MetaChat - We're just objects to you, aren't we?

This is news? I've always noticed faces, ever since my first adolescent Playboy -- all the other parts look more alike from one gal to the next than they look different. And in real life, looking at faces is how we fellas tell whether y'all are interested in us or not. The other body parts are just icing on the cake, so to speak.

I found interesting that they evaluated differences in how much attention women are paying to different parts relative to whether they're on contraceptives or not. I wonder what that means?

posted by PaxDigita 13 April | 06:46

(I know the authors of this study, and my boss is the editor of the journal in which it was published)

They would have separated out women on contraceptives to control for hormonal status. Note that they also separated women into periovulatory, luteal and follicular phases of the menstrual cycle, which phases have very different serum concentrations of estradiol and progesterone. Sexual arousal in women is generally shown to vary throughout the menstrual cycle. Also, I'm pretty sure that attention is influenced by circulating hormones.

posted by gaspode 13 April | 07:40

This is interesting to compare to another study that was done recently that showed men looking at pictures of animals and baseball players on the internet focused their attention on faces and naughty bits. I wonder how these two studies jive together.

posted by backseatpilot 13 April | 08:36

Oooh, inside info from gaspode! :)

My question would be, and if there's actually a definitive answer that would awesome: Did they control for how much porn the participants usually look at? I'm not a huge porn person, and the few times I've seen in-act photos there's a large part of my brain screaming "OH MY GOD THEY'RE HAVING SEX!!! Are they really having sex! Yes, OMG, I'm looking at people having sex! THIS IS VERY WEIRD!"

I could be wrong, but I would assume that people who looked at porn more often would have less of a startle response. Which I would think might influence what they're looking at.

Also, there was just a study showing that men looked at men's genitals more often than women did, in non-porn photos. Women looked at the guy's face almost exclusively; guys spent equal time on his face and his groin.

posted by occhiblu 13 April | 09:25

OK, I completely missed backseatpilot's comment. Sorry for the repeated info!

posted by occhiblu 13 April | 09:26

I just pulled up the PDF. Yeah, porn use was one of the inclusion criteria. I don't know how strictly they controlled for it, because I have only skimmed the paper.

Subjects were recruited from Atlanta area graduate and professional schools by email and flyers. Participants first completed an application that included a consent form and a questionnaire that asked them their data of birth, whether they used oral contraceptives, whether they had been sexually active in the last month, some questions from the Brief Index of Sexual Function (BISF, Taylor et al., 1994), and the Sexual Permissiveness subscale of the Sexual Attitudes Scale by Hendrick and Hendrick (1987). Questions from the BISF asked about participants' sexual motivation in the last month (the frequency of sexual thoughts and desire to engage in sexual activity), and experience viewing sexually explicit stimuli (within the last month and lifetime). Personnel other than the experimenter then screened the subjects for heterosexual preference and some experience with pornography, which were the inclusion criteria. Fifteen Men, 15 cycling women (NC Women), and 15 women using oral contraceptives (OC Women), entered the study.

posted by gaspode 13 April | 09:33

I wonder how much of a difference it makes in the men looking at the faces, depending on whether the woman in the photograph is making that oh-so-obviously-fake "porno face", versus if her face looks like a face actually looks during sex.

posted by matildaben 13 April | 09:37

Thanks, gaspode! I love this thread. It's like "Ask the Scientist"!

(Or possibly just, "Ask the Person Who's Less Lazy Than You and Will Actually Research Answers Rather Than Just Posing Questions." But that's too long for a regular column, I fear.)

posted by occhiblu 13 April | 09:37

I wonder how much of it is checking out the woman's body in the picture -which could be a stimuli thing, or could be a comparison/social type thing. I also wonder what switching to video over pictures would do, if anything.

This did surprise me. I assumed everybody looked at stuff like I do (apparently, like a girl).

posted by rainbaby 13 April | 09:49

Err, the women in the study checking out the picutured woman, sorry, wasn't clear, trying not to type shocking words at work.

posted by rainbaby 13 April | 09:51

I definately check out the faces in a prono first and foremost, but kinda just as another sexual organ, perhaps even the preferred one. Apologies if that's crude.

And, yeah, I check out the solo-girl bits as long as or longer than the boy-girl bits. I don't need some other dude's schlong getting in the way of the fantasy. Is that what was meant by "women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males"?

posted by danostuporstar 13 April | 10:15

It's interesting in that I look at stuff like that about once every several months, mostly due to lack of opportunity (can't/won't at work, not alone in the house very often) rather than any personal virtue. Well, last night was one of those times (ahem).

I noticed that I was more *into* stuff that revealed faces.

I also noticed that I am pretty non-selective, other than they have to be "normal-looking" people and they have to be appearing to be having fun. Genders or combinations are secondary.

posted by danf 13 April | 10:30

Dan, I think we killed the thread.

posted by danostuporstar 13 April | 14:44

Dan, I think we killed the thread.

Dano, my comments are very often the kiss of death for threads, or at least the last comment before the thread goes to sleep.

Welcome to the Dan tribe.

posted by danf 13 April | 14:53

*tinkers with TMI-meter* [NOT EUPHEMIST]

posted by danostuporstar 13 April | 14:58

Well, I wouldn't have been able to do that study, I only watch gay male porn.

(TMI-meter working just fine, dano)

posted by gaspode 13 April | 15:08

Yeah, 'pode, but do you look at the faces?

Nah, thanks for sharing dans. Again, I am really surprised.

posted by rainbaby 13 April | 15:26

The Sharing Dans.

Worst. Bandname. Ever.

posted by danf 13 April | 15:30

rainbaby: nup, just the dick. So I guess I fit in to their findings.

(hrm. I had to go over several penis euphemisms to find the one that I liked the best in this context. I'm still not sure about it. Maybe cock would have been better after all. I love schlong as a euphemism, but it's not so porny, really. Oh the things I consider on Friday afternoons at work).

posted by gaspode 13 April | 15:33

rainbaby: nup, just the dick. So I guess I fit in to their findings.

Oh, the e-cards you'll get from us, come next Christmas!

posted by danf 13 April | 15:38

Nup is the perfect penis euphemism for mine, actually. Short and sweet...oh, wait.

posted by danostuporstar 13 April | 15:41

Oh, the e-cards you'll get from us, come next Christmas!

awesome!

posted by gaspode 13 April | 15:42

Our small sample group fits with the findings, it seems.

posted by rainbaby 13 April | 15:43

So, it seems evident that no one looks at MEN'S faces, but then, from there, everything else gets more nuanced.

God, there is hope for me yet!

posted by danf 13 April | 15:51

i had to completely delete what i wrote.
Must not talk about penis--

posted by ethylene 13 April | 16:02

I rented a gay porno once: "Hollywood Gigolo"....the men looked SOOO bored.

posted by brujita 14 April | 02:19

13 April 2007