Looking at a tipper's junk on cam - thoughts?

[Deleted member 37064]

Would you feel the same if she was really unattractive to you? I'm not asking in a snarky way but often these kind of discussions are like "hell YES we dudes wanna see nudes" but is it the same if she's just really unappealing to you personally? Genuine question for the gentlemen.

I don't think I personally know any man who would want to receive a random poorly lit closeup photo of a spread vulva with no idea what kind of person it was attached to.
This is the equivalent to what most unsolicited dick pics are.

Genuine answer: If I'm not attracted to her, it's just not going to happen. Hell, I'm one where I personally don't care for the closeup pics of her vagina. I prefer the more artistic style pics such as pinup or Playboy style photos.

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

the bigger thing is the difference between male and female sexuality where men are AND, because of cultural norms, are more able to admit to being sexually aroused by the visual

This makes it sound like you think that women are lying about not being into unsolicited dick pics, and that they actually enjoy them, but can't/won't(?) admit it. But I hope that is not what you meant. I think you are doing women as a whole a disservice if you assume that we are all unable to voice our opinions on our likes and dislikes in the realm of the sexual. In fact, you have a bunch of women here saying that they don't like unsolicited dick pics right here, right now. Why don't you believe us?

I feel that you are generalizing a bit too much when making your points, which makes it hard for me to agree with you. Not everyone is going to have the same response to these kinds of images, regardless of gender.

And consent is ALWAYS step one, and always of the utmost importance when it comes to any sort of sexual interaction.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

And consent is ALWAYS step one, and always of the utmost importance when it comes to any sort of sexual interaction.

 

[ExcellaExe]

Consent is paramount so nothing about the differences of sexuality and how the sexes *sigh* become aroused matters if consent isn't garnered first. From either party.

 

[zoober]

This makes it sound like you think that women are lying about not being into unsolicited dick pics, and that they actually enjoy them, but can't/won't(?) admit it

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. I was making a point about the role of the visual in male/female sexuality being an obvious point of difference both in terms of the individual and cultural norms around male/female sexuality. Was arguably the inverse of what you're projecting

 

[yummybrownfox]

Chatting to cam girl I've known ages, guy entered room who'd recently become a relatively big tipper. He'd been getting pissy past few times, wanting more direct attention , but now was on cam himself and told her to check his junk out, which she did. Like I said, I known her ages, so know her routine; the tipper's schlong was variously delicious, oh so big, so hard, she wanted to ride it etc., The usual.

After, the cam girl described it as 'the worst part of 'camming'. What are other folks thoughts?

More generally, what's with guys wanting folks to look at their junk for free or for tokens - and does this mean before the internet there was a shit ton of frustrated flashers too scared to wave their todgers at women in case they got arrested?

Personally, strikes me as all about unresolved maternal issues and insecurity, but mebbe that's just me?

I don't spend too much time worrying about why they do it, just like I don't ask questions about the dudes who like to buy models' dirty, crusty panties.

As long as the dude showing off his dick is currently spending on me, it's all good. I'm getting paid to pay attention to him/IT, so yay!

Now if I'm on my personal FB account (which has absolutely nothing to do with camming or anything adult), and some weirdo decides to message me a dick pic, he's getting reported and blocked. NOT INTERESTED...

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. I was making a point about the role of the visual in male/female sexuality being an obvious point of difference both in terms of the individual and cultural norms around male/female sexuality. Was arguably the inverse of what you're projecting

I mean, I stated how I perceived what you wrote which isn't really something you can argue, but okay. Keep thinking you know better. That's clearly a common theme here.

You are still generalizing far too much for me to agree with your statements. Perhaps if you demonstrated an understanding of the fact that, within the bounds of "man" or "woman," people still have varying experiences, tastes, and preferences, it would be different.

Anyway. Source? I wonder if the point of origin you are relaying this information from will give me a better understanding of your message.

I personally think reducing an individual's sexuality to being dependent on what sort of genitals they have is a bit basic.

 

[zoober]

You are still generalizing far too much for me to agree with your statements. Perhaps if you demonstrated an understanding of the fact that, within the bounds of "man" or "woman," people still have varying experiences, tastes, and preferences, it would be different.

No. Because that is a facile point to make. Of course everyone is different, but that way lies getting lost in the detail given there are such things, hey even you might agree with me on this one, called trends, ?

As for a source of men being more visual than women - err, I dunno, the global pron industry, web cam users. help me out here, how much frickin obvious do you need spelling out?

 

[jolietjake]

I mean, I stated how I perceived what you wrote which isn't really something you can argue, but okay. Keep thinking you know better. That's clearly a common theme here.

You are still generalizing far too much for me to agree with your statements. Perhaps if you demonstrated an understanding of the fact that, within the bounds of "man" or "woman," people still have varying experiences, tastes, and preferences, it would be different.

Anyway. Source? I wonder if the point of origin you are relaying this information from will give me a better understanding of your message.

I personally think reducing an individual's sexuality to being dependent on what sort of genitals they have is a bit basic.

Actually, I got interested in this a while back. I found this article, a report of a study done. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430 . There are also lots of reports of research into differences in arousal between women and men. Men do seem to be more visual. What I think the research indicates is that men are simpler when it comes to sexual arousal. Women are more complex. Following that line of reasoning, as a group men are more likely to find individual images stimulating by themselves. Therefore, the belief that dick pics would be something that would arose a woman is consistent with that.

Of course, some men are just pigs. But they usually are simple pigs.

 

[EmiliaSong]

Personally, strikes me as all about unresolved maternal issues and insecurity, but mebbe that's just me?

I'm not sure if you're serious about this bit, but if so, I'd be curious about your reasoning.

Revived from the dead cause I didn't see an answer. . . I dunno if you're joking @zoober, but this is actually a thing:

It's Freud's theory of psychosexual development. Freud believed that children go through 5 stages of development that correlate with focusing on certain sexually relevant body parts. For boys, stage 3 is the phallic stage (age 3-6). Boys become sexually possessive of their mothers at this age and begin competing with their fathers for her attention (Oedipus complex). Children that experience trauma during this stage often become obsessed with their penises later in life. Hence, mommy issues and exhibitionism.

 

[SophiaSophia]

As much as I'm amused with the above response regarding mommy issues and whatnot...freud himself was so obsessed with genitals and other no no parts (anal stage anyone?) His theories make a person what sort of issues he himself had.

My take on the whole thing is pretty simple and has been answered ad-nauseum already. Women generally don't like unsolicited nude photos -neither do quite a few men (just imagine a preview on your phone and your wife or gf glancing over at that moment and what kind of convo ensues) when consent is given on the other hand that's really where the conversation ends. What goes on between two consenting adults is their business.
Anyone with a modest IQ can figure out that men seem to be more visually stimulated (this is actual brain differences though, not strictly social conditioning) and seem to require a fair amount of praise for their most prized bodily part.

 

[jolietjake]

Revived from the dead cause I didn't see an answer. . . I dunno if you're joking @zoober, but this is actually a thing:

It's Freud's theory of psychosexual development. Freud believed that children go through 5 stages of development that correlate with focusing on certain sexually relevant body parts. For boys, stage 3 is the phallic stage (age 3-6). Boys become sexually possessive of their mothers at this age and begin competing with their fathers for her attention (Oedipus complex). Children that experience trauma during this stage often become obsessed with their penises later in life. Hence, mommy issues and exhibitionism.

Not to pick a fight, but to respectfully disagree, Freudian theory is not really accepted today. I went to grad school in the mid 80's and by then it was already considered outdated. If we are talking about unwanted exhibitionism among men, I think most people who work with sex offenders, which is what that is, look at it through the lens of power and control and objectification/ depersonalization, much like domestic violence. As one who has done a fair amount of work with abusive men, I happen to agree. When a man sends you an unwanted pic of his penis, or pops into your room making inappropriate and rude or demeaning comments about you, I think that is usually what it is about. Assuming, of course, that isn't a role play thing that you are agreeing to it. Men are often threatened by women who are sexually assertive and power and control is a way to respond to that. To "put her in her place". Sadly, that still happens all too often. On the positive side for me, it means I will always have a job.

 

[ExcellaExe]

Ehhhh as someone with a Psych background, I'm gonna have to agree with Joliet and Sophia, in that we recognize the steps forward the Freud made towards regarding treatment of mental disorders and illnesses versus just locking a person away, but that his works are now considered highly out of date. Especially when it comes to sexuality and abnormal psychology (aka disorders and pathology). He was also of the frame of mind that there were different forms of orgasm, and that a clitoral orgasm was considered immature and the lowest form, while a penetrative orgasm was the highest form you could have and showed a woman was cooperative and whole. We now know this is factually untrue--an orgasm is an orgasm, it just depends on how you reach it. Psychology has moved on in terms of treatment plans and diagnostic tools from Freud's days.

 

[jolietjake]

Ehhhh as someone with a Psych background, I'm gonna have to agree with Joliet and Sophia, in that we recognize the steps forward the Freud made towards regarding treatment of mental disorders and illnesses versus just locking a person away, but that his works are now considered highly out of date. Especially when it comes to sexuality and abnormal psychology (aka disorders and pathology). He was also of the frame of mind that there were different forms of orgasm, and that a clitoral orgasm was considered immature and the lowest form, while a penetrative orgasm was the highest form you could have and showed a woman was cooperative and whole. We now know this is factually untrue--an orgasm is an orgasm, it just depends on how you reach it. Psychology has moved on in terms of treatment plans and diagnostic tools from Freud's days.

And I would add that we don't even talk in terms of "abnormal psychology anymore. I think anyone on this forum would have a hard time defining what normal is just in terms of sexual behavior let alone all of human behavior.

 

[ExcellaExe]

And I would add that we don't even talk in terms of "abnormal psychology anymore. I think anyone on this forum would have a hard time defining what normal is just in terms of sexual behavior let alone all of human behavior.

true facts. It was the name of the course I took when I went to school. Good god I'm old.

 

[jolietjake]

true facts. It was the name of the course I took when I went to school. Good god I'm old.

Me too, when I was an undergrad in the mid '70's. Wanna play "who's older"? LOL

 

[Pure_emotion]

I just love watching dicks .

 

[zoober]

It's Freud's theory of psychosexual development. Freud believed that children go through 5 stages of development that correlate with focusing on certain sexually relevant body parts.

TY for the thoughtful response. Rather than any developmental stages (Piaget anyone?) - I was being glib with the maternal reference - essentially drawing parallels between say a 3 year old asking mommy if he made good poo poo with guys aged 18 to 80 asking a cam girl to look at their junk and tell them how OK, big, hard etc.,it was/is i.e. asking for reassurance.

And yeah, Freud kinda sucks donkey balls these days - best call it analytical psychology I think it is now

 

[opphs]

Rather than targeting any one person making helpful and insightful comments, I hoped this was more an opportunity to reflect on men being more visual than women when it came to being sexually aroused (see for example the global fucking pornography industry) and women not being as open to or honest with themselves about the importance of the visual to their sexual; arousal, due to inherited notions of the feminine, with the internet kinda fucking that up by enabling guys to send dick pics and women to go into shock at getting dick pics with neither reflecting upon it all

The whole "men are more visual" thing is a myth. Or, if not quite a myth, it's an observation that makes some wrongheaded assumptions about the "natural order of things." The way this train of logic enables men to stop at looks while simultaneously encouraging women to consider a man's entire being is awfully convenient for the XY side of the equation don't you think?

*** Not an endorsement of unsolicited dick pics, so we're clear

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The whole "men are more visual" thing is a myth. Or, if not quite a myth, it's an observation that makes some wrongheaded assumptions about the "natural order of things." The way this train of logic enables men to stop at looks while simultaneously encouraging women to consider a man's entire being is awfully convenient for the XY side of the equation don't you think?

*** Not an endorsement of unsolicited dick pics, so we're clear

No, it is biological and it is consistent across time and cultures. Men can get aroused simply looking a female genital, or in the Victorian days a shapely ankle. Female arousal is a helluva of a lot more complicated, but for the most part simply looking at a dick doesn't get them turned on. The need to think about what the dick is attached to, and who that person is.

While some guys aren't aroused by a close up of a vagina. I dare say a majority of the most successful camgirl routinely do this, in fact, most charge for it (and it typically cost more than boobs). So either we can conclude that these top camgirls are being stupid and subjecting guys to something they don't want i.e. a close up of a pussy. Or we can conclude that camgirls are being smart business women, and the men who say they don't like it are in a distinct minority.

Pornography goes back to the ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese, and the visual aspect of it is almost always targeted at heterosexual males.

 

[SaffronBurke]

No, it is biological and it is consistent across time and cultures. Men can get aroused simply looking a female genital, or in the Victorian days a shapely ankle. Female arousal is a helluva of a lot more complicated

Guess I'm a dude, then, because nice boobs, ass, and the occasional vag shot sure do it for me.

 

[opphs]

No, it is biological and it is consistent across time and cultures.

Not so.

Clearly you're right that arousal is a lot more complicated for women than it is for men but I think it's a mistake to conflate straight up "my body is ready for sex" with "visual," at least in this context, because my point is that the "men are visual" thing serves a clear purpose: to enable men to be as shallow as they want while simultaneously discouraging the same behavior in women despite the fact that women like hotties too.

Your post is basically just proof that patriarchy is really old and hella stubborn.

 

[AudriTwo]

no it's biology.. here is a neat study

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430

 

[opphs]

no it's biology.. here is a neat study

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430

Won't let me see anything unless create an account & log in, which I tried & couldn't. Fair enough if you have a better grasp of the science than I do though. Not gonna pretend to be some expert. I quoted someone I thought had a solid and respectable view.

 

[SophiaSophia]

Won't let me see anything unless create an account & log in, which I tried & couldn't. Fair enough if you have a better grasp of the science than I do though. Not gonna pretend to be some expert. I quoted someone I thought had a solid and respectable view.

I'm not sure why it won't let you see it- here is a cut and paste of the study's abstract

Abstract
Factors related to sexual arousal are different in men and women. The conditions for women to become aroused are more complex. However, the conventional audio-visual stimulation (AVS) materials used to evaluate sexual arousal are universal. In the present study, we investigated sexual differences in the response to different types of AVS by studying activated areas of the brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). fMRI was performed during two types of AVS in 20 healthy heterosexual volunteers (aged 20–28 years, 10 men and 10 women). The two AVS types were: (1) mood type, erotic video clips with a concrete story and (2) physical type, directly exposing sexual intercourse and genitalia. fMRI images were analyzed and compared for each stimulation with a Mann–Whitney U test, with statistical significance set at P<0.05. Men preferred the physical type of AVS to the mood type (mean arousal score 2.14 vs 1.86 in females) and women preferred the mood type (mean arousal score 2.14 vs 1.86 in males) (P<0.05). Degrees of activation in brain areas differed between genders and types of AVS for each gender. This should be considered when applying the AVS method to evaluate and diagnose female sexual dysfunction.


let me know if you want more than the abstract- I can grab that as well.

I have an undergrad degree in a brain science, according to current research men are most definitely more visual and women more auditory
(women have more rods and cones in their eyes tho and see and interpret color better- so that's kinda neat)
what saffronburke mentioned - that she is very visual is an interesting wrinkle in it however- especially given her sexual orientation. Brain differences in those that self identify as homosexual can have interesting and conflicting fMRI results compared to those that self identify as heterosexual. Those differences become even MORE conflicting in those that are transgender.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I have an undergrad degree in a brain science, according to current research men are most definitely more visual and women more auditory
what saffronburke mentioned - that she is very visual is an interesting wrinkle in it however- especially given her sexual orientation.

Question on this, as I'm a bit fascinated now... There's always the exceptions to the rule, such as saffron, etc. But, are these differences basically ending at just visual vs auditory? Or, did they delve in further?
For example, based upon those key differences, is it just a "Oh hey there!" type thing, or delve more into the imaginative aspects? Following curvy lines of a woman's body, or the depth of a man's voice and what they do the the person?

 

[SophiaSophia]

Question on this, as I'm a bit fascinated now... There's always the exceptions to the rule, such as saffron, etc. But, are these differences basically ending at just visual vs auditory? Or, did they delve in further?
For example, based upon those key differences, is it just a "Oh hey there!" type thing, or delve more into the imaginative aspects? Following curvy lines of a woman's body, or the depth of a man's voice and what they do the the person?

absolutely- and there's gradients based on personal experiences/imprinting
and saffron isn't an exception to the rule- shes actually within "normative" findings because of her sexual preferences- as a woman that likes women sexually, it isn't surprising shes visually stimulated- to not pick on saffron here I'll use myself as an example - Im a straight woman (bi-curious would be generous) and really like women visually but I look at it more in lines and light (art) and pleasing shape but I don't find it sexually gratifying. I don't happen to think penises are phenomenal but I really like a mans chest or obliques and a v-taper/nice shoulder to waist ratio and I'm not sure if i find that sexually stimulating but I find it more so than a naked woman.

gender itself isn't the only factor- transgender research gets really wild here- areas of the brain that would light up for mtf person for a given stimulus may more closely mimic a cis woman or cis man (but tend to run closer to a cis woman in most studies)

 

[SophiaSophia]

I need to sort of clarify something i said above without editing the shit out of it- transgender IS gender- but the brain of the person matters a lot more than their genitalia and their sexuality or sexual preferences run this show...for simplicity

women use and hear more words- they tend to respond more sexually to "feeling" and men like to look at things and (bad joke coming up) probably prefer if you didnt speak sexually (joke joke joke)

 

[Deleted member 37064]

absolutely- and there's gradients based on personal experiences/imprinting
and saffron isn't an exception to the rule- shes actually within "normative" findings because of her sexual preferences- as a woman that likes women sexually, it isn't surprising shes visually stimulated- to not pick on saffron here I'll use myself as an example - Im a straight woman (bi-curious would be generous) and really like women visually but I look at it more in lines and light (art) and pleasing shape but I don't find it sexually gratifying. I don't happen to think penises are phenomenal but I really like a mans chest or obliques and a v-taper/nice shoulder to waist ratio and I'm not sure if i find that sexually stimulating but I find it more so than a naked woman.

Ah, thanks for the info. I'm similar to you, of sorts. I'm a straight male. But, can appreciate the hard work and dedication a guy puts in and the results show it. However, it stops there. For women, it is more than that in that I find it attractive and a portion of whom she is. But, it's only a portion of the puzzle. For me, it's also the intangibles such as personality, intelligence, etc that helps determine whether I find a woman sexually stimulating or not. There's only been a handful of times in my life that only a woman's looks has "don't it for me".

gender itself isn't the only factor- transgender research gets really wild here- areas of the brain that would light up for mtf person for a given stimulus may more closely mimic a cis woman or cis man (but tend to run closer to a cis woman in most studies)

Could this be due to variances of the brain, and the predisposition of the trends? Hope that sounds right... Also, what about hormal treatment? Does that impact anything.

Along the lines of hormone thereapy, what about things like declining testosterone in men?

 

[SophiaSophia]

Ah, thanks for the info. I'm similar to you, of sorts. I'm a straight male. But, can appreciate the hard work and dedication a guy puts in and the results show it. However, it stops there. For women, it is more than that in that I find it attractive and a portion of whom she is. But, it's only a portion of the puzzle. For me, it's also the intangibles such as personality, intelligence, etc that helps determine whether I find a woman sexually stimulating or not. There's only been a handful of times in my life that only a woman's looks has "don't it for me".



Could this be due to variances of the brain, and the predisposition of the trends? Hope that sounds right... Also, what about hormal treatment? Does that impact anything.

Along the lines of hormone thereapy, what about things like declining testosterone in men?

hormone shifts and hormone treatment man-- yes- and variances in the brain, yes but man- that thread would be exhausting..haha

its easier if you take genitals out of the equation and just remember the brain is the largest sexual organ in the body- but given that most of us don't have fMRI built into our eyes (thatd be awesome) we have to categorize it by genitals and self sexual identification.