This picture perhaps answers the question fairly graphically, but while that might be derogatory towards women, perhaps it makes us men just look simple! There are those that would say uncomplicated and mean it as a compliment. Others would see it as a positive because we don't have all that other 'shit' to deal with, and that would be true. What was that old joke about How To Turn On a Woman: that listed a whole lot of things like, dinner, manners, flowers, perfume, gifts, compliments (ad infinitum ad nauseum) whereas, How To Turn On a Man was "Turn up naked, bring beer (optional)"We are different beasts, not just the obvious physical differences, but in the way we look at things. I know my ex bought me two ties and I put one on and all she could say was "Don't you like the other one?" and while that was a no win situation, they aren't all like that, but they are different from us men in the way they process information in general terms.
For instance: I was talking with my partner this morning about homophobia (as you do) and she was wondering why it's ok for us guys to find two women having sex arousing yet two guys having sex was revolting to us. She also wondered why most women didn't find two guys having sex arousing; somewhat of a duality she thought.
In my infinite(?) wisdom I explained that I thought it had to do with how men and women dealt with issues of sex and relationships. OK I can hear you all now cringing, worried for me that I had ventured down this track and mentioned the R word, and I thank you, but as Robinson Crusoe said on the island all by himself, "I can hold my own."
I ventured to her that men were visual creatures by our very upbringing, peeking under tent flaps, through key holes, in windows and that the magazines that men read create a desire to 'see' things of an arousing nature, so looking at two women fits neatly into a couple of categories. One is of course the certain taboo nature of it all, and the other is a little more base than that. If looking at two tits is good, then four are better. I am sure the psychoanalyst amongst any one reading this will argue on a deeper level, and perhaps they are right in a root cause (no pun intended) but the taboo and the 'watching' are strong drivers of our male sexuality.
On the other hand, women seem to be more emotional, and while the beautiful act of lovemaking is an expression of love for some guys, I would hazard that it is a strong factor in most women and is accompanied by a whole range of emotions to love, to hold, to give, to be given, to join, to be consumed, to mate, and to be so much more than just a shag. I admit there are women out there that don't feel that way, but it seems to me that those emotions run deeply within women and they might find it hard to split those emotions over more than one man.
I can hear the howling from the bleachers already about stereotyping, and many of you, including me, have experienced events that don't fit in with this theory; girls that want to hump just like guys, that want to have... what did they used to call it... "the zipless fuck!" and I am sure there are caring guys deep down that aren't gay that will shake there heads, but we are all formed by our genetics and our environment and that genetic make-up and environment give male and females different views and aspects to the reproduction/interaction/relationship process, and I have seen it continually displayed over the years.
To highlight the above let me give you an example. In the main, a girl's "virtue", her "cherry", her "hymen" has value to both sexes. To the girl, it is something that will be saved, saved for the right person, however she decides on what that 'right' is, be it the first real love, the first night of marriage etc. It has value for a guy, it is a scalp to wear on his belt, a notch on his gun, a story to share with all his mates. Tell me that isn't true!
As for the homophobia, as Dorrie Evans from No.96 used to say, "That's a horse of a different kettle of fish!"
