But it's not necessarily a double standard, there can be more eroticism in a wet piece of clothing that tries to hide but reveals in fact a lot, than in bare nudity which is the natural state and not that shocking all things considered.
Still a double standard, but unfortunately not limited to the Victorian era.
Well, males are very "interested" in the female form.
Females in the male form, not so much beyond a certain point (for the same reason males enjoy lesbian porn, but women don't particularly care for gay male porn).
A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at.
You are so very wrong about that. Though it is true that women generally prefer written porn to visual.
Moving on to search terms. Women seem to have a lot of love
for ‘lesbian’ porn. The term dominated women’s top
searches. From ‘lesbian scissoring’ to ‘lesbian seduces
straight’ even to ‘lesbian threesome’ there was a definite
request for anything female on female among our female
viewers. And while the ladies’ preference was ‘Lesbian’ by
a long shot.
There exist measuring rulers that are less straight than I am, but I have seen plenty of men who I find "interesting" to look at.
When you get down to it, the physical appearance of women isn't all that interesting: a butt that's maybe wider than mine, a couple of bags of fat where their pecs ought to be, and for the most part you can't even see their genitals. Move along, nothing to see here.
May I guess that you are heterosexual male who does not have good looking friends?
Gay porn is targeted at dudes, stuff targeted at women involve differently looking men.
Yes, but that would be beside the point, as I'm talking about the average male, not "good looking" ones or Tom Hiddleston in a suit.
Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!