Every year men spend billions of dollars to
look at women with little clothing on -- such as the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit
Issue -- or with no clothing on -- such as on Internet sites and in so-called men’s
magazines. Women, on the other hand, spend virtually nothing to see unclothed men. Why? Some say that the reason is that men are socialized
into viewing women as sex objects and that women are socialized into not viewing men
as sex objects. But if that’s true, how do these people explain gay men? They are
as aroused by pictures of naked men as heterosexual men are aroused by pictures of naked women.
Obviously, then, it’s not socialization. It’s that men are programmed by nature -- not
by society -- to respond sexually to the visual. This is an area in which men are so different
than women it's probably impossible -- no, not probably, just outright impossible -- for
a woman to truly understand. Of course women find some men attractive. And of course a
woman can have an intense reaction to seeing a very appealing man. But there’s still
no comparison. The visual alone arouses men. It takes far
more to arouse a woman than seeing naked men. If that’s all it took, most husbands would
walk around the house naked whenever possible -- or at least every time they wanted sex.
And the average heterosexual man is excited countless times a day simply by seeing women
-- in person, on billboards, in magazines, on television, and even in his imagination. This is not the case for women. Yes, there
are some male strip shows for women. But few women ever go, and the few who do attend them
in groups, a “girls’ night out.” And for every one of those shows there are probably
ten thousand female strip shows for males, most of whom attend alone, not as a participant
in a guys’ night out. Let's be honest. There is no magazine featuring
men's legs for women to look at and get aroused by. But there are websites and magazines of
women's legs for men. And are women paying to view topless men? Men pay good money to
look at topless women. Again, that doesn't mean women never get turned
on by merely looking at some men. Of course they do. But it’s only some men -- on rare
occasion a stranger, and more usually a celebrity. Men get turned on by any sight of female flesh
on almost any female. The effect of the visual in men is so powerful
that it even amazes men. A man came over to me after hearing me lecture on male sexuality
and said: “I've got a story to tell you. I was in front of a department store and in
the window was a seated mannequin. I couldn't believe it, but I found myself looking up
her skirt.” Here was a perfectly normal, responsible man -- who found himself looking
up a skirt on an inanimate object shaped like a woman. That's how instinctive it is for
men to look at female flesh. It’s perfectly understandable that women
cannot fully relate to this. But if a woman wants to understand male sexuality, the first
thing she has to understand is the power of the visual. That's why you see ads on billboards,
on TV, and in magazines for every sort of product a man might buy accompanied by a scantily
clad woman -- or, sometimes, just part of her. I recall a famous liquor ad that showed
a woman’s legs and a bottle of tequila. No face, just beautiful legs. Would you ever
see an ad showing men's legs? People would laugh; it would be considered absurd. An ad
with women's legs is not absurd—it's alluring. None of this is in any way meant to excuse
inappropriate male behavior. Men must always control themselves. But to deny the power
of the visual on men is like denying that the earth is round. I'm Dennis Prager.
I dont think there is any scientific evidence for almost 90% of what he said.
Never speak in absolutes.
This video should be titled 'man creates video after being shouted at by wife'
Nature vs. nurture?
Yup it's nature, 100%, yup biology is completely black and white
Dumbest fucking thing
Well, fuck this guy.
That guys voice is a boner-killer