Visit Today http://Www.fastuploadfiles.com MAx 1Gb file…

Men looked at the female face much more than women

We’re trying to figure out who many paper bags we’re gonna need.

Duh.

Off Topic: Stephen F Hayes interviews Fred Thompson in the Weekly Standard. Looks like Fred! is gonna run. Gotta say, I’m pretty picky and haven’t come anywhere near to backing anyone, but Fred! has got me hopin’ he runs. He’s the best thing I’ve seen so far.

The Apologist on April 14, 2007 at 1:07 PM

I saw Fred! on some talk show–Cavuto maybe? Anyway just for a brief moment. He looks drawn and much older than I remember from Law and Order.

In recent years hemlines have climbed while headscarves have slipped coquettishly back

Sufferin’ succotash!!!

Who’d a thunk it?

Thanks scientists.

The second link (“They know damn well…”) is really fascinating for the look it provides at ordinary Iranian life. I wasn’t surprised at the lengths that the mullahs go to keep women out of view. What was surprising is the comment that, within their fenced-off area of the beach, Iranian women are sunbathing topless or wearing really skimpy bikinis.

Go back to our own history and you’ll see that the bikini was a revolutionary development. Ignore (if you can) the sexy connotation of the bikini and just think about how it changed the way conservative no-sex-before-marriage women regard their own bodies. If you read literature from the Victorian era through the late 1920′s, the ideal of beauty clusters dangerously around weakness. Read Edith Wharton or other high-society writers — women were supposed to have very slender, pale arms, a tiny waist, and at all times were to stay out of the sun (carry a parasol or you’ll ruin your fashionably pale complexion).

Fast-forward just 30 years to the invention and popularity of the bikini at the end of the 1940′s. The new ideal of beauty is the California or Hawaiian bikini-wearing surfer girl. She is tan, toned, curvy, and athletic — the very picture of youthful health and strength. Though this change is delightful to guys, the real beneficiaries of the changing style have been mainstream “proper” women. I won’t go so far as to say the bikini caused women’s empowerment, but neither can you separate it from the social movement towards women’s liberation.

…and I can’t believe I just use the phrase “women’s lib” in a positive, non-ironic fashion. But there you have it.

Maybe I’m putting too much thought into a female ghetto on the beach o’ the mullahs. But I have a gut feel that the Iranian Islamic Revolution will not be able to survive such women for very long. It may take another thirty or so years, but I’ve got to believe that the mullah’s hold on power collapses when confronted by a generation or two of ordinary bikini-wearing Iranian women.

Hopefully sooner.

Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals

But we’re all still scarred by Ron Jeremy.

“Men and women are attracted to each by physical appearance.”

Here are a couple of takes (though if I actually thought about it for more than 10 seconds I’m sure I could list plenty more).

First of all, they note that there was a difference in women on hormonal contraceptives, which in and of itself kind of invalidates the study

Secondly, have they considered the societal influences? We see broads on display CONSTANTLY if a girl isn’t naked on TV she’s in her bra and underwear, and if she’s not in her bra and underwear, she’s wearing the skimpiest dress and tank top possible. We’re all pretty familiar with the female body, but a genuinely good looking girl is hard to find. Not to mention that males from adolescence have been looking at their dad’s playboy or mom’s Victoria’s Secret, etc.

Now, acknowledging all of that, consider how often females have seen naked men? Growing up, rarely if at all. They aren’t flipping through Playgirl and dad’s Vic’s Secret, at most they looked at the guys in their underwear in the JcPenny’s catalogue. For men, naked and scantily clad women are a dime a dozen, but for women it’s a rare chance to see a naked man and compare it to what they know and have personally experienced, which gives them a very limited knowledge base.

Again, I could go on and on, but I think that explanation is probably as good as it gets. Quite simply, men have seen a lot more of women’s bodies than women have mens. There’s less mystery for us, but women are probably very curious about our junk.

The female face is by far and without compare the most important and sexually interesting part of the body.
Halley on April 14, 2007 at 2:37 AM

There is so much truth to this, and something women should not overlook. The expression on a woman’s face when meeting a man for the first time can (and does) determine his next step. For example, if she smiles, this is an open door for the man to approach her. If she expresses dis-interest or dissatisfaction, this can be interpreted in many ways. She may be playing “hard to get” (even though she really is interested), but it comes off as a “cold shoulder” to the man. Facial expression should not be overlooked. A man is looking for approval in the eyes of a woman. First impressions mean everything. I know, I’m a single man.

That said, there’s always room for compromise… : )

Men looked at the female face much more than women

Yeah right…Aint buying that bullsh*t. That’s some metro-sexual politically correct study.

- The Cat

;-)

they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body…

Ever see Coyote Ugly? Might explain it.

The finding, reported in Hormones and Behavior, confirmed the hypothesis of a previous study

I wonder what was the finding, reported in “Slap and Tickle”?

Women focused more on photos of male/female sexual acts than men did? No kidding … something to do with heterosexual men preferring to look at girl-on-girl … I heard that somewhere.

While websurfing from a convent.