The Human Form: His and Hers

[Jadak]

This isn't exactally about attractiveness, its just a copy of a dress code, but it's giving me high school flashbacks of how strict the codes were for girls vs the boys.

Spoiler

Not sure if it's how you intended it be read, but that is actually just vastly more strict for the guys. They allow so little flexibility that the rules can be listed clearly and to the point.

Women are given so much slack that they need to ramble on about keeping it reasonable.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not sure if it's how you intended it be read, but that is actually just vastly more strict for the guys. They allow so little flexibility that the rules can be listed clearly and to the point.

Women are given so much slack that they need to ramble on about keeping it reasonable.

I think Mecegirl has a point. I think the primary problem is regimentation. The boy's uniform has less means of divisible difference between the articles of clothing, whereas the girl's uniform seems to take things like demeanour, and entirely subjective opinions of what constitutes modesty.

The girls' uniform almost imparts an idea how a girl should act, as opposed to the boys' uniform. Whilst I love clothes, I personally hate being told how to act as opposed to how to dress. Whilst the choice of clothing may seem more ... I find it kind of troubling that the girls' uniform is basically telling girls how to act and present themselves mutually. So I can see why it's more than a little problematic.

(Edit) If the school uniform said: "This is what you can wear," and left it at that, it would feel a little less odd. It would be no different from any other uniform dress code. Continually reiterating 'think modesty' seems well and truly out of place. It's utterly unnecessary, also, given that you could just give basic descriptions;

'Kneelength skirt'
'Grey/white socks, tights or leggings'
'Black mary janes or dress shoes'

... that sort of thing.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Beauty standards for men are lower than women's, but there are more.

You have masculine men and feminine men who can be considered attractive, and being slightly pudgy (read: Hollywood fat, America Ferrara is a diseased flea-bitten troll, ect) isn't a threshold for ugliness, it just means that slightly less people will find you attractive.

But for women these standards are much stricter. If your hair is curly, is can't be long, because then it's a fucking mess no matter how much effort you put into it. Long, straight, blonde/brown and/or shiny is ideal. You can't have any hair that isn't on your head or your brow. You can have pubes - but just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit, or you're Bigfoot. You must also have a tiny waist...

The list of unrealistic expectations for women goes on, and on, and on. It's not that women are inherently prettier than men, it's that contemporary culture enforces these strict rules for female attractiveness. It's not your fault for agreeing with them, since these messages are constantly barraged on people by the media.

Or maybe you just like big boobs. Probably the latter.

But don't worry. When the gay lizard men from space who are also the British monarchy come into power, we'll all be drooling over shirtless hunks. Our time will be soon.

 

[Albetta]

I Guess this is subjective but I am Bi and I agree. I find a much wider variety of women attractive than I do of men, and I think that older women are much more attractive than older men. There is even a term in the gay community: "Gay Death". "Gay Death" Is leaving your twenties.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

With that face and those fake boobs, I would say that she is the one that's replaceable. You could have picked at least a cute girl rather than her.

It all depends on your sexuality. If you're straight you obviously won't find men hot. Most women obviously find men more attractive. Gay men also find men more attractive. So there is no "x is more attractive".

 

[Evonisia]

The first response basically nailed it.

All I could think looking at that second picture is how uncomfortable it must be living with those udders that extend until next week.

Granted, I think women have more going for them to draw. They've got more curves, breasts can be played with (heh heh heh) more so than a guy's dick can when you're drawing clothes, more shapely legs, and hair is a much bigger play field with women than men.

 

[Phasmal]

This just in: Straight guy thinks women more attractive than men. Also, we get it, guy, ya like big boobs.

Media, culture and even nature seem to agree here. Particularly nature, who seems to have designed men as afterthought when it got done designing women (WHY ARE OUR PARTS ON THE OUTSIDE? WHAT KIND OF JOKE IS THIS?!). Like..."Crap, I forgot I gotta make two of these. Hmm...well, I'll just slap some stuff together and as long as it works its good to go, right?"

Nature agrees women are more attractive because of how men's genitals look?
Dude, no.

Now, I think ladies are capable of looking very nice, but I'm not attracted to them in the slightest. Therefore, to me, men are way way more attractive.

Spoiler: I'll stick with the dudes

 

[BoogieManFL]

I don't know if you can really come up with one answer here. It's kinda relative.

I do think there is a lot more pressure on females as far as appearance goes.


As for the woman in the pic, sure she's very attractive but I'm more about the natural boobies so that's more about it being relative. To others that would be less of an issue, or even more.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

Umm, maybe its society/culture places higher standard of beauty on females rather than males. Females are expected to have greater care for their beauty even if they have wrinkles which is natural state of aging. While males do not need to worry about these things since society tend to praise males on their achievement while females are praised on their beauty.


Many posters had already said this but maybe you are attracted to the female pic because you are straight.

 

[Dwarfman]

Snip

All these things are summed up by one word. Perspective.

Just like myself, I'm guessing you're heterosexual. Naturally, no matter how good looking a man is, they'll always be less attractive and interchangeable to us than women simply because of your sexual attractions.

Media and culture do play a part in a small degree. After all sex sells, so why not have your advertisement depict a beautiful female that men can lust for and women wish they could look like.
That being said I don't think you've observed nature enough. In nature, male animals are usually the ones that look amazing as they are the ones who usually go around attracting a mate or once they have their mate/territory/harem/whatever need to look the part to intimidate and defend what is theirs'.

All that being said. Of the two persons you put up as an example beauty? As a straight man, I'm gonna call it and say Chris Hemsworth is much more attractive than this Maurie-Claude Bourbonnais monstrosity you have dredged up. Just look at those fakes. They really do look like they're bolted on and don't match her body shape whatsoever. Her shoulders are boney and the plastic surgery on her face is too obvious. Why not put up an image of Elle "The Body" Macpherson. Heck she turned 51 just last week and is still hot as hell!

Of course that's just my perspective though.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

- 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 -

Spoiler

I'm probably going to forfeit my right to a penis for saying this, but I'm I the only one who's more attracted to normal looking breasts, rather than these fake monstrosities?

 

[Sleepy Sol]

- 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 -

Spoiler

I'm probably going to forfeit my right to a penis for saying this, but I'm I the only one who's more attracted to normal looking breasts, rather than these fake monstrosities?

Nah, you're not alone. You're never alone. Plenty of people like their real tits.

Yes, I am straight too, and I really like (mostly natural) boobs and butts. This means that men are just universally and inherently less attractive because I wouldn't stick my hot dog in a guy, given that I am straight.

...I'm not even sure what I'm saying at this point. It's too late here.

Anyways, OP, I'm pretty sure everybody has their own standards of attractiveness. And I'm pretty sure straight women find who they feel to be attractive men quite attractive. Maybe even sexy, god forbid. Maybe. So what are you really trying to say?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

One thing that gets me on this thread is how much pressure men put on women in terms of attractiveness. But there are actually a really substantial number of guys around who like their lady in comfortable clothes like loose jeans, a comfortable tee, and with out make up. Saying that men are more the driving force by being shallow to the point of seeing women as only objects of beauty, or sex at the worst, is really inaccurate. While this is true for some men, the vast majority of men want more than some trophy hanging of their arms, that they shag a bunch.

Where most of the social pressure regarding the way women are supposed to look is from other women. Women will often berate each other if one feels that the other looks ugly, slutty, dresses trampy, or what have you. This comes on especially hard in a society like the western world has, where age becomes a huge problem. This is far less of a problem for men, but for women it's especially bad, an older woman will often get harassed for age alone, thus getting called things like: "Ugly old hag." Part of this is because women actually compete just as hard for apparently attractive men, or men who match their ideals of masculinity. Women for the most part go for men they find to be good representations of masculinity.

On the topic at hand: The idea of what is and isn't attractive is subjective. As the old adage goes; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While there is a lower standard for what makes a man attractive, men who are considered attractive generally have to work on their looks too. Just not as hard as men's fashion tends to be more uniform over time and tends to shift to trends less than women's does. Also because men generally don't rely as heavily on cosmetics, and in many places women having body hair is repulsive, where men having body hair and facial hair can be attractive.

 

[Scow2]

Or, you know, they could have every single detail of how their pants, shoes, shirts and ties are supposed to look described to them just like the girls do(really, not even a reminder to tuck their shirts in properly). Because there actually is a right and wrong way to wear men's clothing(even for small things like which side the belt buckle is supposed to be on). And there are types of clothing that are appropriate for some venues but not for others. Its just that people rarely expect men to know such things. Its just show up in dress pants and a shirt!

Tell me, where in that little pic you posted above stated that the girls couldn't wear the same pants, shoes, shirts, ties and occasional jackets that the guys could wear? Because, it seems the girls could choose to wear them, AND the skirts/dresses, heels, etc.

If it seems the girls dress code is more strict, it's because they have so much MORE variety to choose from.

Where did you see that it said that they could? I see nothing of the sort. It says that they are to wear dresses or a shirt and a skirt. But if it were something so simple as girls having more to choose from then there would have just be a longer list of items, not detailed directions, and certainly no expectation to choose an outfit that is "pretty enough to show that you are a women and covered enough to show that you are a lady." All the measurements and modesty bullshit isn't necessary. Dress, or blouse and skirt, and dress shoes is all it would take.

Actually - the women DO have a much larger variety of clothing available. They have a range of lengths and styles for their skirts and shirts (With strong suggestions on what to wear). The men have an absolute dress code, hidden in the wording.

Women can wear skirts of almost any length as long as they meet the minimum - Men have to wear pants that cover the entire leg, varying only by a few centimeters around the ankle. Women can wear sleeves of any length as long as the shoulders are covered. For guys, it's mandatory to be covered out to the base of the palm. Women have variety in the neckline, as long as it doesn't overly emphasize the breasts - men have to wear a collared shirt and tie. Women also have a wider variety of shirts to choose from, and can wear sweaters. A guy can only choose the color of his shirt (if that).

 

[FireAza]

Of course men are less attractive then women. And it makes sense biologically when you think about what life was like for our caveman ancestors. The male body is designed around physical strength, which to our ancestors was very useful as a physically strong body makes you a more capable hunter and thus more attractive to the opposite sex.

The female body on the other hand, is built for raising children. And since physical strength isn't needed for this, the female body can have things that would be a hindrance to a man (i.e permanently enlarged breasts, less upper body strength, smaller size etc) which became attractive. A man having slender or delicate features wouldn't be practical.

Basically, the male body is like a truck, it's design is intended to suit it's primary purposes of practicality and strength. Any aesthetics is secondary. The female body is like a flower. It does have practical parts to it's design, but a lot of it's features are purely aesthetic. Larger breasts don't give more milk and having more upper body strength would probably be useful at times.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Of course men are less attractive then women. And it makes sense biologically when you think about what life was like for our caveman ancestors. The male body is designed around physical strength, which to our ancestors was very useful as a physically strong body makes you a more capable hunter and thus more attractive to the opposite sex.

The female body on the other hand, is built for raising children. And since physical strength isn't needed for this, the female body can have things that would be a hindrance to a man (i.e permanently enlarged breasts, less upper body strength, smaller size etc) which became attractive. A man having slender or delicate features wouldn't be practical.

Basically, the male body is like a truck, it's design is intended to suit it's primary purposes of practicality and strength. Any aesthetics is secondary. The female body is like a flower. It does have practical parts to it's design, but a lot of it's features are purely aesthetic. Larger breasts don't give more milk and having more upper body strength would probably be useful at times.

Females have more stamina, endurance, and a higher pain threshold than men do, as part of child rearing. Most men can't carry a baby for hours and hours and hours, most women can. Also slender delicate features aren't necessarily what constitute attractiveness. Especially since the concept is entirely subjective. Besides that, from an evolutionary standpoint, the males of most species are the ones with the flashy physical features that advertise attractiveness. Female humans are designed to be practical in roles more on the "domestic" side. Generally women do better at repetitive tasks, and tasks requiring lots of long term focus, and tasks related to the maintenance of homes, or camps when were totally nomadic. From an evolutionary point of view Men are designed for tasks relating to hunting and gathering food, Women are designed to keep the family/tribe unit intact and raise the children.

 

[And Man]

I mean even really attractive men, like Thor - I mean Chris Hemsworth -

Spoiler

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 -

Spoiler

And yet that is the exact kind of woman I thought of when you mentioned someone being "replaceable": a blonde with giant, clearly fake breasts who is dressed in lingerie. Protip: anyone is "replaceable" if you're going off of physical appearance alone. If you want someone that isn't replaceable, then you need to pick someone that's known for their personality, or what they do. I'd love to see women's reactions if anyone ever said Benedict Cumberbatch is replaceable.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Well, I have noticed something on Deviant Art. Do you know what both men and women have in common? They both like drawing women. Like, 90% of Deviant Art is art work of women.

This could be because of a number of things, I personally prefer drawing men, because I can draw angles better than curves. Breasts especially are notorious for being hard to draw, so you may have an artist that wants to show off by drawing the female form, or they may have practiced it so much (because you draw a lot of ladies in art school), that they now have an issue drawing men because they're so comfortable with women.

By far the easiest form to draw however, is a man with no muscle definition, think Yuki and Kyo from Fruit's Basket.

Spoiler

You'll also notice that their body type is extremely popular on DA as well. Not just because they're easy to draw, but a lot of people find this body type attractive. We did have a thread one time in these forums where the question was "Who is more attractive, Chris Hemsworth or Tom Hiddleston?" The overwhelming winner was Tom Hiddleston.

Congrats, you've now proven to the world you are straight!
I don't find anyone attractive so there's that.

Neither do I, so this thread is really interesting to me, it's a giant mix of gender perception debate, idealization, art, and debates of what exactly is "attractive" because there's so much variation. I'm not even sure if I personally know what "attraction" even is. I can point out characteristics that other people find attractive, but whether I'm attracted, the answer is a big ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Of course men are less attractive then women. And it makes sense biologically when you think about what life was like for our caveman ancestors. The male body is designed around physical strength, which to our ancestors was very useful as a physically strong body makes you a more capable hunter and thus more attractive to the opposite sex.

The female body on the other hand, is built for raising children. And since physical strength isn't needed for this, the female body can have things that would be a hindrance to a man (i.e permanently enlarged breasts, less upper body strength, smaller size etc) which became attractive. A man having slender or delicate features wouldn't be practical.

Basically, the male body is like a truck, it's design is intended to suit it's primary purposes of practicality and strength. Any aesthetics is secondary. The female body is like a flower. It does have practical parts to it's design, but a lot of it's features are purely aesthetic. Larger breasts don't give more milk and having more upper body strength would probably be useful at times.

Actually quite a few species in nature focus on the MALE being more attractive, look at lizards and birds specifically. The guys are always more flamboyant, because they're trying to attract the ladies. The purpose of big breasts isn't to attract men, no they don't produce any more milk than small breasts, but they're easier for babies to reach. Hence why it would be an advantage, seen as desirable if you're looking to have children in "caveman" society. On the opposite end, a women would want to sleep with the strongest guy with the biggest muscles, he makes the best candidate to protect her children (his strength and "primary purpose" as you put it is what makes him attractive). That being said, we aren't cavemen anymore and we live in a society in which we can afford to deviate from this.[footnote]I'm also not saying every "caveman" was straight, there are also advantages to having gay and asexual people for example, in that type of society[/footnote]

 

[FireAza]

Actually quite a few species in nature focus on the MALE being more attractive, look at lizards and birds specifically. The guys are always more flamboyant, because they're trying to attract the ladies.

While true for say a peacock (whose big-ass big ass feathers attract predators as much as they attract the lady peacocks) that's not true for humans. The best we've got is facial hair. Which is like the little hood ornament on a truck. It looks nice, but if it got in the way of it's main functions as a truck, it would be gone.

The purpose of big breasts isn't to attract men, no they don't produce any more milk than small breasts, but they're easier for babies to reach. Hence why it would be an advantage, seen as desirable if you're looking to have children in caveman society.

True, but only humans have them permanently enlarged. Each reach for babies is kind of pointless when you don't have one. Hence, it exists because our ancestors found it attractive, even though it's not practical. It's a lot easier to escape from a saber toothed tiger without pointless bulk strapped to your chest.

That being said, we aren't cavemen anymore and we live in a society in which we can afford to move away from this.

True, but old habits die hard. The way people follow the advice of celebrities instead of professionals being a replacement for the wise tribe leader for example. The average person still thinks "well, they're famous, so they must know what they're talking about". When it comes down to it, the core of our society isn't much different from the one our ancestors had.