Men look at crotches (kottke.org)
As soon as I saw this at work today I wondered if LPSG had discussed it yet.
As soon as I saw this at work today I wondered if LPSG had discussed it yet.
Men stare at crotches-- a scientific discovery
- Thread starter D_Harvey Schmeckel
- Start date
In sympathy about what would happen if the ball landed there....?
It would interesting to see where the eyes went in a different sport.
It would interesting to see where the eyes went in a different sport.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Posts
- 6,059
- Media
- 9,229
- Likes
- 280,830
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Maryland, United States of America
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I don't find it too surprising that a study purports to show men's eyes gravitating to private anatomy on men, animals and presumably on women.
My personal observation is that men are always searching for an opportunity to hump someone or something ; therefor, the eyes need to scan / focus on potential sexual targets!
My personal observation is that men are always searching for an opportunity to hump someone or something ; therefor, the eyes need to scan / focus on potential sexual targets!
I don't stare--I gawk. I first became aware of this at Church meetings when I was in my late teens (it was a futile attempt to stop drinking beer). As the only non-adult member of the church history comittee (yes they had one of those, and I was planning to head off to Loyola and become a history major, so the committee seemed proper), I was intrigued and fascinated by all the older gentleman sitting around there. Since then I have perfected my glances and try to gawk in a more casual way--I no longer drool.
Without the same information for where both look at a female subject, the info isn't much use.
Also baseball brings in a sartorial factor. I suspect that many men - like, say, me - think that they'd look stupid in baseball pants, and wonder how the pros manage to stay presentable - not to mention legal - in front of a stadium of people with nothing better to look at.
Speaking from experience, yeah I do it too. All the time. I try to keep a lid on it. But these findings help explain my interest in baseball :tongue:
The USC article this is pulled from mentions an upcoming interview with the researchers from a '07 eyetracking study, but - from the article:
"When one of world’s best-known usability experts, Jakob Nielsen, conducts eyetracking research to test what his usability work has shown, the results generate some beneficial tips for online editors. This is what happened in late 2005, when Nielsen and Tara Pernice Coyne, the Nielsen/Norman Group’s director of research, conducted an eyetracking test with 255 people in New York City.
With a little more than half of the participants (63 percent) ages 30 to 49, the test generated results applicable to the target audience for most news sites. Additionally, 20 percent were 18-29 and 16 percent were 50-64. Fifty-eight percent were female, 42 percent were male. Every test subject was given 50 tasks to complete. Sessions with each test subject lasted about one to two hours."
"When photos do contain people related to the task at hand, or the content users are exploring, they do get fixations. However, gender makes a distinct difference on what parts of the photo are stared at the longest."
"Although both men and women look at the image of George Brett when directed to find out information about his sport and position, men tend to focus on private anatomy as well as the face. For the women, the face is the only place they viewed."
So the crotch watching finding was a byproduct of the original study, which was to analyze website formatting. It was also only one picture, of George Brett. What would happen if you put a pic of Richard Simmons in his place?
Would be very interesting to see this looked into/discussed further. Maybe put some straight guys' "gay guys checking me out" fears to rest, if all guys supposedly do it.
The USC article this is pulled from mentions an upcoming interview with the researchers from a '07 eyetracking study, but - from the article:
"When one of world’s best-known usability experts, Jakob Nielsen, conducts eyetracking research to test what his usability work has shown, the results generate some beneficial tips for online editors. This is what happened in late 2005, when Nielsen and Tara Pernice Coyne, the Nielsen/Norman Group’s director of research, conducted an eyetracking test with 255 people in New York City.
With a little more than half of the participants (63 percent) ages 30 to 49, the test generated results applicable to the target audience for most news sites. Additionally, 20 percent were 18-29 and 16 percent were 50-64. Fifty-eight percent were female, 42 percent were male. Every test subject was given 50 tasks to complete. Sessions with each test subject lasted about one to two hours."
"When photos do contain people related to the task at hand, or the content users are exploring, they do get fixations. However, gender makes a distinct difference on what parts of the photo are stared at the longest."
"Although both men and women look at the image of George Brett when directed to find out information about his sport and position, men tend to focus on private anatomy as well as the face. For the women, the face is the only place they viewed."
So the crotch watching finding was a byproduct of the original study, which was to analyze website formatting. It was also only one picture, of George Brett. What would happen if you put a pic of Richard Simmons in his place?
Would be very interesting to see this looked into/discussed further. Maybe put some straight guys' "gay guys checking me out" fears to rest, if all guys supposedly do it.
exactly...
and why do women stare longer at his front shoulder? and men apparently check out his front foot too
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Without googling it, I have read studies that show men are more visually stimulated than women, on average. Women are also raised to be "polite" and refrain from direct sexual expression. However, I think the main thing is that men just tend to be more competitive. Nothing in this study seem out of the ordinary to me- despite having been around for eight years, we still have very few women compared to gay and straight men here. That tells me all I need to know.
Men look at hoo-hoos far more than women.
Men look at hoo-hoos far more than women.
I am Technology Trainer and have been standing up in front of adults for 20 years teaching them computers.
I have noticed that the vast majority of people who attend my classes will sneak a peak at my crotch periodically while I put on my "show".
When it first started happening, I got a bit self-conscious thinking that my zipper was down or I had a mark or even "trouser tracks" on my pants, but I quickly learned it was human nature and that everyone does it - male or female. I've caught both men and women doing it an equal amount.
However, this study is interesting to me. I think it's a stare along the lines of competition, not sexuality, wanting to see if the guy is bigger than they are.
What do you guys think?
I have noticed that the vast majority of people who attend my classes will sneak a peak at my crotch periodically while I put on my "show".
When it first started happening, I got a bit self-conscious thinking that my zipper was down or I had a mark or even "trouser tracks" on my pants, but I quickly learned it was human nature and that everyone does it - male or female. I've caught both men and women doing it an equal amount.
However, this study is interesting to me. I think it's a stare along the lines of competition, not sexuality, wanting to see if the guy is bigger than they are.
What do you guys think?
Haha, funny. Precisely this evening i have been talking about this issue with a friend. We use to go to jogging almost everyday, and lately i have noticed that there are more men looking at my packet while i´m running, than women. Ladies use to look at my face only, many men use to look at my face on first, then at my crotch, and finally at my face again. I have told it to this friend today, and i have asked him for paying attention. I wanted to know if it was just my imagination or true. And he has proved that is true.
Obviously nor all men, neither majority. But many ones do it. :smile:
Obviously nor all men, neither majority. But many ones do it. :smile:
It's hard to talk meaningfully about the effect without more comparative data.
When women are overtly impressed at first glance I see them do a quick sweep, head to feet and back to head - quick, no more than half a second total, probably closer to half that. There's an accompanying facial expression which suggests that they're probably not interested in checking out my shoes. But they don't stop halfway down - it's head to toe and back again. Apparently, it's more of a scan for an impression of gestalt than a tour of individual body parts.
When (if?) men are overtly impressed I have no idea what they look at, since I'm not looking at them.
That's what I mean about lack of comparative data.
When women are overtly impressed at first glance I see them do a quick sweep, head to feet and back to head - quick, no more than half a second total, probably closer to half that. There's an accompanying facial expression which suggests that they're probably not interested in checking out my shoes. But they don't stop halfway down - it's head to toe and back again. Apparently, it's more of a scan for an impression of gestalt than a tour of individual body parts.
When (if?) men are overtly impressed I have no idea what they look at, since I'm not looking at them.
That's what I mean about lack of comparative data.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
And we think we're being so sneaky... In all seriousness, most of my friends would be more likely to stare at an ass than a crotch. It's easier to gawk at someone's body parts when you're not facing them.
I must be very different than most men in the study.
I never checked out a man's crotch in real life until a few years ago. Twice unintentionally and twice on purpose. Anything else would have been totally incidental and not even mentally registered.
The two unintentional (in the sense that they weren't premeditated) were awkward because I was as subtle as a frying pan to the head. Both times sitting in an office. Once on a black man who seemed to fit the stereotype and the white guy because he looked at his own first.
The two times on purpose was to intentionally fuck with someone to see what kind of reaction you'd get. Nothing.
Online and in books I've checked men out for comparative purposes mostly and they are usually nude.
I love pseudo-scientific shit like this. They are totally pointless scientifically and anecdotal at best. People who think Sociology or Psychology are a hard science delude themselves when they give any kind of real weight to these studies.
[And once when I was told the office secretary's husband was hung like a horse. That was after checking out the black man so I couldn't help myself. I usually check out what comes out of man's mouth before anything else:-]
I never checked out a man's crotch in real life until a few years ago. Twice unintentionally and twice on purpose. Anything else would have been totally incidental and not even mentally registered.
The two unintentional (in the sense that they weren't premeditated) were awkward because I was as subtle as a frying pan to the head. Both times sitting in an office. Once on a black man who seemed to fit the stereotype and the white guy because he looked at his own first.
The two times on purpose was to intentionally fuck with someone to see what kind of reaction you'd get. Nothing.
Online and in books I've checked men out for comparative purposes mostly and they are usually nude.
I love pseudo-scientific shit like this. They are totally pointless scientifically and anecdotal at best. People who think Sociology or Psychology are a hard science delude themselves when they give any kind of real weight to these studies.
[And once when I was told the office secretary's husband was hung like a horse. That was after checking out the black man so I couldn't help myself. I usually check out what comes out of man's mouth before anything else:-]
madame_zora
Sexy Member
The social sciences are in their infancy stages, I agree that it would be absurd to cite any of it as factual. While they are interesting and can be used as a possible indication, the fields themselves have to hold themselves to better and more abstract standards before anything of much lasting value will come of it. Still, it's fun to watch it develop.
rawbone8
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 2,827
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 295
- Points
- 303
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Isn't it simply a deeply ingrained primate equivalent to dogs sniffing each other, and establishing the pecking order, with genitals being one marker among several that get evaluated to a obtain a notion of what rank or degree of dominance or subordination fits?
It's comparable in much the same way that physique (height, strength, age), emotional attitude (anger, fear, friendliness, relaxation) flow into the mix. Some people instantly register as above one in rank and others register on par or below. It's very quick isn't it?
The part that I wonder about is why females appear to look differently at the subject. I want to think about that.
As Desmond Morris pointed out in his pop zoology / anthropology books, (yeah, yeah, I know, the books are simplistic and designed to sell mass quantities.) we are but Naked Apes still, although we have these great big brains that the unevolved apes seem to lack. We tend to deny ourselves the barbaric honesty we have as infants and toddlers as we are groomed to be civilized.
Is it any wonder much of modern manners seeks to diminish and hide our more animalistic natures. For example: Polite behaviour means sitting at a table and not showing anyone you are really hungry in the slightest.
This crotch scanning is supposed to be under the radar. When it isn't then sparks may fly: the consequences being flirty for some, and rudely contentious for others.
It's comparable in much the same way that physique (height, strength, age), emotional attitude (anger, fear, friendliness, relaxation) flow into the mix. Some people instantly register as above one in rank and others register on par or below. It's very quick isn't it?
The part that I wonder about is why females appear to look differently at the subject. I want to think about that.
As Desmond Morris pointed out in his pop zoology / anthropology books, (yeah, yeah, I know, the books are simplistic and designed to sell mass quantities.) we are but Naked Apes still, although we have these great big brains that the unevolved apes seem to lack. We tend to deny ourselves the barbaric honesty we have as infants and toddlers as we are groomed to be civilized.
Is it any wonder much of modern manners seeks to diminish and hide our more animalistic natures. For example: Polite behaviour means sitting at a table and not showing anyone you are really hungry in the slightest.
This crotch scanning is supposed to be under the radar. When it isn't then sparks may fly: the consequences being flirty for some, and rudely contentious for others.
