News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by coldtea on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:46PM (#14395036)
>Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!

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.

Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by wnoise on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:55PM (#14395127)
> but women don't particularly care for gay male porn

You are so very wrong about that. Though it is true that women generally prefer written porn to visual.

Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by coldtea on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @01:27AM (#14398994)
Well, not that wrong, though there's this media idea of some women admitting they are watching gay porn etc, which they blow as on the rise or even prevalent. Still, according to PornHub:

  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.
They also provide preferred search terms and preferred categories for men and women, and gay related stuff is not in the top 10.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by mikestew on Monday May 22, 2017 @06:58PM (#14397537)
A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at.

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.

Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by watwut on Monday May 22, 2017 @04:39PM (#14396749)
"A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at."

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.

Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ... by coldtea on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @01:29AM (#14399000)
>May I guess that you are heterosexual male who does not have good looking friends?

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.