I was reading a thread in one of my photography groups where they were discussing why there seem to be so many more beauty/sensual photos of women than of men. Discounting pure pornography, the topic, as I read it, focused on images that specifically 'leave something to the imagination' - think 'beauty', 'boudoir' and even general 'fashion' photography.
This, below, was my take on the topic. Even most lighting demonstrations and training sessions focus on two rather distinct lighting goals/objectives/styles(?) for lighting men and verses lighting women.
But I'm curious your thoughts.
Lighting on women is typically softer and accentuates their natural curves while lighting on men is typically harder and accentuates hard angles (think jawline). Even corporate portraits frequently use those two different styles - softening women's faces while intentionally hardening the jawlines of men - and photographers do this because viewers do not ('typically') respond as well to the inverse. Light travels more naturally, more typically pleasingly to the human eye, around curves - uninterrupted by harsh stops and starts. Humans, across the board - "typically", are more drawn to the softer and more fluid contours of the female form. Again, "typically" - the entire genre of chiaroscuro is the contrary of this but is also a niche.
Admittedly, Michelangelo's Vitruvian Man and David are artistic demonstrations but much of his work was related to the study of the mechanics and mathematics of human form. This is a point I've not pondered enough in the short hour since I found the original thread but one that deserves more consideration before I commit to a position in relation to it.
Also, there is certainly an argument for the modern societal impact of the current perspectives on 'what is beauty' (as it relates to [acceptable] [artistic] appreciation(?) of the human form) vs. 'what is porn'. Where does society [currently] draw that line? Again, an area that deserves more consideration.