A recent question about Kol Isha got me thinking: why isn't there a similar "Kol Ish" prohibition against women hearing men sing?
If you've ever seen a teenage girl listening to pop music you'd know there's an attraction to a male voice.
I tried googling it and found nothing (besides an all-male acapella group called Kol Ish).
מכל מה שכתוב בשיר השירים צריך להזהר שלא ישמע קול אשה והוא הדין לאשה שלא תשמע קול איש. שמכל שהאיש מוזהר האשה מוזהרת.
One must be careful from anything in Shir Hashirim, to not hear a woman's voice, and the same law to a woman to not hear a man's voice, for anything that a man is warned against a woman is [also] warned against.
On one level the answer may be that the derivative source for kol isha does not exist for kol ish. The issue of kol isha is presented in the Talmud (Berachot 24a) as follows:
א"ר יצחק טפח באשה ערוה למאי אילימא לאסתכולי בה והא א"ר ששת למה מנה הכתוב תכשיטין שבחוץ עם תכשיטין שבפנים לומר לך כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורף אלא באשתו ולק"ש אמר רב חסדא שוק באשה ערוה שנאמר גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה שנא' כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה אמר רב ששת שער באשה ערוה שנא' שערך כעדר העזים
R. Isaac said: A handbreadth [exposed] in a [married] woman constitutes sexual incitement. In which way? Shall I say, if one gazes at it? But has not R. Shesheth [already] said: Why did Scripture enumerate the ornaments worn outside the clothes with those worn inside? To tell you that if one gazes at the little finger of a woman, it is as if he gazed at her secret place! — No, It means, in one's own wife, and when he recites the Shema’. R. Hisda said: A woman's leg is a sexual incitement, as it says. Uncover the leg, pass through the rivers, and it says afterwards, Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen. Samuel said: A woman's voice is a sexual incitement, as it says, For sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is comely. R. Shesheth said: A woman's hair is a sexual incitement, as it says, Thy hair is as a flock of goats. (Soncino translation)
As you can see in the part that I bolded, the verse cited by Samuel only refers to the voice of a woman, not the voice of a man.
The Gemmorah in Yevamot.65b:
"אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשׁוּהָ״. אִישׁ דַּרְכּוֹ לְכַבֵּשׁ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה דַּרְכָּהּ לְכַבֵּשׁ." "From where are these matters derived, that a woman is not obligated in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28). It is the manner of a man to conquer and it is not the manner of a woman to conquer. Consequently, it is evident that the entire command, including the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply, was given only to men and not to women."
Man is one who forces relations upon woman, not vice versa. Women are considered "קרקע עולם" - "passive ground being plowed", like Ester being taken by Achashverosh. Therefore, it is thought that an exposed man can't provoke a woman to act inappropriately, unlike the opposite situation.
So [unless one is a pop star], hearing him singing will not make married women throw themselves at him.
