Supposedly, men respond more to visual cues and women do not. I don't get that. I don't even know where I heard it. Is that supposed to mean that women won't look at pictures when they masturbate? When I look through my favorites I see a good selection of photos of women's behinds and I see good range of personality shots: head shots, portraits. Personally, I think erotic cues are more in the eyes and mouth, an exposed neck or wrist and yeah, a well formed behind can be a genually pretty thing, but oh for a girl with perfect ankles.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
just fyi, i have both personality portrait-type shots as well as (my version of) money shots in my favorite pics too. i always feel a little weird archiving the money shots. then i get over it.
"Do women really fantasize about having sex in expensive shoes?"
These are only apparently separate questions.
I never in my life have looked at pictures of a man while masturbating. Not one time. So, I would have to say the answer to number 1 is, "Yes." I've had crushes on gorgeous men and crushes on ugly men. The crushes on ugly men happened to be the most incurable and profound and sexually charged. How could that be if "visual cues" mattered as much to women?
When a woman makes love there is no equivalent to the male gaze. There is no female gaze as such. What there is, however, is fantasy about having sex in expensive shoes. So the answer to number 2 is, "Yes, absolutely."
Why these questions are related: remember that Jimi Hendrix song, in which he sings, "You just want to see me watch you." Well, that is it! A woman looks to the man to see how she herself is reflected there in his gaze, what effect she is successfully refining, demolishing, rebuilding, renovating. That means a woman's experience of attraction and lust is dialogical, not at all visual. In a sense, she makes love to her own trace in the exchange-time, the residue of how she prepared herself to be for him in order to open a space, a gap, that had to be traversed, initially by him, as narrative, dialogue, history. Arousal is situational, not visual. That is what I was lamely trying to explain last week when I was saying female sexuality is all about power, the power to have an effect. In my twenties, and even in my thirties, the get-off was being able to attract; the bodily fluid culmination was largely irrelevant. Stiletto to the throat and all that. The shoes.
Therefore, to me, erotic literature has always been more arousing than pictures of men. Aesthetically, I'd rather look at pictures of women (they are prettier). Pictures of acts sometimes do a trick, but only because one's she-mind is mentally transcribing the text that accompanies, the story, the situation, the specific history.
If a woman feels ugly, she will not come, even if her partner is a hunky movie star. She will not even lie down. Shoes matter.