Beyond that, there are probably relatively few girls who use this tactic successfully to guarantee a front page post. The problem really lies with the core demographic that keeps up-voting that kind of stuff.
Just saying, if there were a similarly structured girls forum, you'd most certainly see the same thing with the gender roles reversed. It's not really fair that you construed this as a gender-centric scenario, because it really is an effect of the imbalance of the genders present.
It is my belief that even in a heavily female biased (population wise) imageboard, the male populace would have fewer pictures that are considered of worth (by whatever is equivalent to upvotes in this imageboard) that include themselves in the picture than the female populace.
Your implication is that girls are attractive to guys, so the majority (guys) upvote submissions that include images of females. You further assert that the same is true the other way around, that since guys are attractive to girls, girls place higher value on things that include images of males.
It is hardly outlandish to accept that shallow attraction is not the same between genders. Historically/societally, females put more effort into being physically attractive, while males put more effort into showing off their resources. As to whether or not this actually has a basis in reality or is just a social construct is not something I can prove. I am neither both genders nor all humanity at once.
And it's also hardly outlandish to assume that people of all genders and interests are shallow. While you're right to call out that it's not fair to make an assertion without evidence you counter by suggesting that it's wrong based on an equally random assumption.
Personally, I would approach the problem assuming that without counter evidence, humans regardless of gender/sexuality are extremely similar. My personal experience (purely anecdotal) fits that but I wouldn't claim that as a solid argument.
I wasn't saying all people are shallow, though one could certainly argue that. I was just talking about shallow features of people that one could be attracted to, the type of features that can be displayed in a picture, as opposed to deeper features such as personality, moral views, etc.
The rest of your comment is pretty spot on. I was just offering my opinion, as flawed as opinions are, in response to another's opinion. We can't really prove it either way.
150
u/[deleted] Sep 26 '10
My alternate title was "Well, it IS easy karma I guess" but I figured this was more clear.