The Human Form: His and Hers
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know what? You're absolutely right. The only logical way to look at the list is strictly by what is written.mecegirl said:
And, you know else what's forbidden, because you "see nothing of the sort"? Undergarments. That's right, no underwear. Everyone MUST go commando. Because, your pic doesn't list undergarments.
Furthermore, belts and suspenders also failed to be listed. So, there's nothing to ensure the males pants stay up, covering their freely swinging balls.
Ok... Do you now see why I think your "only on the list" argument is patently absurd?
Let me state this as simply as possible;
Skirt -OR- Dress is more options than -JUST- Pants.
Shoes -OR- Heels is more options than -JUST- Shoes.
Hot as Marie-Claude Bourbonnais looks in that picture, I'd say her tits have been replaced, so she's not exactly prime candidate for "irrepleaceable". And either way, are we going to pretend big-tittied blondes are such a rarity this side of Marilyn Monroe?
I believe so. But I am a wee bit biased here.Paragon Fury said:
I think there's a lot to this. A good-looking woman can look good in almost anything, from skimpy, all the way up to a thick parka. Why? Because their hips and their profile shows through strongly. Whereas a guys puts on a shirt and then he's very similar to pretty much any other guy.renegade7 said:
All the greatest example of "Hot Guy" pictures/sculptures both now and in the past, almost always have a guy without a shirt on. Whereas you can find a lot of "Hot Girl" examples with full clothing.
Ok, I'm perfectly straight, but Thor is hands down hotter then ...whatever she is. Seriously, she's hot??? Different strokes I guess...Paragon Fury said:I mean even really attractive men, like Thor - I mean Chris Hemsworth -
Sorry, ladies (and men). Ain't going any deeper than this, since I don't want to be on all sorts of odd mailing lists from my search history.
- while considered hot is pretty replaceable, and he is on the pretty high end there. But it'd be pretty hard to a find a replacement for someone like Maurie-Claude Bourbonnais -
Uhh... as a gay guy, I really have to disagree here. Women aren't attractive at all to me, but men on the other hand...
Yeah, it really is an individual thing. You just see a lot more women sexualized for whatever reason. I don't really feel like thinking much into details right now.
Yeah, it really is an individual thing. You just see a lot more women sexualized for whatever reason. I don't really feel like thinking much into details right now.
Hmm... Firstly, that woman you posted a pic of looks pretty much like any number of generic, blond, surgically enhanced models, and seems eminently 'replaceable'.
Secondly, the pre-occupation with women's attractiveness stems mainly from the fact that men are, on the whole, both more superficial when it comes to appearances and also a more dominant force in almost every culture, and the media tends to reflect that.
Not that I'm saying that women aren't just as capable of being superficial, it's just that their standards are different.
Secondly, the pre-occupation with women's attractiveness stems mainly from the fact that men are, on the whole, both more superficial when it comes to appearances and also a more dominant force in almost every culture, and the media tends to reflect that.
Not that I'm saying that women aren't just as capable of being superficial, it's just that their standards are different.
Eh. Attractiveness is a little arbitrary, and I don't find most people that attractive on looks alone.
There's... something else. Almost never been attracted to anyone just from a picture, and when I have been attracted to people, it's impossible to quite explain why...
Still, there are some interesting points
for instance, http://www.beautyanalysis.com/beauty-and-you/face-variations/face-variations-sex/
Notex that there is an 'ideal mask' for a human face in terms of proportions that is largely considered the most aesthetically pleasing shape. (that's not nessesarily the same as being attractive though)
This mask is a feminine face though. Masculine faces are modifications of these ideals whose features are associated with toughness, and agression (the 'ideal' male face looks quite angry even in a neutral expression.)
Unfortunately, they mess up the proportions of a face, and thus makes it less aestetically pleasing.
So, yes, in terms of faces, a male face is 'ugly'. But only in an artistic sense.
And bodies are another matter entirely, and all of this still doesn't actually cover 'attractiveness', because this is more than just physical appearance...
There's... something else. Almost never been attracted to anyone just from a picture, and when I have been attracted to people, it's impossible to quite explain why...
Still, there are some interesting points
for instance, http://www.beautyanalysis.com/beauty-and-you/face-variations/face-variations-sex/
Notex that there is an 'ideal mask' for a human face in terms of proportions that is largely considered the most aesthetically pleasing shape. (that's not nessesarily the same as being attractive though)
This mask is a feminine face though. Masculine faces are modifications of these ideals whose features are associated with toughness, and agression (the 'ideal' male face looks quite angry even in a neutral expression.)
Unfortunately, they mess up the proportions of a face, and thus makes it less aestetically pleasing.
So, yes, in terms of faces, a male face is 'ugly'. But only in an artistic sense.
And bodies are another matter entirely, and all of this still doesn't actually cover 'attractiveness', because this is more than just physical appearance...
I'm guessing you are male and straight? A lot of "attractive" women are not aesthetically pleasing to me. Occasionally I even find it repulsive.
Also in case you haven't noticed (people weren't exactly quite about it) a lot of people find movie Loki more attractive than Thor. There is certainly variance in what women find attractive, especially in the face whereas, at least to me, attractive women seem to often have similar faces and have a much smaller age range for what is considered attractive.
Also in case you haven't noticed (people weren't exactly quite about it) a lot of people find movie Loki more attractive than Thor. There is certainly variance in what women find attractive, especially in the face whereas, at least to me, attractive women seem to often have similar faces and have a much smaller age range for what is considered attractive.
Actually I think it generally comes down to women being able to tell what's attractive to men and appreciate feminine beauty as well. Men aren't really wired in a way to find their own gender attractive unless they happen to be gay, so as a result you wind up with the timeless stereotype of guys asking girls what women find attractive and getting coy answers.
To say men aren't attractive tends to overlook the fact that there are huge industries dedicated to selling 'hot' guys to girls even if straight guys don't get it. There is a whole industry producing Chippendales, finding and promoting boy bands and guys like Bieber (always on the look out for more as well) and the like. Girls tend to be less outward with guys in saying "I find this hot" but well, the Chippendales (or one of many, many, other male revues) come to town and the girls will be lining up to stuff their socks and straps. Even then men aren't supposed to take it all off and shake their junk around, in a lot of these shows they do, so they wear socks to take the bills (I know I've done security for a few shows like this at the casinos... and trust me, if anything the girls watching dudes are even rowdier than the guys watching girls a lot of the time).
If you want to start getting into what is considered objectively "beautiful" for a guy the best way to formalize it would be to learn a bit about competitive body building. Body builders are all about muscle definition and producing the perfect physique more than building for power and/or endurance. Those standards have been under development for centuries so they are as close to an objective rating of male beauty as your going to find, though it tends to overlook the face. A lot of these guys despite how they look also aren't that strong, the power lifters tend to look kind of fat since they build bands and slabs of muscle in many case as opposed to working for definition which is something entirely different. Pay attention to things like Mr. Olympia and you'll probably get some understanding of the aesthetics even if as a straight guy you likely won't find the guys personally attractive. If you look back at Arnold Scwartznegger and the title(s) he won when he was young, you could easily say he represents the epitome of masculine beauty (well if you put a bag over his head), of course he also used 'roids to do that at a time when they weren't as big a deal since the effects weren't well know, he came clean about this later in life especially with his heart problems, and has apparently been pretty big on speaking against them now that more is known about them, and he's really feeling the effects.
The point here is that I think it's pretty even, it's just that for straight guys their own gender is basically invisible, to the point where it's even become a comedic stereotype.
While I won't argue the truth of it or not, since it would get well off subject, but some people have argued that men and women are very different on a lot of levels. One of those ways is that while most men are just flat out straight, most women tend towards bi-sexuality which is one of the reasons they can so easily recognize and appreciate (or get jealous of) beauty in their own gender to an extent most men can't. It's been argued this might very well be a survival trait since once a child is fathered a man doing his duties in terms of hunting, fighting, and enduring the dangers at a basic level could very well be killed, being able to pair up with other women to provide a pair of parents to raise a child can represent an advantageous instinct. Of course I'm not saying this is true, and will be the first to point out it's controversial, as you have a lot of women offended by this allegation by gay organizations, and of course others insisting that any such thoughts only come from pervy straight guys who like to watch (so to speak). It's not worth having a serious debate about, but I mention it simply because the basic idea comes down to explaining things asserted in this thread.
Also I'll be blunt, I think hot girls are actually a lot easier to replace when it comes to entertainment for whatever reason. There always seems to be thousands of them lined up for movies, music, porn, etc... if you want feminine eye candy or a bunch of strippers or whatever there are tons of places that can hook you up especially in the US's entertainment centers. On the other hand you tend to only have one or two "Biebers" per generation, and a lot of these male "talent" agencies putting on the strip shows and such seem to have a harder time recruiting and while not uncommon there are less of them. This is why it can be a bigger deal when say the Chippendales come to town, and all the ladies show up, where the same area might have numerous full time clubs providing girls doing the same things. There are full time establishments that have men of course, but they tend to be much fewer in number and there are many communities that don't have any it seems. So while "male beauty" can be defined objectively, I do think it's rarer, and also tends to take a lot of work, as much or more than hot girls put into their own beautification. Maintaining a body builder's physique can be quite an undertaking.
To say men aren't attractive tends to overlook the fact that there are huge industries dedicated to selling 'hot' guys to girls even if straight guys don't get it. There is a whole industry producing Chippendales, finding and promoting boy bands and guys like Bieber (always on the look out for more as well) and the like. Girls tend to be less outward with guys in saying "I find this hot" but well, the Chippendales (or one of many, many, other male revues) come to town and the girls will be lining up to stuff their socks and straps. Even then men aren't supposed to take it all off and shake their junk around, in a lot of these shows they do, so they wear socks to take the bills (I know I've done security for a few shows like this at the casinos... and trust me, if anything the girls watching dudes are even rowdier than the guys watching girls a lot of the time).
If you want to start getting into what is considered objectively "beautiful" for a guy the best way to formalize it would be to learn a bit about competitive body building. Body builders are all about muscle definition and producing the perfect physique more than building for power and/or endurance. Those standards have been under development for centuries so they are as close to an objective rating of male beauty as your going to find, though it tends to overlook the face. A lot of these guys despite how they look also aren't that strong, the power lifters tend to look kind of fat since they build bands and slabs of muscle in many case as opposed to working for definition which is something entirely different. Pay attention to things like Mr. Olympia and you'll probably get some understanding of the aesthetics even if as a straight guy you likely won't find the guys personally attractive. If you look back at Arnold Scwartznegger and the title(s) he won when he was young, you could easily say he represents the epitome of masculine beauty (well if you put a bag over his head), of course he also used 'roids to do that at a time when they weren't as big a deal since the effects weren't well know, he came clean about this later in life especially with his heart problems, and has apparently been pretty big on speaking against them now that more is known about them, and he's really feeling the effects.
The point here is that I think it's pretty even, it's just that for straight guys their own gender is basically invisible, to the point where it's even become a comedic stereotype.
While I won't argue the truth of it or not, since it would get well off subject, but some people have argued that men and women are very different on a lot of levels. One of those ways is that while most men are just flat out straight, most women tend towards bi-sexuality which is one of the reasons they can so easily recognize and appreciate (or get jealous of) beauty in their own gender to an extent most men can't. It's been argued this might very well be a survival trait since once a child is fathered a man doing his duties in terms of hunting, fighting, and enduring the dangers at a basic level could very well be killed, being able to pair up with other women to provide a pair of parents to raise a child can represent an advantageous instinct. Of course I'm not saying this is true, and will be the first to point out it's controversial, as you have a lot of women offended by this allegation by gay organizations, and of course others insisting that any such thoughts only come from pervy straight guys who like to watch (so to speak). It's not worth having a serious debate about, but I mention it simply because the basic idea comes down to explaining things asserted in this thread.
Also I'll be blunt, I think hot girls are actually a lot easier to replace when it comes to entertainment for whatever reason. There always seems to be thousands of them lined up for movies, music, porn, etc... if you want feminine eye candy or a bunch of strippers or whatever there are tons of places that can hook you up especially in the US's entertainment centers. On the other hand you tend to only have one or two "Biebers" per generation, and a lot of these male "talent" agencies putting on the strip shows and such seem to have a harder time recruiting and while not uncommon there are less of them. This is why it can be a bigger deal when say the Chippendales come to town, and all the ladies show up, where the same area might have numerous full time clubs providing girls doing the same things. There are full time establishments that have men of course, but they tend to be much fewer in number and there are many communities that don't have any it seems. So while "male beauty" can be defined objectively, I do think it's rarer, and also tends to take a lot of work, as much or more than hot girls put into their own beautification. Maintaining a body builder's physique can be quite an undertaking.
How did I know that there would be giant tits in the OP before I opened the thread?
Anyway;
Anyway;
Got it in one.Pluvia said:
I had my money on giant fake tits and collagen injected lips. I doubt if those cheekbones and nose are original either. Personally I have never found the extreme surgical look that attractive. As people age, the men and women that have had surgery look even more fake and artificial which I find quite disconcerting. They look like escapees from a 1970s Dr Who story.Colour Scientist said:
Always when I come across questions like these, I ask myself: "What's the evolutionary reason for this mindset's existence?" Speaking as someone who hasn't read any biology since high school I'm talking purely out of my ass, but I would speculate that it goes back to very primitive instincts and roles: big and muscular men were considered attractive in ancient times because it meant they had a higher chance of survival, being stronger and faster than others, and would therefore yield stronger offspring. Aesthetic beauty was a secondary concern. I don't know how true it is, but there's an assumption that curviness with women was favored because wider, stronger hips meant better breeding, and big breasts might signify a healthy individual who has lots of nutrition at hand. It's not some artificial mindset forced on us by the media. A lot of questions regarding gender roles and assumptions can often be answered by examining their roots in ancient humans.
Can we all agree to ban evo-psych from threads about gender? It's almost always baseless speculation and contributes nothing, because any Tom, Dick or Harry can make shit up to conform to their view of the world.
This is a shame, because professional evo-psych actually has a lot to contribute, not the made-up stuff, but actual theories.San Martin said:
It's like the social privilege theory; the real thing is EXTREMELY interesting and somewhat useful, the high-jacked version considerably less so.
And thus did SMBC come and provide a comic today for this:
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3688
I dunno, straight guy here so my idea of relative attractiveness of that dude to women/gay men in general probably isn't right, but I'd have rated him more physically attractive than her to the respective sexual preferences. I mean, even if you're into that look for women, as Mr. Clarion above me says, "irreplacable"? Hahahahahaha!
But that's really just an issue with your examples. Overall the rest of my opinion is also parroting others. Relative dominance of males in society, blah, blah, blah, societal norms of blah de blah blah...
But that's really just an issue with your examples. Overall the rest of my opinion is also parroting others. Relative dominance of males in society, blah, blah, blah, societal norms of blah de blah blah...
It's not only you, but it is an opinion based on the way our culture works. Women are not inherently more attractive than men. However, since our culture has been (straight) male-dominated for a long time, we tend to see women as objects of beauty. Because for a very long time, we depicted women only as objects of beauty. Think all of art since the earliest civilizations. The vast majority made by men for other men, depicting beautiful women, writing about beautiful women, lusting over beautiful women.Paragon Fury said:
Over time, men have become people that we perceive through their personality traits, while women have become people we perceive through their looks. Women are more exposed when it comes to their appearance and it is expected to comment on it and to view and review women according to their looks. So to straight men especially, it may seem that all the world sees women like they do, because straight men still dominate this world and the commercials and representation of women still mostly caters to them.
Because this is the internet, now I have to say this: this is not your fault and I don't think straight men are terrible people. But you do view the world around you in this specific way which makes it look like everyone gets immediately aroused when they see a billboard with a sexy woman in lingerie selling toilet paper or something. It's actually a very interesting thing to observe because I've seen people say exactly what you said a lot of times. They often can't even comprehend that people might disagree, it's just so prevalent in our society to view women as more attractive by default.
I like both, but in your examples with pictures, Hemsworth is definitely more attractive to me.