Jump to content

Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity


Ran

Recommended Posts

I think we just got to go back around 50 years and look at how people looked then. Take a look at fit regular workers who where active like farmers, dockworkers and construction workers how they looked back then. So much have changed the last 30 years with how we train and diet. We got scientific methods to both dieting and training that makes even ordinary people look like something you almost never saw in day to day life back then.

A good example would be to go back and take a look at soldiers from the world war 2 to the Vietnam era. Physically active men who used both their strength and endurance daily and did no or little weightlifting.

I think the men who beat the sabre tooth tigers where probably men who learned to use tools and worked together. If just strength was the issue we would be Gorillas many times stronger than the regular man but not a lot of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive muscle mass of the type you refer to isn't a sign of masculinity, its a sign of unnaturalness. Men aren't supposed to look like that, hence why women may not find them attractive.

Thats how I see it anyway.

The dude in my sig is the number one sex symbol (pretty much) in the phillipines, and many other countries in that part of the world. Why is that? He's pretty small. Hardly aesthetically pleasing (at least in my view). I say its because he defines what you guys are calling hyper-masculinity.

Muscles by themselves are not masculine. Being a football player or rugby player however IS, and it shows since so many women (perhaps not on this forum) lust after them.

It was blatantly apparent from the other thread that few, if any women, find that physique attractive. People can argue that it is what men should look like all they like but its not really backed by any logic. People can argue that women are wrong for liking the "ripped" look all they like. That's basically a waste of time since you can't change what people find attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would cave men train to be big enough to be bodybuilders, anyway? Did they just lift heavy rocks all day in the hopes that their uber-manliness would a.) save the tribe from the dreaded sabre-toothed tiger and b.) make themselves pretty enough for the cave ladies? Because it seems like too much of a waste of time, something you had precious little of if you want to do things like eat. Which brings up another issue. You need lots of food along with the time and dedication required to obtain such a huge physique. Who is going to hunt while the men supposedly are working out, prehistoric-style?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we take this evo-psych bullshit outside and shoot it in the head please? Until you have hard evidence that:

1) Sabre-toothed tiger attack was a constant fear in all human societies in history

2) Only hairy male muscle-freaks could fight them off

3) This was the sole criterion for power and status in all these societies

4) Women were in a position to choose their mate based on this, and were in no way forced to reproduce with men they didn't fancy

5) Attractiveness is genetic and is not affected in any way by social trends

Well you have to remember women have undergone way more sexual selection than males (huge breasts, shapely asses, and neoteny), though males have as well obviously. It stands to posit that then that males were primary mate-selector in prehistoric times, with the smaller amount of sexual selection on males coming from female selection. It wasn't that the hairy beast-man would woo all the women, odds are he'd force them. I don't think cavemen obeyed modern morality. But at the same time, he probably wasn't body-builder-esque, probably leaner. Though it would depend on the environment really. Moreover, in terms of attractiveness, the only thing that changes over the years is ideal body weights. Most men prefer large breasts, else breasts wouldn't be as large as they are. And in modern hunter-gatherer societies, men who make kills are generally allotted more prestige - in Jared Diamond's book on sexual selection, it appears as though the only reason humans even hunt is solely for the prestige and subsequent sexual benefits, since the amount of calories hunting produces vs. even basic agriculture makes it not worth the men's time to hunt. Though the Papua New Guinea hunters, which he used, are far less hairy than west Eurasians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, damn, damn. The derail into the subject of prehistoric buffness was going so well, and now we get this pile of tripe.

Well you have to remember women have undergone way more sexual selection than males (huge breasts, shapely asses, and neoteny), though males have as well obviously.

We have? How, then, do you explain all those women with none of those characteristics? Perhaps you only notice the curvy ones, fair enough, but that doesn't mean the small-breasted bumless women have ceased to exist.

It stands to posit that then that males were primary mate-selector in prehistoric times, with the smaller amount of sexual selection on males coming from female selection. It wasn't that the hairy beast-man would woo all the women, odds are he'd force them.

If this is the case, then sure, it would affect the type of male produced by evolution, which is why all men are now hairy beast-men... oh, wait. <_< I'm not sure what it says about what females find attractive, either. Possibly nothing at all? So the point would be...?

I don't think cavemen obeyed modern morality. But at the same time, he probably wasn't body-builder-esque, probably leaner. Though it would depend on the environment really.

Aand we're back on the speculation. Do we know anything at all about cavemen morality, or are you just guessing?

(Plus, cavemen? Rather a narrow view of human evolution, given that the ice age didn't have a great deal of effect on Africa or South Asia or anywhere apart from a specific slice of northern Europe.)

Moreover, in terms of attractiveness, the only thing that changes over the years is ideal body weights.

:huh:

Most men prefer large breasts, else breasts wouldn't be as large as they are.

:huh: :huh:

And in modern hunter-gatherer societies, men who make kills are generally allotted more prestige - in Jared Diamond's book on sexual selection, it appears as though the only reason humans even hunt is solely for the prestige and subsequent sexual benefits, since the amount of calories hunting produces vs. even basic agriculture makes it not worth the men's time to hunt.

So it wouldn't have been because, say, agriculture hadn't been invented yet?

Though the Papua New Guinea hunters, which he used, are far less hairy than west Eurasians.

Well, phew! Nice to know that hairiness, at least, is not a prerequisite.

:bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's consider one of the last 100% genuine hunter-gather societies on earth -- the Hadza. And yes, they do fight off predators and hunt dangerous animals. They do it thru cooperation, communication, and the use of cleverly-designed tools.

Article Here

Thanks for advising women that a preference for slender men verges on pedophilia, Stego. Lest they fall into error, or sumthin. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, damn, damn. The derail into the subject of prehistoric buffness was going so well, and now we get this pile of tripe.

We have? How, then, do you explain all those women with none of those characteristics? Perhaps you only notice the curvy ones, fair enough, but that doesn't mean the small-breasted bumless women have ceased to exist.

Because compared to other other apes, even women with the smallest breasts and butts are much larger or shapely than that of their nearest relatives. Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Is_Sex_Fun%3F they're good books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was blatantly apparent from the other thread that few, if any women, find that physique attractive. People can argue that it is what men should look like all they like but its not really backed by any logic. People can argue that women are wrong for liking the "ripped" look all they like. That's basically a waste of time since you can't change what people find attractive.

Yeah, for my part though I don't think extreme bodybuilders look masculine, they look freakish. They certainly don't look like 'warriors'. The dude in my avatar looks like a warrior, Frank doesn't.

Btw, why is everyone obsessed with aesthetics here? I say personality is more representative of masculinity or femininity than physical appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, why is everyone obsessed with aesthetics here? I say personality is more representative of masculinity or femininity than physical appearance.

We've done that thread too.

Anyways, I can see how ultra lean could be considered hyper masculine too. I mean, women arent capable of reaching low single digits bf%... kids can't really do it either, at least not prepubecent I dont think. With that in mind, and that muscles within reason are masculine as well, is it the goatee,or the huge swastika tatoo and general naziness of ed norton in american history x that has kept him from being mentioned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those that said proportion is the key. Both examples have skewed it all out of whack. When men can no longer put their arms down at their side, it's overboard. I think Pam Anderson skirts this line too (although I'll probably get resistance from a lot of men on this - maybe? I have no idea really) - really thin with huge boobs. Her face is overly plasticized too - both through surgery and make-up.

I know there's a thread on Christina Hendricks and some guys have mentioned that her tits are too big. (not most, but there are some) As a woman, I think she'd look a lot better (and more comfortable!) if she reduced them a size or two. I can't help but think they are just a pain in the ass to live with. My mom always hated her large chest because it got in the way of her golf game :)

I also like the point about Harrison Ford being perceived as a real man. Oh lord, yes. That is a large part of his appeal. That and the crooked smile he flashes. *swoon*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature/Nurture... Where do my biological instincts end and my personal preference (as influenced by modern media etc) begin? What I find manly/womanly depends on so many factors - incomprehensible, really. So my point is -- the caveman-story is just part of the picture.

For me though, the ultimate woman is Monica Bellucci. The most radiant woman alive :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I can suggest that while all the bodybuilders were off fighting the Terrible Wild Beasts, the wimminz were busy shacking up with Caveman Douchebag whose poetry was soo sensitive. It has exactly as much scientific backing as the other theory.

You might be pretty close to the mark, actually. When I think of "hyper-masculinity" and "hyper-femininity" I think of the gender roles that have been proposed for some North American pre-contact groups. "Hyper-masculine" individuals were biological males who spent all their time off fighting and doing manly things but showed very little interest towards women. This contrasts with the more well known "two-spirit" identity for biological males who take on feminine roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...