Yes I am. Proud of it too, especially since I'm 63 and am still able to appreciate the female form.

The Green Man is very accurate.
I say "AMEN."
This is a great series on men.

Interesting...It's a hard line to figure out...exactly what is appreciation and a natural masculine instinct, and what is exploitation? Does it mean it's ok to look at porn, as long as they are smiling (and don't look like the smile is because of the hit they'll get from the payoff?). Never simple. Great stuff GreenMan.

I think we can all tell what is commercial exploitation. I am sure, like me, you get at least a dozen or so in your email inbox every day.

Pornography is one of those amorphous words that means so many different things. Was the Spencer Tunick photography pornography. I would have said definitely not and yet there are some who would say it was.

As some of you would know, I participated in the Melbourne shoot. It was an exhilarating visually sensual experience and yet there was no exploitation. All who participated did so voluntarily and in a sense of unselfconscious adventure and fun. http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/tunick.htm
There is hard core pornography, that most men find completely unattractive, but let us not loose sight of the fact that it is different from a heterosexual male finding the naked female form visually pleasurable and arousing.

Oh and what is it with those expressions on the faces of those women in the hard core stuff. Does any woman actually have that sort of expression on her face if she is not posing for those things. Give me an image of a naked woman who looks happy any day.

Hmmm...

I don't know that its necessarily the nature of the image that makes it either 'healthy' or 'destructive'. Maybe its how I respond to it. I can just as easily objectivify Anna and see her as a piece of meat as I can any xxx girl.

I do find the female body arousing to look at. Where does / should arousal go though? And is that a healthy thing for blokes?

If you were to encounter Anna in real life then your interaction would be moderated by social conventions and for respect for her as an individual (hopefully :-) ).

In spite of this, physiologically, it is quite OK to objectivify Anna, in fact it is beyond your control. For any healthy heterosexual adult male she is, quite naturally, an object of sexual desire for reasons detailed in the post. It is a built-in, healthy and natural response and, as such, there is no point of feel guilty about it. Which is the really the main point of the post.

Whether it is because of the influence of feminism or the church, men, at times, beat themselves up about the natural sexual response that they experience. You may have been taught to feel guilty about this feeling but you will continue to feel it anyway. It is how you act and the respect, or otherwise, that you show to Anna that you should be concerning yourself about.

I don't have any problem with the sexual arousal that I feel, and I agree that respect for Anna is at the crux of it.

But my question is more about whether it is a healthy thing for a bloke to view images of women with no clothes on.

What is the point of sexual arousal that cannot be fulfilled?

Not wanting to be moralistic here, but I genuinely see it as an issue

Firstly, the sexual arousal is pleasant in itself. It seems that men are far more visual than women. Anna is providing a sensual pleasure with no down side. There is no reason to feel guilty about finding it pleasurable to look at her image.

Secondly, your arousal can be satisfied, just not with Anna. Your wife might find you just that bit more enthusiastic/lively and she probably wont be disappointed with about that.

To specifically answer your question, yes I believe that is a healthy and natural thing for men to enjoy seeing images of women with no clothes on. That's is part of what your testosterone does for you, it is a basic part of your biology.

I totally agree with you, to an extent at least (oops...I think I just contradicted myself?) I don't think there is a problem with the sort of picture you link to...at least not in general terms. Some guys may have a genuine problem with it, and that's not for me to judge. But generally speaking, I agree with your viewpoint. However...

...I still think it's important to differentiate between art, or even "erotica", and "porn." There really is a form of images/writing that is designed to objectify and focus on sex, taking sex out of its context (and turning a a good thing into empty lust). Of course, part of that is in the mind of the viewer. But I still think it's important to make a distinction...

Hmm. I may have to write a post of my own about this...it's resonating in a lot of ways with some discussions my wife and I have had recently.

You are correct on both points Jonathan.

There are men who have a problem with the images simply because they are either immature or because they are in emotionally or psychologically disturbed. I was however reflecting on the natural male response within the context of understanding and accepting ourselves as men.

There is a world of difference between finding the image of a young healthy woman visually appealing and the exploitive images that characterise pornography. You may like to muse on the fact that the pornography is exploiting the weaknesses and insecurities of the male viewers as much as the female models.

Good post and thanks for contributing.

well, feeling sexual attraction is a normal and healthy thing...the feelings of guilt and shame associated with sex is a direct result of the christian influence...'if it feels good, it must be a sin!' but that's me, and i could be wrong...i would appreciate an opinion on this.