"Internalizing the Oppression"

[Tilly]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

 

[one squirrel]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

 

[s0denone]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

Oh, found a lot of obese male protagonists, did you?
A lot of those appleshapes? A lot of the fatties with the bad teeth and bad hair?

Being handsome "quite low on the lost of things that make men attractive"??? What world are you living in?

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

Now that we can agree on - but even so, why is it such a problem? Society will always set a golden standard: Something to strive towards. Why is it such a bad thing, to willingly move towards the ideal?

 

[s0denone]

The one in which Ron Jeremy is a porn star? Can you imagine a mainstream female star with looks like a pudgy hedgehog?

Ron Jeremy became a symbol of the 80's when he was a pornstar, which was... In the 80's and into the 90's. Then he lived on not because he was fit or particularly special, but because he had become an icon and attained significant status - not only the in the porn industry, but as a mainstream figure, because of how he embodied a dead and dying age.

Do porn stars look like Ron Jeremy in present day?

No.

 

[Tilly]

Oh, found a lot of obese male protagonists, did you?
A lot of those appleshapes? A lot of the fatties with the bad teeth and bad hair?

Being handsome "quite low on the lost of things that make men attractive"??? What world are you living in?

I think quite low on the list is probably an exaggeration. But an ugly rich guy can have a lot more sexual success than an ugly rich woman can.
And a poor but hot woman can do a lot better than a poor but hot guy.

 

[s0denone]

Are male pornstars (in straight flicks obviously) more like Jeremy or female pornstars?

Jeremy. They often look like they just got out of prison, at best.

Are male pornstars more like males or females? What?

If you mean if they are more fat slobs or more tan, slim and muscular? The answer is clearly the latter.
The male pornstars of today look nothing like Ron Jeremy. Are you high!?

I think quite low on the list is probably an exaggeration. But an ugly rich guy can have a lot more sexual success than an ugly rich woman can.

Says who? There's a lot of sugarmammies out there, believe you me. Just because sugardaddies are more well-known doesn't mean the other doesn't exist; or is at the same values.

As it stands, I think it is more a case of men being more willing to pay money to attain something deeply connected to his own self-worth (in many cases) because man is taught that a man who can have a woman is more of man than one who can't. That is another debate, however. Let me just stress that I know sugarmammies exist, they are just still less widespread (and get a lot less press as a result) than sugardaddies. I think that will change in maybe ten or twenty years, when the woman has solidified her stand in the working market further, and the "career-woman" (just as the career man) comes to realise that a young hot stud by their side will increase their status significantly, particularly because they have been putting "relationships" on the back-burning in their quest for success.

And a poor but hot woman can do a lot better than a poor but hot guy.

Haha! Absolutely not.
When you say "poor" do you mean unemployed? Someone who is a bum? None of those do good at reaching any social milestones.
If you mean a man or woman in a low-paying job? Those two, I would argue, are able to achieve just about the same in what we are talking about.

This whole argument that men are much more shallow than women in terms of the looks of their partner, while all woman care about is money is a frighteningly gross exaggaration, which really holds less and less of a place the society of today. This isn't the 1950's anymore, where the women were staying at home and their whole way of life was entirely dependant upon the size of their husbands wallet.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

No, physical attractiveness is right near the top of what makes men attractive, also, but things like money or status also confer money or status on his sexual partners, which they are willing to grit their teeth and ignore his unattractiveness to obtain. In and of themselves they do not "attract" anyone sexually; they "attract" mates in the same way a high-paying, high-status job attracts applicants.

And yes, I've seen hot young studs with rich cougars; more and more, these days. My best friend's mom is a (widowed) 50-something multi-millionaire dating a 26-year-old athlete. I imagine he's doing about as much gritting and bearing as any given (soon to be ex-)wife of Donald Trump.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

No, physical attractiveness is right near the top of what makes men attractive, also, but things like money or status also confer money or status on his sexual partners, which they are willing to grit their teeth and ignore his unattractiveness to obtain. In and of themselves they do not "attract" anyone sexually; they "attract" mates in the same way a high-paying, high-status job attracts applicants.

And yes, I've seen hot young studs with rich cougars; more and more, these days. My best friend's mom is a (widowed) 50-something multi-millionaire dating a 26-year-old athlete. I imagine he's doing about as much gritting and bearing as any given (soon to be ex-)wife of Donald Trump.

We're more familiar with Larry King and his procession of (nearly) teen brides, and that kind of thing however. It's not about exceptions, but the rule. I don't believe that anyone is seriously claiming that a women is with Larry King for something other than money?

I don't know, I sometimes find it hard to parse when someone talks about "attraction" for men and women being "different." As regards sexual attraction? It's really not. Young, healthy, symmetrical features, etc. Confidence and charisma. In terms of men being able gain the attention of sexually attractive women through wealth and power? It's not really all that different either, it's increasingly turning out, now that women have wealth and power too (if it ever was, when they did). It's just that, historically, they didn't (as much). But the way people speak about it - as the commenter I replied to did - they make it sound as if the wealth and power make a man sexually attractive to a woman, and... it doesn't. At all. But what that wealth and power can purchase does "attract" women (and men) - not to the person, but to it.

I'd like to think no one's that really that deluded, but I've certainly seen comments to that effect (i.e. that "looks don't matter to women, they want stability and security") and haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Yes. They do. Sorry, son, that broke but pretty aspiring musician is swimming in so much pussy he'd need an olympic-sized pool. Women are taught to ignore that in order to "get ahead" in the world; doesn't mean that's what gets us going in the downstairs department. There are no Wall Street bankers in our pin-up calendars. Older men who marry much younger women also have a false paternity rate 5-10 times higher than the average population, so the chances are good it's a win-win of marrying the ugly old rich dude while banging the hot pool boy, too.

 

[Tilly]

This whole argument that men are much more shallow than women in terms of the looks of their partner, while all woman care about is money is a frighteningly gross exaggaration, which really holds less and less of a place the society of today. This isn't the 1950's anymore, where the women were staying at home and their whole way of life was entirely dependant upon the size of their husbands wallet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7954208/The-Cougar-concept-older-women-preying-on-younger-men-is-a-myth-claim-scientists.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships

This isn't just social norms so the year you quote is meaningless, there are well understood reasons in biology for why you're more likely to find men being attracted to more youthful women than vice versa. It's quite simply because women can have children for a much shorter time than men. That naturally works its way into male psychology through natural selection.

 

[Silvanus]

No, physical attractiveness is right near the top of what makes men attractive, also, but things like money or status also confer money or status on his sexual partners, which they are willing to grit their teeth and ignore his unattractiveness to obtain. In and of themselves they do not "attract" anyone sexually; they "attract" mates in the same way a high-paying, high-status job attracts applicants.

And yes, I've seen hot young studs with rich cougars; more and more, these days. My best friend's mom is a (widowed) 50-something multi-millionaire dating a 26-year-old athlete. I imagine he's doing about as much gritting and bearing as any given (soon to be ex-)wife of Donald Trump.

It's not that common to be playing as a rich guy with high status. It happens, but it's not all that common.

 

[s0denone]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7954208/The-Cougar-concept-older-women-preying-on-younger-men-is-a-myth-claim-scientists.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships

This isn't just social norms so the year you quote is meaningless, there are well understood reasons in biology for why you're more likely to find men being attracted to more youthful women than vice versa. It's quite simply because women can have children for a much shorter time than men. That naturally works its way into male psychology through natural selection.

Did you read the study? I didn't, but I read the article and the wikipedia page that you linked me.

Let's start by taking some tidbits from the wikipedia article:

"Most men marry women younger than they are; with the difference being between two to three years in Spain,[3] with the UK reporting the difference to be on average about three years, and the US, two and a half.[10][11] The pattern was also confirmed for the rest of the world, with the gap being largest in Africa.[12]"

Africa of course being a continent in dire need of feminism and women's rights, not to mention women in the workplace and equal pay.

"A study released in 2003 by the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics concluded that the proportion of women in England and Wales marrying younger men rose from 15% to 26% between 1963 and 1998."

Interesting... Just as the woman was establishing a firm foothold in the working market. Do you think the rise has continued since 1998?

"A 2003 AARP study reported that 34% of women over 39 years old were dating younger men.[16]"

Though not exactly England or Wales, one such report seems to think so.

"Explanations for age disparity usually focus on either the rational choice model or the analysis of demographic trends in a society.[3] The rational choice model suggests that people look for partners who can provide for them in their life (bread-winners); as men traditionally earn more as they get older, women will therefore prefer older men.[3] This factor is diminishing as more women enter the labor force and the gender pay gap decreases.[3]"

Interesting. Essentially what I was already saying.

"As people have chosen to marry later, the age differences between couples have increased as well.[3][14]"

In interesting point when considering the age gap in marriages. In 1950, the year I arbitrarily quoted, you might well be expected to marry when you were much younger than today. Not only that, but women didn't have much say in terms of education, pay or oversight and as such were primarily valuable in terms of their looks and personality only - not to mention entirely dependant upon the man that they were with, as the aforementioned "bread winners".
Today both parties often finish their education, have jobs and get married in their 30's. An age gap of 3 or 4 is pretty massive if you're marrying at 20, while it is totally insignificant if you do it in your 30's.
Are you claiming women of today are reliant upon men to "bring home the dough", and as such sexual attractiveness of the man has nothing to do with their relationship?
I will concede that women are often with men slightly their senior, but I think that is moreso because part of the ideal man for women, is a caring, mature gent who is unlike the boys they would otherwise associate with. It is less of a "white knight" this days, and more of a "mature man".
Not necessarily because he has more money, but because he is more mature, confident and has an inner peace and focus.

Let's move to article from the telegraph:

"Dr Michael Dunn, a psychologist at the University of Wales, led the study which involved analysing the age preferences of 22,000 men and women using online dating sites across 14 countries and two religious groups."

Alright. Dating sites. What kind of dating sites? Sugarbabes.com? Highstandarddating.com? Farmerdating.com?
It is a nonsensical study, clearly also not accounting for the inherent inability to rely on information in dating site profiles as a whole.

"The results of our research challenges these assumptions. Although there was some cultural variation in extremes, the results showed clearly that women across all age groups and cultures, targeted males either their own age or older."

Uhuh. They targeted their own age or older, in general. Let's have a look at the countries represented in the study, at the bottom of your linked article.

"The countries involved in the survey were Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, Greece, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine."

Countries in need of women to earn equal pay in the workplace bolded.
Maybe they shouldn't have included countries where there are literally hundreds of websites devoted to "Russian Brides" or "Ukrainian Mailorder Wives" or whatever in a study attempting to be taken seriously.
I don't know enough about China, Greece or Japan to bolden them or not.

A shame they didn't include Iraq, Iran or maybe Pakistan, isn't it? Maybe they could have pushed their averages even further. Show me a study based entirely on cultures and countries where the woman has been (on the whole) emancipated, and maybe I will give their conclusions another look. This study is entirely irrelevant to what I was discussing, not to mention intellectionally dishonest.

In other words an extremely biased survey. Where is Scandinavia? First world Europeans countries? Where's even the US? Aside from talking about some "global trend" in women's wants, the survey serves no function as a tool of anything, much less disproves the existance of "cougars" in the western world.

In other words what a colossal waste of time you brought me here. Have a nice day.

 

[Paragon Fury]

our "lived experience" is that the Gordon Freemans of the world get to go home alone or get to take home the leftovers, while the Dantes, Links, Marcus Fenixes of get to take home the best of the best and the worthwhile ones.

You, uh, call women who don't look like video game babes "leftovers" who are not "worthwhile" and you wonder why women won't go home with you? Really?

PS: I don't know a single woman (out of the hundreds of gamer women I know) who finds Marcus Fenix attractive. He is absolutely, 100% male power fantasy. Dante? Yes, many. Leon? Yep. But that has a lot to do with the fact that they have pretty faces, not that they're built like brick shithouses (see: Link)(see also: pop stars, actors). The fact that you seem to think Marcus Fenix is some kind of female sexual ideal and not an ideal intended for teenaged boys is absolutely bonkers and makes me wonder if you've had a female friend in your entire life.

1: I wasn't saying women have to look like video game characters; that is a pretty big leap. What I was saying was that many video game females don't have bodies that are that unrealistic - IE: Helena, Riku, Cortana from the original article.

2: It was a harsh phrasing, but yes. Go into a bar, a club, a convention, a classroom or basically any social activity and its not terribly hard if you've had any practice to basically take all the women and men in there and figure out the ones whom everyone willing be trying to get the attention of. The "leftovers" are the men and women at the bottom who very few if anyone will be or want to be interested in until the ones closer to the top are either taken or they realize that they don't have a chance.

And yes, I know I'm one of the leftovers. I don't have the money, the looks and I have the social skills and charisma of a sack of potatoes; I know exactly what my purchasing power in the world is as far as this goes, and I know its very low - I've never said anything otherwise.

Part of the problem people are having with your statements is that you say nothing of the people in the middle. Which is horribly melodramatic. The world isn't divided into 10 and 1's. There are a lot of people in the middle. And they do just fine in the relationship and or hook up department.

The thing is...do people really care that much about the 5s and 4s? They certainly don't care that much about the 3s and lower. The 5s and 4s only start to become relevant when the 8s, 7s and 6s start to run out or become unavailable. Nobody goes out thinking "Yeah. I'mma bag me a 6!".

Also, I'm surprised my saying I knew someone who looked like Musubi didn't draw a bigger reaction.