If you aren't attracted to men (or some other group) yourself then you can't complain if others aren't attracted to men. Coz if you didn't choose your sexuality, neither did they
Likewise, if you're disgusted by the male body to do sexual stuff with, then you can't complain if other people are also disgusted by the male body
(1)Think about female and male bodies for a moment. Women have breasts, if you're doing sexual activities with a woman, you can touch them or do stuff to them. But there isn't an equivalent of breasts in men. So in this aspect it's easier for a man to have outward desire than a woman to have outward desire towards the male body.
(2)Now think about genitalia of women and men. Let's say in a hypothetical scenario a woman has outward desire towards men, so she would want to ride the penines of men right. But we know that PIV usually doesn't make a woman orgasm, women primarily orgasm from clitoris, so it doesn't make sense for her to focus on riding penis.
Also the motion of thrusting is more intuitive and convenient than riding a penis (ask a woman who has operated a strap on and ask which motion felt easier and more convenient to her, thrusting or riding, I heard she said thrusting)
But if you're a man, you can orgasm from PIV and can do the intuitive convenient motion of thrusting. Easy to have outward targeted desire.
Now maybe a woman can sit on a man's face and be the active partner in cunnilingus but I'm not sure if the motion is as convenient as thrusting.
So it's like, the design is that women would get more pleasure from being touched and pleasured by the man than she touching and doing stuff to the man. And it might be the opposite case in men.
Now, of course a woman can touch and kiss a man's body and suck his penis if she desires and likes his body, all I'm saying is that there are some anatomical and physiological aspects which make it easier for men to have outward targeted desire to women than vice versa.
(This issue doesn't exist in case of lesbian sex btw, as both got similar bodies, and so they can take turns)
Before I begin let me say that I'm mostly into women (bet you couldn't guess it haha), but I've been curious about the sexual dynamics between women and men and recently this theory came to my mind.
If someone asks us "Why women aren't into men?", it can be a safe answer to say that "Nature evolved women that way". The theory is related to that.
The theory: Women aren't into men because nature didn't consider women being attracted to men as important for reproduction.
Now I'll explain it. If you're nature what you care about is that animals/beings should reproduce, genes should be passed down. So in some species, there is the male animal and the female animal and reproduction happens by a process called PIV sex (penis in vagina sex).
Now in the animals in a species, nature develops a drive or preference for those things that lead to reproduction, lead to their genes passing down. For instance nature might develop a drive for sex and attraction towards the opposite sex in them as these things will lead to reproduction.
But is it necessary for both the male and female to have the same level of sex drive? Nature doesn't think so. Instead (in some species) what nature does is that it makes the males stronger than the females, give them a tool to impregnate the females (or the equivalent of impregnating in species where females don't get pregnant) and give them a higher urge to do PIV sex; so that they can impregnate many females with or without willingness in part of the females, maximizing the chance of their genes passing down. Nature doesn't have to make the female to have high level of sex drive for reproduction.
But if you're a female then you might want some agency, you also care that your genes pass down and that they have more chance of surviving, so if any male can penetrate and impregnate you then your genes might mix with genes that decrease their chance of survival. So in some species nature evolves the females such that they resist impregnation (or its equivalent) by males that they would consider not-so-good for their genes' survival.
Think about ducks for a moment. Male ducks had been forcibly trying to penetrate the female ducks (to reproduce, to pass their genes down, as nature wants). As a response, female ducks developed their vulva in such a way that it can resist penetration: they developed corkscrew-shaped clockwise spiral, long vagina with multiple side pockets branching off the main channel, so that the males can't penetrate the main channel. And as a response to that, the males developed corkscrew shaped counter-clockwise penises as an attempt to be able to penetrate the vagina.
So in ducks it is like: Males forcibly try to mate ⟶ Females evolve more complex protective anatomy ⟶ Males evolve longer/more elaborate penises to try to overcome it ⟶ Females evolve more complexity in response ⟶ Males evolve further in response ⟶ ...and so on for millions of years.
So now female ducks have vulva filled with dead-end pouches and false passages that lead nowhere. And so when a male forcefully tries to mate, his anatomy doesn't "fit" the female's anatomy properly, and sperm gets deposited in a dead-end pocket rather than reaching the eggs. The sperm is then expelled. But when a female chooses a mate willingly, she can relax her muscles to open the actual vagina, allowing the sperm to reach the eggs.
Uhh nature is sooo...(rolling my eyes and shaking my head)
Anyway, the idea that came to my mind is that, for humans maybe nature thought "Let me just create penises in the male humans, give them immense sex drive and attracrion to the female humans, and let me make them stronger, so that they can penetrate and impregnate the females (with or without willingness in the females' part), while I give the females little to no sex drive and attraction for the males, it would work"
In humans, PIV sex makes the male orgasm accompanied by deposition of sperms. Almost all males function like this. But only around 20%- 25% females orgasm from PIV sex and the female can get pregnant even if she doesn't orgasm. Her orgasm doesn't play any large role in the process of reproduction like the male's orgasm does.
You see that, for reproduction, nature didn't care much about the pleasure of female humans, neither nature gave much sex drive to them, neither it gave them much attraction towards the male humans. Maybe it is because natute didn't consider those things in female humans essential for reproduction. Nature just evolved men with tendencies that would lead them to impregnate the females. Nature evolved humans in that way...
The theory is over. It came to my mind and I wrote it down. Do express your thoughts regarding this.
Lastly, I bet that this isn't the whole picture (of course it isn't), there has to be more stuff and better explanations that don't portray nature in such an evil way, like we humans are much more than ducks, we are not animals with no sense of ethics just trying to survive and reproduce. Nature gave women clitoris too, and people are making love with no intention of reproduction. The bigger and clearer picture is more beautiful.
Orgasm statistics:
https://www.sexedeast.ca/blog/orgasms-from-intercourse
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674022461
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-0939-z
https://www.velvetrituals.in/blogs/edu/the-orgasm-gap-is-real-heres-what-the-research-says
https://pleasurebetter.com/orgasm-statistics/?hl=en-IN#References
(Btw I don't believe that statistics usually show us the whole picture, we might miss the forest for the trees)
Edit: I've decided to add a link regarding women's orgasm rate from PIV and the orgasm gap https://pleasurebetter.com/orgasm-statistics/?hl=en-IN#References
Why is it that women not having drive for PIV sex is considered a bad thing considering that most women don't orgasm from it? Like, why should women chase an activity that they don't orgasm from or derive much pleasure from? Men have a drive for for and chase PIV sex, it's very pleasurable for them and almost all of them orgasm from it almost every time.
Imagine women also had that much pleasure and had orgasms from PIV sex, then they would've been chasing to ride dicks like men chase pussy. It doesn't make sense for women to chase orgasm-less sex lol.
Women aren't evil or selfish if they don't chase orgasm-less sex devoid of pleasure. And men are not generous for having a drive for an activity that guarantees their pleasure.
I'm not straight so I don't claim to know much. But it seems to me that men chase piv sex because they are greatly rewarded by it, women aren't rewarded in any comparable amount (not much pleasure, no orgasm, sometimes pain and there is also risk of pregnancy and all the horrible things that come with it), so why did we ever expect women to have equal drive for it when it's not the same thing?
No hate to men btw. Human beings are created equal, they are beautiful and valuable and carry the spark of divine in them. That's how I feel.