated in men than in women when viewing identical sexual stimuli. This was true even when women reported greater arousal. Sex differences were specific to the sexual nature of the stimuli, were restricted primarily to limbic regions, and were larger in the left amygdala than the right amygdala. Men and women showed similar activation patterns across multiple brain regions, including ventral striatal regions involved in reward. Our findings indicate that the amygdala mediates sex differences in responsiveness to appetitive and biologically salient stimuli; the human amygdala may also mediate the reportedly greater role of visual stimuli in male sexual behavior, paralleling prior animal findings.

The above quotations I used as empirical evidence weren't psychological based or sociological based; it was more based on biology by the way. As well as being steeped in the field of neuroscience. Lol, I'm reciting someone's opinion in blind faith? What in the actual fuck? What part of: I'm citing actual evidence to support my claims do you not seem to understand, bro? Actually, I do disagree with your claims. I disagree with your statement of, "men being assholes is liek ttly related to men being visual creatures k." I also completely disagree with men not being as visually-oriented when it comes to sexual arousal. Why? Because there is evidence of it and when it is directly challenged with further theoretical and scientific evidence from the READ: scientific and medical community then I will cease to post it as being scientifically and medically factual. Until then, I have reason to believe that what i posted is far more credible than your little video. Nice try though.

 

[Saints&Storms]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH, NOT A BICEP!! D:

Yes....a bicep. Because biceps get me going, I know that for sure.

I was actually wondering how much they payed those women to participate in that video, because legally they shouldn't be allowed to show those women's faces unless they knew about it, right




Too bad there was no camera inside his wallet....

 

[Harlequin]

Let's not forget the guy wasn't just standing on the pavement and getting looks he was talking to them, making them laugh and obviously at that point it's natural that they're gonna start checking him out. Men would've done the checking out before even speaking to the girl. That said women can't have many complaints it just means men clearly have to do more work to grab a lady's attention!

 

[Sepalcure]

Could you imagine if this had been switched around and a woman was the subject of the video?
Imagine if she like walked around with four cameras: Le boob cam, le vag cam, le glasses cam, and le purse cam and she just walked down the streets of Manahattan or some shit around noontime. And she passed by these random guys and just struck up random conversations. Lolz. Guess where most of those dudes' eyes would rove to next. Bewbs.

Not disputable at all, Tom. But at that 49 second mark, our dude was clearly checking out that sister's rack. Not that it wasn't a bad rack but still ...
His eyes were not on her face. I mean, sure, some girls are going to "check" a guy out but it's not sexually arousing to have some dude's crotch in your face. But, to have a guy describe sexual situations in detail, to establish an emotional connection with him during an intimate moment, that is what sexually stimulates most women as is indicative of neuroscientific studies of the limbic regions of the brain.

 

[The Witch]

Let's not forget the guy wasn't just standing on the pavement and getting looks he was talking to them, making them laugh and obviously at that point it's natural that they're gonna start checking him out. Men would've done the checking out before even speaking to the girl. That said women can't have many complaints it just means men clearly have to do more work to grab a lady's attention!

That's another good point. He had to walk up to them and most of the time he was shoving his crotch in her face by standing less than a foot away from the girls that were sitting down.

Not disputable at all, Tom. But at that 49 second mark, our dude was clearly checking out that sister's rack. Not that it wasn't a bad rack but still ...
His eyes were not on her face. I mean, sure, some girls are going to "check" a guy out but it's not sexually arousing to have some dude's crotch in your face. But, to have a guy describe sexual situations in detail, to establish an emotional connection with him during an intimate moment, that is what sexually stimulates most women as is indicative of neuroscientific studies of the limbic regions of the brain.

Yeah, I saw that too. Girls DO look at cute guys but like you said it's not sexually arousing us. well said tay.