If you’re seeped from an early age in such a culture where women are being openly discussed and judged by their attractiveness, where women’s prospects are rooted to this and where being a woman who is held up and seen on billboards or television or film etc. so often means being attractive- if you’re being expected and pressured for your own social survival to adopt these behaviors or mimicking the women you see around you in adopting them, then good odds that you’ll develop on some level a critical eye and natural observation if female beauty.

Television and film and advertisements and such bombard us with imagery and words and both subtext and blatant declarations of women being sexy. Society puts pressure on women to loom and be sexy. Women tend to be varying degrees of experts in the art. You have to be in most social settings as a woman. The act of putting on making or selecting clothing is a balancing act of expressing yourself as well as conveying the appropriate mood of an occasion. Walking a line between attractive and “too attractive” or “too trashy” etc etc.
The skills and routines of modern beauty standards are an encyclopedic undertaking that most men have perhaps only the faintest concepts of and are often surprised or confused or completely in the dark as to the time and money and means by which their female friends and partners go about looking the way so many men assume they just wake up or spend a few minutes a day to look.

You can have sex with someone without feeling attraction or desire. Prostitutes often have sex with clients that they wouldn’t otherwise find desirable sexually or have sex with. For a million dollars or some number, most men would at some point have sex with another man and likely for many neither enjoy it nor repeat it.
Jail has its own whole set up with sexuality.
So you can have sex without desire and have desire without sex. You can have attraction without desire and desire without attraction. Desire without sex, sex without desire. The list goes on.
We tend to have like ability to express these subtle concepts and differences.
But- in general the gamble form tends to be more pleasing to most humans. Our aesthetics tend to favor the female form and more so, most cultures especially in the modern age sexualize females.

What is the difference between doing anal with your girl and doing anal with a man? What about a man that otherwise looks exactly like a woman from behind?
Tricky stuff isn’t it? Few people have few good answers to categorize all this. That’s part of the complications of trans issues and such in society- but that is another issue. The point is that most people can find an example where attraction and sexual desire aren’t exactly the same thing.
Most people, wether they care to admit or not, can be said to walk some sort of odd line where they can’t claim to be so exclusive in their sexuality or where words like “homosexual” stop meaning anything useful because they are being stretched. In the purse at sense the question would be wether one has sexual activities with one of the same sex- but that’s not so cut and dry.

Now- a “straight” man sees a woman from
Across the room that looks sexy. He goes over. When he gets there she is a mannequin. Does he still want to have sex with her? Maybe, maybe not. He sees a sexy woman and walks over and she is pre op trans, does he still want to have sex with her? Maybe. Maybe not.
Ok. Ok. What about a sexy woman, who was born XX chromosome, but she has had bottom surgery so she had a penis. My straight men- are you having sex with her if she’s sexy AF?
Some will say yes and others will say no, but what’s the problem? You’re straight right? You like women, you find her appearance attractive, so won’t you have sex? Is it the penis? Don’t worry. She’s a woman. Are you not attracted to penises? So a man with a vagina is fine? It isnt that you like women, you just don’t like penises?

A drawing of a “sexy girl” isn’t a girl. It looks like one in some way- usually it uses cues. Breasts, hips, butt, often a figure that slims towards the waist. Long hair or certain hair styles tend to be most common. Perhaps large and full lips and lots of color in the face, long lashes, thin eyebrows, etc etc.
but much of what we find attractive in modern women has nothing to do exclusively with femininity. It’s a uniform. Anyone can wear a police uniform wether they are a cop or not. Are you attracted to cops or the image of cops? If you’re attracted to cops you’d find an off duty plain clothes cop attractive but not likely find a bar tender in a police uniform for Halloween attractive no? So if you see a car tender in a cop uniform and find them attractive then your exclusive sexual attraction wouldn’t be to cops, anything that looks or invokes “cop” would be enough. You are attracted to an image or a uniform.

But in this day and age- how many men are attracted to women? Just because you are heterosexual doesn’t mean you are attracted to women. We know and have many examples of “men” “passing” as “female” in simple words. So you take a biological man, slap some fake eyelashes on, some make up, maybe a stuffed bra and some shape wear etc- and “heterosexual” men will hit on him. They may masturbate to him without realizing his biological gender.
That’s a man though. So they are homosexual? Well… I don’t know. Because they may not be attracted to women or just women. They are attracted to an image or a concept of women.

Physical attraction is an odd one too. Ever find a cartoon sexy? A sculpture? CGI or drawings or paintings or a random object? Without crossing into overt beastiality or being a “furry.” Many people through history have in general or at specific moments found attraction or eroticism in animals- the powerful musculature and size of a horse is one that is well known and well trod through history especially for women, and men often find their grace ir beauty attractive.
If you’re finding a drawing sexually attractive- that’s not a human. Even if the form appears human it is not human- it’s simply those things that remind you of a human or cause an association in the mind.
So it gets weird fast.
Of course what we will or will not have sex with, or if we even want to have sex with something just because we have a sexual response mentally or physically is not so 1:1 as “you got aroused by a pop tart so your poptart-osexual!”

And that’s many of us in our dating lives. We often will eat the cotton candy and mistake that for love when chocolate is the love and cotton candy is just there.
People, especially those who aren’t treated well or paid attention to, often think they are attracted to someone just because that person is nice to them or even basically polite. People go after those who neglect them because they mistake their feelings of seeking approval etc. for attraction. So attraction is a very broad term. There are lots these things that can attract us to a person- humor, generosity, wit, intellect, image etc. but not necessarily a romantic or sexual attraction- though for each of us that can be different. Some people DO find humor sexy. They may date someone who isn’t the least bit physically attractive- even to them- but still find them sexy or sexually desirable because their other traits make them so.

So what is a lesbian or homosexual? If attraction is all that is required- that is at some point probably every single person on earth. Of course this gets odd but is it SEXUAL attraction? Even what we’d call clear heterosexuals are bad at this. Mistaking other feelings for sexual attraction. Asking out a friend whom they have no sexual chemistry with simply because that friend is someone they get along with it have fun with and is possibly attractive- but not necessarily that they are attracted to that friend.
What do I mean? I will seldom if ever say no to chocolate. Even if I am stuffed to the point of throwing up. I love chocolate. If you put out cotton candy, yeah. It’s cool. I like It. I’ll eat it if I’m in the mood for that specifically or I want something sweet and it is there. But I’m not drawn to cotton candy. I don’t seek it out usually and it doesn’t call to me as chocolate does.

Like… a Jersey is literally another man’s shirt. It has his name on it. How are you going to tell me you are 100% “straight” walking around wearing another man’s shirt because you like him enough to pay $100+ just to wear his gym gear…? Nah. Not buying it.
So I would say that men generally do not express their homosexual or homoerotic tendencies openly in words, and may manifest them differently than women, in large part from social conditioning. We know that men tend to be less verbal or less able to verbalize their emotional and psychological states and motivators based on cultural conditioning.
The very idea of being called or perceived “gay” is still highly insulting and a source of anxiety or hostility for many or most men even. That sensitivity comes from somewhere- and intuitively it seems solid evidence of cultural conditioning.

So putting conditioner in first just makes it so that your shampoo washes out the conditioner and undoes the work the conditioner has done, and then you don’t get the benefits of the conditioner.
Of course things are a little more complex than I make out here. There are lots of different types of shampoo and conditioners, speciality products and hair care, etc. But in general and simple terms this is the shake down.

Hair is “dead,” it doesn’t get blood or oxygen or nutrients from the body. Asides some oils that “drip over” the hair, it is essentially in continual decay. Using various compounds and practices you can help preserve it. Think of leather- it was once animal hide but is now dead. Left alone leather will simply dry and wear and discolor. If you do some things like manage the temperature and exposure of the leather and use products to keep it clean and condition it, it can be preserved and look shiny and nice and “fresh” almost forever. If you don’t, it starts to look aged and worn.
Often times you can bring old aged and worn leather back to looking new or almost as good so long as the damage isn’t too severe. If it is too severe you can improve it but nothing you will do will ever make it look and feel fresh and pristine again that isn’t temporary or superficial.

.. well as printers in most homes, but there were plenty of homes that had them. The average person could have access and was likely to encounter than places like their work or in schools and such.
So it took quite some time for printing technology to reach the individual person and become even remotely part of day to day life as far as being able to easily or affordably print things themselves. Most of the history of printing technology is comprised of printers being large specialized machines that just didn’t lend themselves to usage by the common person.

The printing press never caught on for “the people” as far as using it to print really, outside of organizations, because it was best suited to large runs. The amount of effort was similar to print a single copy as a hundred, so it wasn’t cost effective or time efficient to use for most personal matters.
Devices like typographers and later typewriters and word processors came later around the 1800’s and gave small organizations and some individuals access to self printing of damper scale documents like correspondence and records. Mechanical printing on a device like what we might call a “printer” also came about around the 1800’s but it wasn’t until the 1930’s that dry printing ink technology would come along to make more modern self printing practical. The first comercial “printers” akin to what we know today came along around the 1960’s but were still rare. By the 1980’s “dot matrix” printing had become the dominant computer printing format and computers were still rare as..

The printing press is of course a rather large, complex, specialized piece of equipment. So there isn’t a point in history until the maturation of affordable home computer printer technology that your average person owned or even had much access to these machines. I assure you that years, decades, centuries after the printing press was invented “people in the 1XXX’s” were still likely writing things out by hand. It would be quite some time after the invention of the printing press that the technology reached a point where it was feasible for the average person to have access to it- and for much of the history of the press it was still an operation where the type needed set by a specialist and then the machines needed to either be ran by a printer or later on mass presses could run “automatically” once set but required technical staff to tend their operation.

@karlboll- I just saw your reply now. Don’t get old. lol.

By the same token we must acknowledge the uncomfortable reality that babies certainly do exhibit bias and such- that there are pragmatic sides to certain behaviors or roots of problematic behaviors- we also must acknowledge the flip side of the coin- it isn’t 1800 or 1950 or even 1990. Trends are towards a continuing growth in density through population growth or shrinkage to desirable or habitable land or simply consolidation of wealth and services.
The closer us humans must live in proximity to each other and the more diverse those we interact with are, the less room there is for people who can’t play nice with others. It’s that simple.
Many of these behaviors shouldn’t be illegal per se, though but one needs to realize that if you’re the asshole on a submarine, everyone else will suffer for it for some duration but ultimately you’re the one who probably is in for a bad time stuck with all those people who are likely to make known they don’t appreciate being stuck with you.

Sorry. I feel asleep mid thought. Perils of old age and log windedness.
My point isn’t to justify bigotry or prejudice etc- it is to say yes, it exists and some elements of it are rooted in human nature like discernment which can lead to discrimination-
But we make the choice.
People either choose to do right by others or do right by them.
If one’s reaction to put some thought or care towards others is either to assume it hurts themselves to do so or to choose to be rude, one must question if they belong in society at all unless they change. What we are basically talking about here is manners. A system of courtesies and customs evolved primarily to allow humans to coexist socially to our mutual benefit.

In that sense there is often a pragmatism to bigotry. When’s certain group can’t work most jobs, demand for workers tends to go up for groups who can. This tends to increase wages and decrease competition.
When the group that isn’t allowed to work most jobs isn’t allowed to participate in most schemes of wealth,
And especially when they are also not allowed to buy a home with Mmmmmm or at least not in certain areas, competition for those areas housing goes down. It is easier for other groups to get jobs or get the home they want at a decent price etc.

Very few of us are “wired” to where we would give a stranger something we badly want or need to help them at an actual cost to us. Most are likely to give that which they don’t hold to be as precious, what they have abundance of of feel they can do without. So of course it is to a degree our specifies nature to care for self above almost all. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be a species most likely or we’d exist in hives of some sort.
Instead we act in self interest first generally and to others after in order of how helping them might benefit us. Helping family or mates generally comes ahead of strangers and enemies regardless of the urgency or severity of the issue. Most people would help a friend move before they’d donate that time to feeding hungry strangers as a charity for example.

If you’re allowed to choose who gets to go to recess and who isn’t allowed to, the less people you allow, the mote free you and your close group are to do what you want and enjoy your recess without comprimes or sharing or waiting your turn or competing for equipment and such.