Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[Tyrellius]

Can we stop with the "real men" phrase, even in jest? Same with "real women". I find it a bit offensive, honestly.

Dont stress too much Ran, its just betas trying to appear more alpha-like with regards to:

Masculinity: hierarchy (dominance, obsession with status)

Femininity: gossip

I find both of these traits unpleasant and think they are the ugliest marker of each sex. Maybe somebody with a more cheerful worldview can supply more pleasant adjectives.

[jurble]

Can we stop with the "real men" phrase, even in jest? Same with "real women". I find it a bit offensive, honestly.

You made a thread with hyper-masculinity in the title. Real man is like, the most hyper-masculine phrase there is.

[fitheach]

There have always been hyper sexualised ideals, but we all know they've changed depending on the era. Women bareing a breast in ancient Sumeria (?), the matronly look in Rome, wimples/plucked eyebrows/padded stomach to look preggers- ideals in the 14th century, or Rubinesque chunky lovelies, Geisha's in Japan... Who ever said Christina Hendrick's would be considered a hotty in any age is wrong, she would've been considered low class looking in some periods because of her large breasts- or likened to a cow. At times the smaller breast and big hips or the pear shape was considered hyper-feminine (Josephine Bonaparte).

The golden ratio is a constant, but the extremes of it have been a constant too. This fits with hyper masculinity as well, but to a lesser degree I think. Woman have contorted their bodies to attract men over the ages much more then men (on the whole) for women. Men had other things they had to flaunt- like position in society and financial security.

What we see in ancient sculptures or paintings up until the invention of photography shows us the artists and society's ideal (minus certain Picasso women ;-p), and it doesn't always jive with our modern ideal.

[Mo Sneachd]

Interesting thread. Coming from a position where I deal a lot with gender stereotypes and their effect/causes on/in societies (I'm a historian with a science background and active in the LGBT community), I'd say there is a tendency to exaggerate certain characteristics in modern times, just as there was a tendency to exaggerate other characteristics in other times. Cases in point: Rubens' women as opposed the corset wasp-waist mania; greek antiquity and its ideal size of the male phallus as opposed to all this perceived need for compensation or for defensively arguing why size doesn't matter.

For what it's worth: would I want to look like that bodybuilder as opposed to looking like myself? Hell yes. But then I am biased in ways not related to images of masculinity or beauty ideals :)

Also:

Hormones aren't magical things that just make men look more manly, and women look more womanly.

Actually, they are. Go on youtube and find one of those 6 month overview videos of transitioning FTMs or MTFs. I'd argue that if hormones can make biological women look so manly that they don't look female in the slightest, they should be able to do the same for men.

[And hyper-masculinity/femininity and the LGBT community is too big to discuss here anyway, so I'll leave it like that.]

Anyway, I enjoyed this distraction from my Roman indecent literature. Carry on :)

[Kalbear]

One of the most fascinating stories I've heard recently was on NPR, about a preop FTM transsexual undergoing hormone therapy. They were talking about the mental feelings that they started going through with the testosterone, and the big one was that they could not stop thinking about sex. Everything was porn, porn, porn. Everyone was looked at as a sexual conquest. People were broken down into sexualized parts - really without thinking about it.

I realize that this was one person's experience, but it was fascinating to hear.

[jurble]

Actually, they are. Go on youtube and find one of those 6 month overview videos of transitioning FTMs or MTFs. I'd argue that if hormones can make biological women look so manly that they don't look female in the slightest, they should be able to do the same for men.

[And hyper-masculinity/femininity and the LGBT community is too big to discuss here anyway, so I'll leave it like that.]

Anyway, I enjoyed this distraction from my Roman indecent literature. Carry on :)

I meant that genes and hormones have to evolve in tandem. If I gave a fish testosterone, it's not going to grow a beard. They don't work by magic, they're part of a system of epigentic control of gene expression. But the genes have to be there first. The hormones don't go straight to producing muscle mass, and making hair, they bind to transcription factors.

[TerraPrime]

I meant that genes and hormones have to evolve in tandem. If I gave a fish testosterone, it's not going to grow a beard. They don't work by magic, they're part of a system of epigentic control of gene expression.

Hormonal control of gene expression is not epigenetic.

[jurble]

Hormonal control of gene expression is not epigenetic.

It definitely is.

http://ep.physoc.org/content/94/6/607.full

Epi = above genetics = genetics

Epigenetics is anything that alters phenotypes that isn't DNA in your chromosomes.

from wikipedia

The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others.[3]

That shit is hormone modulated.

[TerraPrime]

It definitely is.

http://ep.physoc.org/content/94/6/607.full

Epi = above genetics = genetics

Epigenetics is anything that alters phenotypes that isn't DNA in your chromosomes.

from wikipedia

That shit is hormone modulated.

Please read for context.

When hormones exert their effects by regulating gene expression, that's not epigenetic.

When hormones exert their effects by changing the genome composition (the epigenome mentioned in the review article you cited), then that's epigenetic.

The definition of epigenetics is the process by which heritable cellular alterations are created without changing the genetic material of the cell.

So, when you said "The hormones don't go straight to producing muscle mass, and making hair, they bind to transcription factors." you are referring to the action of hormones through genes. There are no heritable changes, let alone changes that do not require changes in genetic content.

Here's a few definitions from textbooks in genetics:

"A change in the properties of a cell that is inherited but does not represent a change in genetic information is called an epigenetic change. Formally an epigenetic change is defined as an alteration of phenotype without change in the genotype."

- Lewontin, Genes V. pg 104.

"Inheritance of traits transmitted by mechanisms not directly involving the nucleotide sequence is called epigenetic inheritance."

- Campbell et al., Biology 7th ed., pg 364.

One example of epigenetic control would be genetic imprinting observed in humans, wherein the allele from one parent is selectively expressed over the allele from the other parent, even though the coding sequences and promoter sequences on both alleles are identical. Defects in this process can lead to diseases such as Praedar-Willi, or Angelman's syndrome.

[jurble]

"Inheritance of traits transmitted by mechanisms not directly involving the nucleotide sequence is called epigenetic inheritance."

- Campbell et al., Biology 7th ed., pg 364.

Epigenetic inheritance is what it says. You inherit epigenetic traits, but epigenetics as a word implies everything other than the genome.

from le wiki:

Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as "the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms."[6] Thus epigenetic can be used to describe anything other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.

[TerraPrime]

Epigenetic inheritance is what it says. You inherit epigenetic traits, but epigenetics as a word implies everything other than the genome.

from le wiki:

The wiki definition is overly broad. By that definition, all changes are epigenetic, since proteins, which are not DNA, has to act on DNA to initiate transcription and translation.

[jurble]

The wiki definition is overly broad. By that definition, all changes are epigenetic, since proteins, which are not DNA, has to act on DNA to initiate transcription and translation.

Yes. My Prof. last semester kept using epigenetics to mean the protein machinery of the cell that worked on the DNA, and that's how I'm going to use it damn it.

[Balefont]

< off topic > Got your message, William. I fucking love you! hahaha

..er, carry on

[gryphon strike]

Jesus fuck stick. Make one joke about sabretooth tigers after a night of no sleep.... bah.

There's a lot of denial going on here. Every man posting in this thread would change their physique for Frank McGrath's. Let's see how many liars come out to dispute that. :D

Mate that had to be said tongue in cheek, you are way to smart to think that your perspective is the same perspective everyone shares, nice little robots that would make us, wouldn't it?

Jurble in re to your occams razor and penis sizes, there are many far simpler ways to assess it. For example humanity is by far the most succesful mammal on the planet and that might also have something to do with it. Ie we had better food resources available thus had no need to rid ourselves of excess unnecesary flesh.

[jurble]

Jurble in re to your occams razor and penis sizes, there are many far simpler ways to assess it. For example humanity is by far the most succesful mammal on the planet and that might also have something to do with it. Ie we had better food resources available thus had no need to rid ourselves of excess unnecesary flesh.

That'd be a fine reason for modern human size penises existing along-side normal-ape-penis-size penises. But, the average male penis is far larger than an ape penis. At some point women had to have looked at all the available mates, and picked the dudes with the larger penises.

[gryphon strike]

That'd be a fine reason for modern human size penises existing along-side normal-ape-penis-size penises. But, the average male penis is far larger than an ape penis. At some point women had to have looked at all the available mates, and picked the dudes with the larger penises.

your guessing and have nothing to back it up.

You think they had to have does not mean it is so.

Not to mention you are limiting your thoughts, the situation I posed made it clear that there was as much possability that our common ancestor actually had a large penis size, due to humanities success there was no need for us to get rid of the excess flesh involved. In this situation it is possible and maybe even likely that our cousins lost that excess flesh. Different physiology may also account for it. Chimps and apes do not have a hymen, thus no need for a penis to reach very far is there?

So please go do some research look at all sides and stop guessing.

ETA: I would like to point out that I am guessing here about the reasons for this. Just like others are, I however can admit that I am guessing.

[jurble]

your guessing and have nothing to back it up.

You think they had to have does not mean it is so.

Not to mention you are limiting your thoughts, the situation I posed made it clear that there was as much possability that our common ancestor actually had a large penis size, due to humanities success there was no need for us to get rid of the excess flesh involved. In this situation it is possible and maybe even likely that our cousins lost that excess flesh. Different physiology may also account for it. Chimps and apes do not have a hymen, thus no need for a penis to reach very far is there?

So please go do some research look at all sides and stop guessing.

ETA: I would like to point out that I am guessing here about the reasons for this. Just like others are, I however can admit that I am guessing.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=human+penis+size+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Well, you have your choice of sexual selection articles, and other theories. Though, I must admit, the idea that human penis size is so that men can push out other men's sperm is intriguing.

[gryphon strike]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=human+penis+size+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Well, you have your choice of sexual selection articles, and other theories. Though, I must admit, the idea that human penis size is so that men can push out other men's sperm is intriguing.

you still don't seem to get it, we can all guess but unfortunately unless we can do retrograde DNA work we will never know will we?

[jurble]

you still don't seem to get it, we can all guess but unfortunately unless we can do retrograde DNA work we will never know will we?

That's the whole point of comparative analysis. We compare to humanity's closest relatives and make guesses. It's a guess, but it's not an unfounded guess. It's like comparative linguistics. We don't know what PIE sounded like, but we have good guesses based on the various descendants. All other apes have small dicks. Humans don't. Something must've led to humans having bigger dicks. Big dicks don't spawn from no-where. Either it was natural selection or sexual selection.

[slim da reaper]

Something must've led to humans having bigger dicks. Big dicks don't spawn from no-where. Either it was natural selection or sexual selection.

Actually yes they can, citing selection is no reason to base any idea or hypotheses on, that's a circular argument. Any other argument about why they were selected, sure, guess away.

Why citing selection by itself is incorrect, all those body parts that could be said to have been "selected", but what advantage do they give? All these useless parts of anatomy There's a short article on the first page (I haven't read it though.)