And, although I’ve never seen any gay porn, I have heard from various people the much gay porn clearly presents one man dominating another.

I guess they have large dicks, but that’s not something that a man can aspire to.

Well, presumably someone’s clicking on all that penis enlargement spam. I agree that there’s much more pressure on women to define themselves by their physical appearance or hotness, but that doesn’t mean men have no sexual/physical anxieties.

If we’re still talking about hetero porn, I think this is a perfect example of the differing expectations for men and women. Men in porn are generally dog ugly, and while I’ve never seen a guy in particularly terrible shape, they generally have typical male bodies. I guess they have large dicks, but that’s not something that a man can aspire to.

Additionally, I think there’s a difference between the men in hetero porn and the women in hetero porn (or the men in gay porn) — it mainly has to do with ideas about the gaze, subject and object, etc. Men watching hetero porn are supposed to identify with the man, not idealize his figure. Men in hetero porn have big dicks because men who watch hetero porn want to fantasize that they have big dicks. Anyone watching hetero porn is supposed to be objectifying the women — this is probably why hetero women would rather watch gay porn (it lacks this subject/object dichotomy; everyone is just hot).

I’ve also noticed a big divide between the Bollywood actresses who will do bikinis and miniskirts and the like, and those who usually don’t. All of them are definitely thin, regardless of costume.

For that matter, even the female figures in classical temple sculpture would fit right in on the big screen today.

Another thing that occurs to me on the written vs. visual porn thing: Visual porn represents a far more visceral threat to the current sexual partner. It’s hard when confronted with real pictures of real people not to feel inadequacy, whereas written porn is easier to write off as pure fantasy.

That’s interesting because, if we’re talking “hard core” porn, the men tend to have rather large schlongs and to be in pretty good shape (although there’s so much porn out there, it’s obviously impossible to generalize too much). So maybe either men are trained to be less critical of their bodies (well, obviously, but the maybe refers to the next clause), and so have an easier time imagining they actually look like that (which doesn’t mean that works entirely), or the fantasies are more standarized and familiar, so that the guy’s appearance kind of fades into the background. It’s interesting you mention women viewing gay porn; it’d be interesting to see, if women do start going in for more visual porn, what the female models would look like, if they would be “realistic” (whatever exactly that means) or if they would also be idealized, with that being part of the fantasy for women, too.

May or may not be true. However, I think clothing/fashion has a role to play also. E.g., I notice that in Bollywood Hindi movie/music videos as the girls increasingly mini-skirts, their figures too tend towards the Hollywood slimness. However, that kind of figure does not carry off a sari well. The voluptuousness that e.g., you can see in Indian temple sculptures suits the sari more; and that was the way Indian starlets tended to be also.

And in The Female Brain [FWIW] I have read as much,

Uh, yah, “The Female Brain” is what is known as “evolutionary psychology bullshit.”

A few weeks ago I said on this very board that evolutionary psychologists seems to get their understanding of human behavior from The Flintstones. A bit of hyperbole, even I will admit.

Except… not, apparently.

This is from the Amazon page for the book:

At the same time, Brizedine is not above reviewing the basics: “We may think we’re a lot more sophisticated than Fred or Wilma Flintstone, but our basic mental outlook and equipment are the same.”

Truly evolutionary psychology is now beyond the reach of parody.

Wilma!

I agree with you there — I’m not saying partnered women don’t get fat, more that due to partnered women’s life circumstances, their fatness is less likely to have anything to do with their social lives.

Though now that I type it out, I realize it makes very little sense. Personally, I blame it on the jetlag (had just gotten off the red-eye from LA when I suggested it).

Now that I’ve had some sleep, I have feeling that the above posters who talked about meat and fast food being promoted as Man Food ™ and the constant pressure on women to diet is probably responsible.

Yes, I’d say the desire to reproduce is basically built into us. Evolution 101.

You mean the desire to have sex, don’t you? It’s the separation of sex from reproduction that gives women better lives.

The Chicago Sun-Times repeatedly says “people”, not “men”. There’s no reference whatsoever to the fact that it’s only male people who are affected by their friends eating and body types.

And can you imagine if that fat friends study showed that the effect was far more noticeable on women rather than on men?

You just KNOW the study would say “fat friends make WOMEN fat” not “fat friends make PEOPLE fat.”

Gail Collins perpetrates the same “men = people” mistake in her latest column, which I discuss at my blog - with a shout-out to Amanda and Hoyden About Town.

Probably not, since a woman’s likelihood of getting fat goes up if she’s partnered.

Another thing that occurs to me on the written vs. visual porn thing: Visual porn represents a far more visceral threat to the current sexual partner. It’s hard when confronted with real pictures of real people not to feel inadequacy, whereas written porn is easier to write off as pure fantasy. It makes sense that the sex that generally wields more power within relationships have more lenience from the less powerful sex. Women simply have to color inside the lines more because men have more social leeway to get jealous over stuff. Double standards, w00t!