If you ask a woman what male sexuality is I think most men and women would be shocked. Same thing goes for asking men the same question. I think the first step is understanding that we're all human. No really I mean it. For one moment think about what it means to be human. Treat the term like whales and sharks totally in that national geographic way. What do we all really want? Happiness, love, comfort, care, maybe a little excitement, but mostly the feel goods. What feels better, a quick fleeting rub or a long thorough caress. We all have skin, it all has relatively the same sensitivity. Sensitive to heat, to cold, to wet to dry. Sensitive to pressure, light and hard. It seems like we forget when dealing with a body other than our own.
Not all touching is sexual, not all sex involves touching. Sexual feelings can be gained from imagery, fantasy, smells. Sex can be a projection of what we assume and feel is sexual. The common thoughts are that each of us has a very physical representation for sex and what feels good during sex. It is not cliche but absolute fact that the most sensitive sexual organ is the brain. Sex is or is not whatever the person thinks it is or projects onto others what it should be.
America is an interesting place that has reduced male sexuality to baseline shits and giggles. Our movies don't really feature men as the sex symbols. If they are it is usually a consequence of the overall story being told. He is also usually portrayed as a total asshole. The man you're supposed to want is cute, successful, kind. A slew of characteristics that are to be equated to being a highly desirable male. I don't think the truth of the matter is portrayed as often as it should so American men don't get to enjoy some of the usually hallowed ground of women. Which is the ability and consequence of being a sexual being no matter the situation.
Women are almost constantly presented as sexual beings. Certain women the idealized sexual being. Most of this is a purely physical expression of sexual fulfillment based on the way the woman looks. It does not seem to concern itself with the consequence of the woman actually desiring the man back strictly for his own sexual nature. And usually the implication is that all types styles or methods of sex wanted by the male are acceptable. Even mutual satisfaction is a myth as women are reputed to not be as sexually inclined as men only wanting material possessions or emotional commitment in return for an unpleasant actuality. This accomplishes a couple of things. It makes sex a sellable commodity which advertisers enjoy but it also robs men of their ability to be desired exclusively in a sexual fashion.
I find it ironic that sexuality is often seen as a thing men take and a thing women possess. As if it is this one way street of supply and demand. Women give men sex and men just get sex which is what they want and women get other things which is never just sex. I just don't think it's that cut and dry.
Most women can tell you of a man or two who got into their pants just because he was the hottest thing they'd ever seen. He spoke strictly to their hormones and logical thought just wasn't in the plan. Just like men. Its not our instincts that are different. Its how we express them and how acceptable the form of expression is for both of us.
In the end there is a pull between us no matter your sexual inclinations. The pull is for whom and what you find attractive. The pull stems from desire which is based in potential sexual fulfillment which is visceral not mental. I could go through citing symmetry tests, shoulder to hip ratios, waist to hip ratios all the science. But is it so hard to believe that some wants are not taught, but hardwired based on a pattern that is older and wiser than any of us.
Take my specimen here:
And let's be honest who wouldn't. His name is Pedro Perestrello and when I see pictures of him I have a visceral response. Just a tingle here and there that tells me that within his features his look I see traits and features that are hardwired into me. But he's a model and that's why they pick them. He has features that are hardwired into a lot of women's sexual response nodes. There is a good chance that away from the camera he wouldn't ping at all. Why? Because he has learned how to project his sexuality. He makes his expression carnal and engaging. It makes promises and promises. . yes sexual fulfillment. Having the idea response just denotes healthy sexuality.
Let's examine Pedro shall we and figure out what's going on and why he can make me and a lot of other women all tingly.
I don't know about you but that look is what's really getting it done for me. Could it be that I feel that if a man is looking at me this way that promise of sexual fulfillment is very possible? Yes.
How well does this go without his avid attention?
Mind you I still think he's easy on the eyes but I'm not really feeling anything sexual. I'm just admiring a lovely landscape but there is no connection to sexual ideas to the point that I have a physical response. Any physical response is left over from before. The piercing direct look photos have given me the impetuous to believe that Pedro here is capable of delivering on sexual fulfillment.
So why is it that male sexuality isn't more of a thing? Why don't men teach each other how to project sexual fulfillment with their eyes and their bodies? Use what gifts nature gave them to have a leg up every once in a while on us. Most guys will tell you about a crazy time when a woman couldn't resist him, but it is usually followed up by the thought that she just wanted other things and actually having him sexually was not the main goal. What I want to challenge is the idea that this idea is normal. Men and woman should want each other for the most basic of reasons. The acknowledgement and fulfillment of sexual desire.
So boys do me a favor and learn to project more because then we'll all have to be more honest about the thing.