Not sure what to make of this

[Pythos]

I am currently reading a book on body language.

In it are sections on what signals men and women send to one another when it comes to attraction. according to the book, males have a limited number of signals, and nearly all involve the crotch. When a man stands with his legs apart, with his arms in various positions, this is know as the "crotch display". What got me though concerning this was the idea that women find men adjusting their genitals in public to be appealing. Did I miss something? When I was growing up I was ridiculed and told off for doing this absentmindedly. My dad even came up with a horrible term for it, "Mr. Mcfeely". I find the act of playing pocket pool in public to be a vile and rude thing. Yet according to this book this is a signal of male prowess. Also, I find it ironic that male signals involve displaying the crotch and yet our clothing is so un revealing, it just seems pointless.

Then there was the whole leg part. Women's legs not only propel them through life, but also show whether or not they are ready for sexual acts and bearing children. This is because the pre-pubescent girl has short legs, but when they hit puberty, the hormones cause their legs to grow long, which signals to males she is ready to copulate. Also, there are three things women find attractive on men. Butt, Chest, and Legs. But legs are only interesting to women insofar as a display of male power (what ever the hell that is?). Now correct me if I am wrong, but men usually have their legs hidden, along with the rest of their physique under baggy clothing, and or ill fitting suits. So this is rather an unfair statement when it comes to women's attraction to men's legs.

Other parts of this book are quite interesting. But I found the whole male female relationship section to be annoying. it simply did not take into account the social factors involved in why things are the way they are, and the whole male signal thing sounded like the Gay male attraction guide. I really hate the fact the only signals I can send involve my crotch, when women have their entire body and attitude to signal.

Another thing I found myself disagreeing with is the issue of crossing legs. In the book the main thing about crossing legs is it is a signal that your mind is closed, and or you are closing yourself off from a group. Sitting open legged makes you more "approachable". Pardon me, but the reason I cross my legs is because I find it more COMFORTABLE, and stable than sitting like a slob with my legs apart. I find that sitting with crossed legs greatly improves my posture when sitting.
What are your opinions on this?

[Colin]

I find sitting cross legged uncomfortable. Someone told me that it reduces the blood circulation to the legs, but plenty of people do cross their legs. Whatever one finds comfortable.

[sapphire]

What got me though concerning this was the idea that women find men adjusting their genitals in public to be appealing.

Nope, not with this lady. I find it rude and disrespectful, just shy of public porn.

I wouldn't put to much value into what the book has to say.

[Pythos]

What I am seeing with the book so far is that it is very very largely based on contemporary society, there are some things that do work, but as I stated, most of the "mating" part is pretty much based on stereotypes (which do have a basis in fact, but not applicable to all.).

There are many things I do, that in this book make me both female, and gay. But they are things I have done for a very long time, and I know I am not female and pretty sure I am not gay.

[Peter v]

Throw the book in the garbage bin where it belongs.

We know better.

It seems pretty biased to me.

By the way, when can a man adjust his genetals when needed? ( not playing with them )

Sometimes I notice my uhum hanging in the "middle"and thus protruding just a little. That is also not comfortable, so I turn away to the public if at all possible, and whoops, lay "it " to one side or the other. It is a guy's thing.
Waiting is no option. uncomfortable and sometimes a little unsightly. ( playing is not done ) If it is not done then, I become over aware and feel uncomfortable and uneasy.

Sitting wide legged, with a skirt is not done, male or female. Crossing legs does restrict the blood circulation, and shoulde be doen for short times only, or at least switched L to R ,R to L regularly. Crutch signals, well many pants seem to be too tight for men, thus showing a bulge at least. whereas skirts in general show nothing, very little, which I feel more comfortable with.

I wonder what ( women ) would think of men who when sitting in sight, sat in a skirt, with legs spread wide.. . I think that is just very rude. Unless you have a understanding with the only recipient which can see you.

There are many "signs" which people give, but each sign should be well examined in it's own context in the specific situation. Men who show their legs, mostly do so because they are warm and wear short trousers / SKIRTS for comfort, and not showing that they are men... or whatever. But when men are lying on the beach,.... alongside the walking path, ....
well they MAY have other meaning.

The book seems not to be very clear about when and where, thus plucking signs out of their context.

[Departed Member]

I think the best thing is to take the book to the 'smallest room' and use the pages as a substitute for - toilet paper! What a load of utter tosh!

As for blokes 'adjusting themselves, it's as much an indication of the unsuitability of tr*users as male apparel! Don't 'adjust' and its one step on the road to that other "PC" topic that blokes just don't talk about, namely, Prostate Cancer. Just find somewhere discreet!

[Bob]

I would see what evidence this book has for stating its conclusions. Has the author conducted studies, or is this person just spouting off?

[Since1982]

but the reason I cross my legs is because I find it more COMFORTABLE, and stable than sitting like a slob with my legs apart.

Pythos, are you inferring that everyone that doesn't cross their legs to sit is a slob? Sure looks like you are. I DON'T cross my legs because I find it more COMFORTABLE and would NEVER infer anyone was anything untoward just because they didn't SIT like I did. Geez...

[Pythos]

No, that is what you are reading into my statement.

I find a lot of guys that sit with their legs spread WIDE open, and slouching, offering a very sloppy look. You should know the image I refer to.

If you need for the image I am referring to, find a picture of Al Bundy from Married with children in his characteristic pose when sitting. Remove the hand from the belt band, and there you have the look I am referring to.

[Colin]

If I wear my kilt, I can sit with my legs slightly apart, just enough for the inner apron to fall to maintain respectibility.
Also, just in case, I also push the outer apron down to make absolutely sure.

[crfriend]

Well, as an avowed skirt-wearing bloke, all I can say is that, "It depends on the style of skirt one is wearing." Whilst I certainly don't use the "Ted Bundy look" I will occasionally sit with my legs slightly apart if the garment I happen to have on at the time will allow it, and most of my loger skirts are "forgiving" in that regard. That said, I tend to cross my legs from time to time, but thigh-atop-thigh rather than ankle on thigh if wearing a skirt (it doesn't matter with trousers).

When I'm wearing very short stuff (and a 14-incher is about as short as I can go on my frame and not feel completely naked) is when I really make it a point to keep my knees together, and occasionally cross my legs at my ankles to reinforce the position. Kilts, on the other hand droop into place when the wearer sits and that lessens the need to really concentrate on what one is doing, although paying attention is a good idea (there's enough imagery on the 'Net to prove that).

[Pythos]

Not TED BUNDY, LOL. Al Bundy. From married with children.

I would far prefer a world of Al Bundys, to a world of Ted Bundys.

[Uncle Al]

HeHeHeHeHeHe

Al Bundy for sure!

Uncle Al ( Not Bundy )
Duncanville, TX

[Since1982]

I don't know, maybe TED Bundy DID bring some excitement into the last 30 years. I wonder if he sat with his legs apart. Maybe he did, some young chick called him a slob and sent him on a path of terrorism. Who knows? I'm very happy you are slender Pythos, I still don't think anyone that is either overweight and CAN'T site crosslegged or has some other problem that stops crosslegged sitting should be automatically lumped into Slobbsville. I always thought being a slob was a chosen lifestyle. Sort of the unshaven, beer guzzling, belly hanging over belt in front, wife beater mentality. Not just not being able to sit crosslegged would automatically make you a slob. Actually, I wouldn't call ANYONE a slob without knowing them and knowing for sure they lived a slobby life.

[Pythos]

You are reading FAR too much into my comments.

Re-read what you said about Ted Bundy, please. That was disturbing to say the least.

Perhaps some Jewish person insulted Hitler's painting style so he decided to wipe them all out.

It was along those lines.

Do you not agree that some guys really give a horrible image when sitting this their legs spread WIDE apart?