ozoneocean wrote:
Men or women it doesn't matter, your own character or someone elses's- from TV, a comic, a film, a radio play, game, whatever.
How do you make a sexy character? What's a good example of a sexy character? What makes a character sexy?

It can be pretty individual in a lot of ways (what apeals to some is silly or gross or boring to others), but there are a lot of universal traits as well.
It'd be good to hear about it all though! Personal prefereances and all!

————–

For me, one of my main preferances for sexyness is for a female character to have a nice round, callipygous bottom and a slim waste, maybe a small tummy… An hour glass shape. Aaaand strong shapely thighs. Not Crumb style though… well, close. Example: Pinky TA
A sexy personality type for me is: confidence, intelligence, competance. An example would be the sexy librarian trope tied with the sexy teacher trope. But there's room for interpretation. In the Anime/manga series Ah My Goddess, the character Urd fits it, well at least the confidence part.

When I tried to design a sexy male character with Ace Kinkaid, I thought:
- Strong build: Broad shoulders and big chest with lots of muscle.
- Enough hair to make it messy and windswept if need be.
- Strong eyebrows.
- broad chin.
- Small nose.
His clothing is 1930s style heroic flying ace/motorcycle dispatch rider because I aways thought of that as a “dashing” look.
Aaaannnnnd I frequently show him with his shirt unbuttoned quite low.

For me, it's just the overall presentation of a character and how they represent themselves. A character can be sexy without having to show off a lot but can also come from their overall character and how they interact.
Take Cereza/Bayonetta for example, she's cartoonishly sexy but she's also sexy based off her mind, the ability to take care of things, and a maternal presence to protect. That makes her sexy overall than just her outward appearance.

Well I thought I was done haha…!
.
On the contrary, I think female breasts are a classic example of human sexual dimorphism? Of course they are not near as extravagant as a peacock's tail. The question is, why do they have that very recogniziable protruding shape to begin with (which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with breast feeding - a totally flatchested woman can breastfeed just fine…)? Sizes and shapes vary greatly but there is a universal quality that's instantly recognizable and the difference with males is so notable that you can easily tell the gender of almost anyone by looking at chest pics alone. And this trait only becomes noticeable with the onset of pubetry and the ability to reproduce (prebuscent boys and girls look exactly the same). Why does this happen?
.
And we are supposed to believe the association with breast and sexual attraction is largely just cultural..?!
.
Alrighty then… ;)

fallopiancrusader wrote:
To weigh in on the academic end of the dicussion, I would say there are three heirarchical factors that influence sexual attractiveness: 1) Biology, which is hard-wired. It's the stuff that makes humans attracted to each other, and not attracted to chimps or horses 2) Socialization. Some cultures think overweight is sexy, some cultures think skinny is sexy 3) Personal experience and personal idiosyncracy, which can contradict the other two. There is a whole category of porn out there that deals with people having sex with animals, so sometimes human idiosyncracy will trump biologically wired instinct. As for my own personal idiosyncracy, what ultimately determines sexiness for me is the narrative of the sex. If the characters aren't surrounded by context, motivation, and story, then the sexiest drawing in the world will not arouse me very much.

I'm in full agreement with all of this. I do maintain, though, that #1 is the basis the other two are built on. Even when the other two contradicts #, there is often a keen awareness by everyone else (and even yourself) that you are ‘going against the grain’, so to speak! ie. to be deviant, there has to be base starting point to deviate against!

Kim- you misunderstood me.
I said that breasts and lack of facial hair were the two main visable sexually diamorphic traits of humans, as opposed to other primates. When we were simpler creatures, not wearing clothes, those things would have been very important.

It's the fact OF the difference that is atractive more than a hypothetical in-built boob-magnet though, which is why we transitioned so well into cultural distinctions of gender when we started augmenting ourselves with clothes, possesions and all the rest.

Like I said earlier: People are atracted to each other. All the various things we're inculcated and socialised to associate with the gender you prefer, also become sexy because they represent that gender to YOU.
That includes eveything, from breasts, to wide hips, to big bums, muscled chests, fancy cars, beards, stockings, dicks, vaginas, muscled thighs, uniforms, underarm hair… whatever.

It's basically what Fallopian said, but obviously the distinctions are not clear cut, they blend into the same thing.

The “deviant” feeling is due to culture as well though: you're not going against biology, you're going against prevailing cultural norms.
That's a VERY, very powerful driver because humans are a highly social speicies, like wolves, or apes, parrots etc.
We know we're doing something that is not generally socially acceptable to our fellow humans, we're going against the social norms and it feels wrong because deep down we want to be accepted and we think that the devation will damage that for us.

fallopiancrusader wrote:
(W)hat ultimately determines sexiness for me is the narrative of the sex. If the characters aren't surrounded by context, motivation, and story, then the sexiest drawing in the world will not arouse me very much.

Comes back to what Gunwallace said earlier. So Gunwallace's Law of Characterization is that the basis of all good characterization is the writer with Fallopiancrusader's collolary that sexiness is defined by context motivation and story. Which feeds back into Gunwallace's Law. Yup it's all on the writer.

Damn that poor sod is so overworked.

So everything is lain at the feet of the writer. A context can be created where the most culturally unattractive potential partner becomes the person to die for. Shakespeare and Jane Austen both treated the topic in some of their stories. Creating the person you want out of “clay” or a very rough canvas (the cockney flower girl or fat, plain Jane down the street) Other than Pygmalian there is the ancient Stockard Channing film Girl Most likely to… The good old Ugly Duckling transformation is a classic trope. And often the moral is that the beauty/sexiness was there all the time just not arranged to the satisfaction of prevailing culture.

Even the underrated Kevin Kline film In & Out dealt with it in some of its permutaions (fat versus thin and even gender preference)

But if these cultural mores are so seemingly changeable and ephemeral doesn't that argue for some sort of universal standard underlying them?

“But if these cultural mores are so seemingly changeable and ephemeral
doesn't that argue for some sort of universal standard underlying them”


When people become sexually mature they're atracted to a gender. Aaaaand that's pretty much the only universal there really needs to be. The desire is already there, everything else is just window dressing to guide preference.

Asside from the superficial stuff we've focussed on there's interests, personality, smell (there are no human pheremones discovered that induce atraction), body langauge, chance, humour, situation. and the most important of all: proximity.

ozoneocean wrote:
When people become sexually mature they're atracted to a gender. Aaaaand that's pretty much the only universal there really needs to be. The desire is already there, everything else is just window dressing to guide preference.
Asside from the superficial stuff we've focussed on there's interests, personality, smell (there are no human pheremones discovered that induce atraction), body langauge, chance, humour, situation. and the most important of all: proximity.

And so human sexual selection is not about Miss or Mr Right but Miss/Mr Right-now and nothing else matters. There is no other universal to procreate a crone is as good as a maiden so long as she is the right gender. There are no other universals for human sexual selection. It's all window dressing and none of it matters. This explain nothing to human sexual selection because all the matters specific to it are unnecessary window dressing. Reductionist silliness and can only be greeted with Horace Greely's belly laugh as absurdity and worthy of no further consideration except by the most uninformed and seemingly inexperienced of individuals. Don't date much do you? So now I call your manliness and ability to attract a potential mate into question further demolishing your arguments and reducing them to pure drivel. Victory to the guy with the board shoulders, impressive stature and the list of past lovers that fill nearly all the fingers of one hand. (Not, I actually agree with you. Just that certain things make for quick and easy window dressing in fiction and leaving them out makes for a hard sell)

As for proximity there is that whole conditional gender preference thing. Evidence indicxates that normally heterosexual humans (among other mammals and birds) will become homosexual if no mates of the opposite gender are available but then revert to being heterosexual once a mate of the opposite gender presents itself. This animal will never again evidence any attraction to its own gender so long as potential mates of the opposite gender are available. Conditional gender preference or gender choice based on proximity. A possible behavior suggested by studies of single sex environments. There is also asexuality which could be the reaction of an animal that has no desire to procreate based on a single sex enviornment or a poor selection of potential mates. All theory but gist for the writer's mill in considering the themes of sexuality and sexiness.

No need to get riled up and personal Bravo, all's fair in a friendly discussion. :D
Tackle the issue, not the person.

As I said: humans are a highly social spiecies, that fact alone would tell you what guides these things. We're social so we take cues from each other on how to dress and present ourselves and what we have to do to fit in and be popular, and at the same time we compete based on those things as well.
Of course all that “window dressing” matters. It ALL matters. It's all we have.

-Reading your post again, I'm not really sure if you dsagree with me or not, sarcasam and humour can be hard to read online.

I do think I understand you, Ozone. You seem to be saying, more or less, that human sexual characteristics (boobs, butts, shoulders, and dongs…) are not prominent enough to be considered the primary basis of human sexual attraction. That, combined with us be very intelligent, imaginative, and social creatures, means that social cues, memes, constructs, etc. are the more potent drivers of attraction, and thus the same sort of thing as one's preference in art, music, food, or any other thing that brings about some level of emotional satisfaction to an individual.
.
tl/dr version: a man doesn't find the shape of a breast sexy due to any genetic hardwiring, but because generations of stories and pictures have ingrained in him that culture considers it sexy
.
To me, that seems to be the quick and dirty gist of what youre saying if thats not the case feel free to try to explain again and Ill try to glean a better understanding from your words
.
But I think we're all just really recycling our opinions at this point, and I don't think anyone is going to convince the other of anything. So just once more Ill state my stance (which I feel evolutionary science backs up) that sexual attraction is rooted in the hardwired drive to reproduce, and that ALL creatures capable of perceiving physical fitness (subconsciously) want to reproduce with other that are more fit, more likely to survive, not less so, and the hardwired way we have of knowing fitness is due to visual cues on the body. Theres permutations to this, but this is one of the basic driving forces behind evolutionary theory (I know there are others but this is a very important piece).
.
Cultural things do not do this: I may like a man's tattoos or how he cuts his hair, or his style of jeans, but none of that helps me determine genetic fitness…
.
However, I readily admit that we humans are indeed highly imaginative and intelligent, and we've developed strong individual personalities and we often have very outr personal preferences, and these can easily override our hardwired urges (very easily sometimes). I think we both agree on this, but you seemed to think we humans have reached the point where these social things have pushed the hardwired stuff to the backburner, to near insignificance. I still thing the biological stuff has considerable subconscious power and that sexual attraction wouldn't even exists as a phenomenon without it.
.
Finally, were debating something that is ultimately a mental phenomenon (sexual attraction). I say its largely genetic based you say its largely cultural. But the mind is such a complex thing that I cant point to anything concrete to say conclusively youre wrong. Yet another reason the mind-sciences like psychology annoy me ;)

Kim, that's not what I mean, no.
When people reach sexual maturity they have a biological urge to hook up. The things associated with their preferred gender become sexual distinctions to them and take on a new level of interest:
That's all things. Stuff that's physically there like boobs and bums, and stuff that's more cultural and esoteric…

Boobs for example are not sexy in a hardwired way. In most cultures we cover them so they become hidden and naughty. In cultures where they don't though boobs are NOT regarded as particularly sexy at all, merely something that women have.

I think you've miss-read me somewhere, my position is similar to FallopianCrusader, in that there are a mix of factors. The problem is that a lot of what we imagine as biological is in fact cultural.

OK, for physical fitness, I'll postulate that isn't a driver for the urge to mate at all, it's dominance. Which is related but definitely not the same thing.
We're a social species, what we care about is symbols of dominance, position in the group hierarchy.
Tattoos, haircuts, muscles, a nice dress, a cool car: all those things play into that paradigm. They show how well people fit into the group (very important) AND how well they stand out: i.e. what their level of dominance is, how far they are ahead of the pack, while still being a part of it.
Physical fitness doesn't appeal for its genetic possibiities, it appeals because it shows how dominant a potential mate is. Other aspects of dominance can trump it: intelligence, wealth etc.
- By the same token, submissive traits are also attractive because they make the attracted party feel more dominant/further up in the hierarchy.

Back when we were simpler primates, this would have meant wanting to be the Alpha. But being an alpha isn't just about strength (even among other animals it can take intelligence, better skills, politics, experience and so on). It doesn't matter how the alpha becomes the alpha, it's their position in the hierarchy that's attractive.

This has moved to a deeper level now. Which is interesting! Kim, you ARE very right in that there IS a deeper imperative that drives choosing a mate, but it's about hierarchy. And the elegant thing about that is that it very neatly ties in all the cultural aspects at the same time as well most if what everyone has said about all aspects of what makes a character attractive.
That's not a great revelation, but it's something we all missed for some reason.

ozoneocean wrote:
No need to get riled up and personal Bravo, all's fair in a friendly discussion. :D
Tackle the issue, not the person.


-Reading your post again, I'm not really sure if you dsagree with me or not, sarcasam and humour can be hard to read online.
It was entirely humor to break up the scholarly tone the conversation was taking.

A lot of what you say could be construed as is nice rationalization for why I can't get a date for Saturday night. That is how a psychologist would interpret it. You are rationalizing your own feelings and then bringing up hierarchy which paints the individual as even more hopeless. It all reeks of despair and depression and wanting to crawl off into the corner and bemoaning all my inadequencies and crying a lot evey night because you can't get a date. (as opposed to friendship and companions)
More gist for the writer's mill. All of this is facinating and agreement isn't necessary but how we use it in our work. Again agreement isn't necessary jas each side can make for a facinating stroy and set of characters. Test each theory with a group of characters and you might create a great world that readers will value for years to come.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or mean with this Bravo, but I have to say it:
Taking that particular tack is Ad Hominem and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it. No one in the thread should be in a position where they have to justify, explain, or defend themselves instead of their ideas.
The only response I will give is that my level of dicourse is soley theoretical.

lol you say I'm not getting you Ozone, but when you explain further I still come away thinking your saying more or less the same thing. Maybe it's a limitation on me - I'm fine with that! We'll just agree to disagree ;)

ozoneocean wrote:
I'm not trying to be confrontational or mean with this Bravo, but I have to say it:
Taking that particular tack is Ad Hominem and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it. No one in the thread should be in a position where they have to justify, explain, or defend themselves instead of their ideas.
The only response I will give is that my level of dicourse is soley theoretical.

And mine was purely meant as a writing exercise not an attack. I was thinking out loud of a possible scene with this conversation. You take offense where none was intended.
Read my second paragraph.

More grist for the writer's mill. All of this is facinating and agreement isn't necessary but how we use it in our work. Again agreement isn't necessary as each side can make for a facinating story and set of characters. Test each theory with a group of characters and you might create a great world that readers will value for years to come.

It's not theoretical for me. It did so happen that I had similar discussion once upon a time only to have it thrown in my face by a lovely brunette. And then I proved why the theory fit me when I wimped out and didn't ask her out. I could talk theory for hours but when it came to practice I proved why I wasn't the alpha male and my socialization skills left something to be desired. No one needs to kick sand in your face when you bury your head int he sand of your own accord. More girst for the writer's mill about sexiness and sexual selection. The person who can't act on their sexiness because they lack social skills.

Which happens to be the story behind Miss Sexiness large busted blonde Belinda's Brandon's younger sister. Incredibly sarcastic with a lithe sexiness all her own who never acts on it because she feels she is in her sister's shadow. (I knew two sisters like that, the pretty brunette from the previous post and her fraternal twin)

Kim, maybe an analogy could help? Or confuse things more…

You are a person who loves cars, you don't know why, you just do:
You love the four wheels, rubber tyres, the headlights, engines, exhaust pipes, windscreens, side mirrors, car seats, hubcaps…
-Not for themselvs but because they're parts of that car: Love of the car was there first.

But you love stuff the culturally influenced stuff as well*:
Different styles of car body shape apeal to you, but you most like the sports types from the 1960s because there were a couple in the street where you grew up and now you really admire that curvy, compact shape. Leather seats are a must for you too because they represnt your idea of opulance and style. You can't stand plastic attachments, cars should have real chrome fittings only. There's nothing like the roar of a well tuned V8 engine, the idea of silent electric motors is unimaginable to you.
-Noncoincidentally all those things are associated with 1960s sports cars.

(*Let's pretend none of the things mentioned in the first paragraph were culturally influenced)

——–

Ok, there we have: Biological (love of cars), Love of things related to that love (car parts), and culturallly influenced aspects (car body shape etc).

To further unpack that with another example:
Biological: Love of women.
Related: Love of boobs.
Cultural influence: Love big boobs.

Ozone, in your car analogy you seem to lend more credence to the biological aspects than in previous posts. I'm not sure what percentage your giving to each but you list both biology and culture more or less equally so… around 50% to each…? That's something I was not picking up in your previous posts, where it seemed that you considered cultural the good bit stronger of the two… But if you weren't saying that then we're not really in as much disagreement as it seemed…
.
I also think cultural plays a large part (realy large), but the reason the I consider the biological to be more paramount is I don't think the cultural would even exist without the biological, where as the biological can easily exist without the cultural (just look at animals).
.
Here's an analogy for me. You may prefer Jazz, Blues, or Rock Music… that's your preference… but none of those musical styles could even exist without the concept of Musical Harmonic Scales (ie the Music Key the song is playing in: C Major, Gb Minor…). In music, you can even (carefully) go against the Scale (by hitting off-scale notes, called accidentals) but there is a keen awareness that there is something your going against and for the music to sound worth a crap you have to get back to the scale pretty quick. The Scale rules and is the basis for your music - but you can layer your preferences on top of it to such an extent that two styles can seem like completely different things.
.
Does that analogy make sense?
.
In an earlier post you said a man isn't hardwired to think a breast is sexy, but rather it's the cultural covering up with clothing that makes it exotic and forbidden (and therefore sexy)… I say the reason it ever started getting covered up to begin with is because it's inherently sexy to a man, and culture/society wanted to hold back those fires a bit (that's the defense of the burqa, although they couch it in religious terminology).
.
Sexy Breast = Inherent base Part of the Musical Key/Scale
Clothing/Accessories = Style of Music
.
(and I enjoy beating dead horses to a pulp :)

I do understand your analogy Kim.

Mine is different though. I'm not talking about biology VS culture in a duology like that.

For me it's all one thing, with sex (as in a person's sex), being the most important and the other aspects less so, but to simplify I split it into 3.
I'll change the name of my "biological“ catagory to ”subject“.

The ”related“ catagory isn't the same as ”biological“. ”Related" just means whatever is unique to that subject. The subject is the object of affection, the related aspects become objects of affection as well because of that relationship, they can also become symbolic of the subject (e.g. Love of boobs and dresses replaces love of women for some people), but the subject is the only source of the sexuality (boobs are sexy because they are female, not the other way around). They are a mixture of cultural and biological traits.

More purely cultural aspects are things like “big boobs are hot”, or “Smooth skinned sweaty pectoroals are hot”.

Example-
Subject: Woman
Related: boobs, dresses, long hair, pink, lipstick, long legs, round bottom…
Cultural: Big red lips are sexy, short dresses and high heels show off long legs…

Boobs in the West are covered because they distinguish women as female (among other things), not because they're sexy. They're sexy because they're covered. Whenever there's a culture where they're uncovered, from temporary things like nude beaches and hippy communes, to established cultural practise as in Australian Aboriginals, African tribespeople, Amazonian Indians, Melanesian and Polynesian islanders etc breasts aren't a sexual thing anymore.

Ozone, Ha, at this point I pretty much know Im not gonna convince you of anything, and I still think youre failing to really get what Im saying as well, so even though it feels like were going in circles Im going to try to get at the root of where were missing it once more (from my point of view). Apologies to everyone for performing necromancy on this horse carcass ;)
.
I sort of think we both arent really disagreeing all that much, and a part of me feels that some of our issues are just a failure with semantics. But then saying it a certain way really does change the meaning it and makes me think you really believe that some things are a lot more cultural than they I think really are. Let me grab one sentence you said as an example: boobs are sexy because they are female, not the other way around…
.
Of course breasts are sexy because theyre female, but not because of a cultural fetish-type preference. Rather, they are one of the dimorphic triggers that signify female when seen by another person (both male and female know when they see a breast and they instantly think female) and we find ourselves drawn to these signals. Now where culture comes in is the preferred shape of the breasts: some cultures like em smaller, some larger, etc… But there isnt a single human culture I know of that wishes all females had breasts that looked exactly looked like a mans. Again, thats because their distinct shape are a hardwired signal that tells a man he is looking at a woman. So yes, a woman most certainly is sexy because she has boobs! Bare or covered-up (provided you can still see their shape), breasts do their job. They are not just an object - they are one of the traits that announces ‘female’!
.
We find sexy the things that let us know weve found a healthy member of the opposite gender. Never forget that sex is, at root, about reproduction. The drive would not exist if reproduction were not a biological imperative. We accessorize it with cultural preference and exploit and revel in the physical pleasure it brings, but the base urge remains rooted in biology.
.
Now heres a thing: youre right in that certain cultures strongly downplay the sexuality of breasts, especially certain indigenous peoples where women dont even wear tops, but this doesnt necessarily mean that the breast isnt doing its job. For one thing, theyre a signal to a man that a woman can have babies (they grow at puberty); they swell and the nipples become erect when a woman is aroused, and men are hardwired to look for these cues. Why would these biological phenomenon happen if its only a cultural thing?
.
Again, youre right in that the overt sexualness isnt the same in cultures where Breasts are not hidden, but I more compare that to me seeing a mans shoulders in our culture. A man with a mans shoulders (not a womans) indicates great strength, and women are drawn to that, but because they arent hidden and forbidden, we dont go all spastic when we see them! Were inured to them, and the same thing can happen with Breasts if we stop hiding them, but that does not mean their distinct shape stops doing what it evolved for ;)
.
When I lived in Spain, you could go topless on the beaches, and it was only the visiting American tourists that gawked with mouths agape. Spaniards and visiting Brits wouldnt bat an eye. Even so, in the right moments, say an intimate encounter, theyd let you know they found your breasts pleasing! How do I know all this? None of nobodys business haha!
.
If you promise to make your response short and sweet then I promise to let you have the last word! :D

These posts are gonna be hell to read if they are to be featured in a future series of Quackcasts. Great listening for sure but hell to read.

bravo1102 wrote:
These posts are gonna be hell to read if they are to be featured in a future series of Quackcasts. Great listening for sure but hell to read.

Just read my tl/dr version: human sexual is rooted in biology, not sociology, and anybody that disagrees with me is a stupidhead! :D

I know I used the analogy before, but I think it's helpful to think of sexual preferences in the same way we think about food preferences. Sure, it's ultimately a base biological need, but what kind of food we prefer, and how we enjoy it, can be based on a myriad of cultural and personal influences, learned habits, and individual biological quirks. People in different parts of the world enjoy different types of food, and they tend to (in general) sexualize different parts of the body and different fashions. While inserting giant discs into a woman's lips may not be very appealing to most westerners, it's considered sexy by the Surma of South Sudan. Rhinoplasty bandages are considered sexy in Iran. There's no across-the-board perfect recipe for sexiness any more than there's an across-the-board perfect recipe for perfect food. You need to cater to the consumer's tastes, in much the same way fast food franchises alter their menus when they open franchises in new countries or zip codes.

Cid, I think food preferences is a great analogy - I actually was gonna use food as a comparison but decided my previous post was too long already…
.
The drive to eat, like the drive to procreate, is, I think safe to say, universal, but we can certainly layer all types of cultural preferences and taboos on top of them! Take meat: we as a species are perfectly designed to eat meat. Our digestive tracts are built to handle it, as is our teeth structure (pointed canines, even smalls ones like ours, ain't for grass eatin', folks). Nevertheless, some humans (Vegans, Hindus) have developed a cultural taboo against eating meat. They've learned to think of it as gross, disgusting, something to avoid… Some even get sick (largely a psychosomatic response, imo) when eating it…
.
But just let one of them go about five days with no food…! It's amazing how fast the base urges will take back over! A starving Vegan will devour a prime rib - they instinctively know it will keep them alive! (yes, some supremely devout Hindus can force themselves to starve anyway, but they are RARE exceptions). When pushed against the wall, biology overrides culture!
.
The Sex Drive doesn't carry quite as much weight because it's rarely a personal life-or-death matter (you won't die by failing to mate), but there are certain traits that I believe every human is hardwired to cue in to when prospecting a potential mate. We can culturally learn to have various preferences for them, or even convince ourselves we find them repulsive but they're still there. Example: most women in western culture will not admit they are turned on by just a pic of an erect penis. A penis by itself is just an object, not even all that much worth looking at (maybe even ugly) without a man attached… Oh but their bodies say something different when wired up to check bloodflow to the relevant areas (so much for culture ;)

Good analogy… hunger, sex… although when I'm hungry I don't get satisfaction just watching the food network… in the other hand… never mind… in the end, everybody seem to agree that sexyness is a combination of biology and sociology…

KimLuster wrote:
Example: most women in western culture will not admit they are turned on by just a pic of an erect penis. A penis by itself is just an object, not even all that much worth looking at (maybe even ugly) without a man attached… Oh but their bodies say something different when wired up to check bloodflow to the relevant areas (so much for culture ;)

I remember reading that studies found that one of the most arrousing parts of the female for the male is her hair. (Measuring blood flow and the sampling was across cultures) Seems various Eastern cultures called it right.

I once saw a guy get a hard-on when just talking about mundane non-sexual stuff to a girl who was playing with her long red hair. It was like Holy Shit what is he thinking? Just like that?

I guess some like it short or long, thick or thin… but there might be some truth about the hair… I see many beautiful women everyday, but I found myselft talking to one that wasn't the prettiest, but she has the longest hair I've seen… and we were talking about her hair…