Some lines on a page, compliments of James Jean.

Jo is not denying anything but she is questioning the usefulness or importance of certain received opinions on male and female susceptibilities

For one thing comparisons can be misleading - to take a crude example: The average man is taller than the average woman by, I would guess about four to five inches. However the difference in height between the tallest man and the shortest man even within clinically normal parameters is probably more than twice that.

So within the same gender there is a much greater difference between one man and another at the ends of the spectrum than between a man and a woman in the middle.

Secondly because of traditional cultural restraints on looking - itself quite a aggressive act, and the requirement for 'good' women to behave in a non-aggressive non-sexual way, until fairly modern times women have been inhibited from taking pleasure in looking at men - or at least admitting it.

Thirdly as research indicates women are equally as physically aroused by looking at sexy pictures.

So - if we accept that women are aroused visually as much as men the logical explanation for the fact that men can find a cartoon character 'hot'  where a woman would not is that they are just generally more susceptible.

Cheeky boy!

Yes.

Such a time and energy saver.

Cheeky Boy, that'd be me. ;)
Now I just need to stitch up a nifty super-outfit and fight crime or some such thing. ;)

And it's nice to hear that you're for energy saving in these dire days, Jo. Me cheeky? Have no idea what you're talking about.