Don't women lust for shoes normally?

I've been waiting and watching before submitting my opinion on Broadsheet, but this entry broke me. What does this news have to do with women? Oh, right. NOTHING. It's very specifically not even about women, but about young men. The author had to put in a lame reference to shoe lust (obnoxious stereotypes, anyone?) to even pretend there was any relation.

Ghettoizing women's issues is bad enough. Pretending any trivial "news" about sexuality is a women's issue? Give us a break, Salon.

What is with this idea that somehow only men experience a strong enough arousal to inhibit judgement. Isn't there something offensive about the idea that women were not included in the study? Isn't that an implicit suggestion that women's orgasms are weaker and less worthy of study than men and their "awesome" erections?

Shouldn't the 'feminist' bloggers of Broadsheet have also picked up that the omission of women from the study is actually pretty offensive to women?

Or, since I am a man, am I missing something necessary in order to fully comprehend this Broadsheet section?

The majority of women are at least somewhat heterosexual. That makes male sexual behavior of relevance to most women.

The linked article in the Guardian lists these as conclusions of the study: "[that men will, when highly aroused](1) become sexually attracted to things otherwise offputting; (2) grow more willing to engage in morally questionable behaviour that might lead to sex; and (3) are more likely to have unprotected sex"

The first conclusion, and the most titillating and marketable, is that men will report rate things normally not considered sexually attractive,as being sexually attractive while aroused. That, I'll concede, is not of interest to women who do not make male sexuallity an aspect of their life.

However, the second two conclusions have implications for all women, and for women as members of the public in general. If it can be generalized that all men (and not just male college students in the UK who will masturbate for science and profit) will engage in behavior they would normally consider morally questionable if

a. they are highly aroused

and

b. they have a belief that the behavior will help them obtain sex

then the current bumper sticker wisdom that rape is about power, not sex, might have to be rethought; which is of interest to all women. (if not all people)

The third conclusion, that men, when highly aroused, are more likely to engage in unprotected sex might become highly important as research on the male birth control pill continues. Either the pill will reduce unintended pregnancies, because men will not be making contraceptive decisions while highly aroused (erection is always necessary to put on a condom, but rarely needed while taking a pill). Of course, there is the alternate possibility that the male pill would put women at risk, because, as in the second conclusion of the study, men might lie (morally questionable behavior) about being on the pill when in fact, they are not.

It seems the blurb was at least of interest to THIS woman.

Did they have gay or bisexual men take the "aroused" survey and think it significant that they upped the arousometer when a hot dude flashed on the screen? Is it possible that they were able to get guys with a bit more relaxed sexual mores to agree to stimulate themselves and look at dirty pictures, and the more uptight ones refused to participate or were moved to the control group? Did they provide the "aroused" group a means to clean up if they ejaculated? Were they on camera? Behind two-way mirrors? Was it clear that they were to measure how arousing they found the images and not how aroused they were at the time the image appeared (ie., could they be aroused by the last pic they saw and not the current)? Did they vary the order of the images amongst test subjects?

This study says absolutely nothing about willingness to engage in unprotected sex. Watching people engage in unprotected sex is hot, but it's a perfectly safe activity. Having unprotected sex with a person who may or may not give you a fatal disease or unwanted pregnancy is a whole other issue. Many better-structured studies have shown that there is a much higher correlation between inebriation (especially from meth) and bad judgement in sexual situations.

This is junk science meant as "Lifestyle" filler for newspapers and local TV news.

innately different but at the same time provide an intellectually respectable basis for women always being right. It's not as easy as it sounds.

Of course men find women's shoes sexy!!

How do you think the terms "Sexy Shoes", "Kinky Boots" and "F**k Me Pumps" arose in the first place?!

Despite all the lesbian led feminist rhetoric about women dressing for themselves without a thought for what men think, the vast majority of the female sex are heterosexual just like the vast majority of males (that's why we're all here!). If men don't find High-Heels sexy, why do women persevere with them?

Our society uses the high-heeled shoe shot in drama and advertising as a metaphor for sex!

It's just that men are embarrassed to admit it because they are inanimate objects!

Mike Martlet