Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[jurble]

Actually, there are reasons: hormones. Not to say that sexual selection isn't at work. I agree, they are, but I don't like some of the assumptions you're making and what your assumptions imply, but I think I already addressed that above.

Hormones effect gene expression. Those genes had to be selected in the first place -> sexual selection. Hormones aren't magical things that just make men look more manly, and women look more womanly.

[Tempra]

So on casual fridays the bodybuilders hold sway?

Seriously, what the fuck is this argument? When times were more casual? Powerful?

Artistically, there is zero sign that huge men ruled the day. Zero. Whether it be statues, depictions, murals, whatever - strong men do not appear to be particularly worshipped or otherwise astoundingly successful in the world. The closest you get would be something like Gilgamesh, but even there strength is often used against him and cleverness is rewarded. Even Achilles, the preeminent warrior of olden times isn't referred to as musclebound or ox-like; his moniker is fleet-footed. He wasn't known for his massive strength; he was known for his speed.

Now, you can say that while agrarian societies didn't favor really strong people as leaders specifically, they were clearly favored in hunter-gatherer places...except they weren't, as witnessed by specifically seeing all the HG groups that do exist today. There's nothing to think that particularly strong people are better selected for there, either, and plenty of actual evidence to the contrary.

And that's not going on the notion that people that weighed 250lbs and were pure muscle simply couldn't exist in a practical sense without agrarian economies to support that food habit. Not only did they not have the kind of training that it would take to build that muscle (most exercise would tend to be aerobic, not anaerobic), they don't have the protein or fat consumption.

Yet Agamemnon, king of kings, is referred to as "powerful" and "godlike." Referencing bronze age heroes to make your point is rather silly. They were universally renowned for their physical prowess, even the oratorically-inclined Odysseus.

[Ocean of Notions]

Because it would imply penis size shrunk in every other lineage, while stayed the same in ours. That would imply MORE change. Occam's Razor would have say that the numerous other ape lineages stayed the same, and that only one, ours, increased in penis size.

Every other? Even the ones that have long died out?

The full picture in an unknown, if we waited for full pictures to make hypotheses, we'd get no where.

I agree, but I still think you make too many assumptions.

I'm not implying women are attracted to manly men. I don't know what women are attracted to, I'm not a woman. I just thought the sexual dimorphism and sexual selection would be a great topic to bring up in this thread. I only stated that women have undergone more sexual selection than men. And I'm standing by that.

And I think you jump to conclusions and I guess we'll stick to that.

BUT, if you want to go into evolutionary psychology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH RICHARD DAWKINS?

What? Because he's famous, he's automatically right? I'm a anthropologist by training and most anthropologist have a severe distaste for evolutionary psychology, with good reason, but I won't go into it here. However, unlike most anthropologists I know (esp. the non-physical anthropologists who do a lot more work with social theory), I do like the more biological and evolutionary aspects. I've taken two semesters of this Evolutionary Studies seminar that my university offered and I've heard about all sorts of theories and research from whatever semi-famous or up-and-coming was invited to talk. One of the important things I learned is that just because you go by "doctor", have letters after your name, somehow get people to give you assloads of money, and your name is all over whatever magazines, it doesn't mean you're not full of shit.

[Galactus]

Yet Agamemnon, king of kings, is referred to as "powerful" and "godlike." Referencing bronze age heroes to make your point is rather silly. They were universally renowned for their physical prowess, even the oratorically-inclined Odysseus.

Except that "physical prowess" != muscle strength.

Look at the greek ideal: It was that of a runner or swimmer. Not a weightlifter.

[jurble]

Every other? Even the ones that have long died out?

Yes, actually, other apes all possess a penis bone. Humans don't. Through paleontology, we can tell how long their dicks were.

What? Because he's famous, he's automatically right? I'm a anthropologist by training and most anthropologist have a severe distaste for evolutionary psychology, with good reason, but I won't go into it here. However, unlike most anthropologists I know (esp. the non-physical anthropologists who do a lot more work with social theory), I do like the more biological and evolutionary aspects. I've taken two semesters of this Evolutionary Studies seminar that my university offered and I've heard about all sorts of theories and research from whatever semi-famous or up-and-coming was invited to talk. One of the important things I learned is that just because you go by "doctor", have letters after your name, somehow get people to give you assloads of money, and your name is all over whatever magazines, it doesn't mean you're not full of shit.

Because Dawkins is a really well-respected dude, and it's stupid to dismiss his ideas because you don't like them.

[cjfshaw]

I was gonna do some big long-winded reply, but it seems I don't need to, as Relic seems to have made the point I was going to. We are, as humans, naturally built to run long distances. There is physiological evidence in our feet, legs, pelvis, neck, lower back, and, most notably, in our sweat glands. The only reason some people can't do it is because they aren't raised running.

As for the post about doing x if you re genetically programmed to do x when applied to running, I'd say the whole fight-or-flight idea supports the whole human running thing.

[TerraPrime]

Uh yeah, if you take a human and a neanderthal, both of equal fitness levels, the neanderthal will run slower, and expend more energy than the human. The Neanderthal will also be able to tear the human's head off with upperbody strength. Physiology is physiology. Culture doesn't alter physiology. (Aside from artificial selection obviously, but in the small individual scale I mean. Also gotta exclude crap like foot-binding.)

But our perception of masculinity and femininity are not physiological traits. They are culturally-determined value systems. In France, they used to think that the height of masculinity involves wearing wigs and beauty marks. In China, for a couple hundred years, femininity was defined by artificially breaking the bones on a woman's feet so that they will become deformed.

It is wrong-headed to assert that human behaviors that are clearly underscored by cultural influence are determined by genes, as turinturambar had asserted (you know, the comment that sparked my response that you responded to). Mate selection for humans is not just about biology. It's about the social values and hierarchy that we humans have created, as well. Statements like "women are biologically programmed to like X" is neither accurate nor useful in a discussion on how we, today, perceive and define masculinity and femininity.

As far as sexual dimorphism goes, let's keep in mind that in almost all sexually dimorphic organisms, the rate of molecular changes accumulating on the sex-determining chromosome, whether they use XY, WZ, or A:S ratio, appears to be higher than its non-sex determining counterpart. In other words, our Y chromosome seems to accumulate changes faster than our X chromosomes. So, inferring sexual dimorphism as a result of Darwinian selection process needs to take this into account and adjust for the variation we get from this molecular mechanism.

[jurble]

But our perception of masculinity and femininity are not physiological traits. They are culturally-determined value systems. In France, they used to think that the height of masculinity involves wearing wigs and beauty marks. In China, for a couple hundred years, femininity was defined by artificially breaking the bones on a woman's feet so that they will become deformed.

I know, I mentioned culture (and foot-binding) in the post you quoted.

[Tempra]

Except that "physical prowess" != muscle strength.

Look at the greek ideal: It was that of a runner or swimmer. Not a weightlifter.

The Greek Ideal looks pretty powerful to me.

The Greek Ideal obviously is not going to have the same build as today's weightlifters, but the ideal Greek body is considerably larger than a marathon runner. Maybe a sprinter, but we know they all lift weights.

[TerraPrime]

I know, I mentioned culture (and foot-binding) in the post you quoted.

No, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I didn't argue that culture alters physiology. I argued that culture determines what values we assign to physiological traits. It is erroneous, as Ocean of Notion has been trying to point out, to jump from "women are physiologically different from men" to "femininity is defined by our physiology."

[Stego]

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

[jurble]

No, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I didn't argue that culture alters physiology. I argued that culture determines what values we assign to physiological traits. It is erroneous, as Ocean of Notion has been trying to point out, to jump from "women are physiologically different from men" to "femininity is defined by our physiology."

But femininity is defined by physiology. Various female characteristics are sexualized because men do not posses them. Would ancient men really have made statues of women with huge breasts and exaggerated vulvae if men possessed the same characteristics? The differences in gender are exaggerated over time through sexual selection because they are different, it's a recursive function. The ideal feminine body would never resemble that of a physically mature man in any culture.

[Ran]

It sounds like you're still lacking sleep... :P

(No, I've never wanted to have the physique of McGrath or, indeed, any other body-builder, not even the much-more proportionate (to my eye) and lighter Steve Reeves. When I was a kid, I hoped I'd grow up to look like Harrison Ford, not particularly known for his muscles).

[The Mance]

Every man posting in this thread would change their physique for Frank McGrath's.

Maybe periodically, on a temporary basis, like as a superpower or something.

[Ixodes]

I'm a anthropologist by training and most anthropologist have a severe distaste for evolutionary psychology, with good reason, but I won't go into it here. However, unlike most anthropologists I know (esp. the non-physical anthropologists who do a lot more work with social theory), I do like the more biological and evolutionary aspects.

Evolutionary psychology = inventing grandiose theories with minimal to no supporting objective data. Can't stand it, myself. Give me statistics, numbers, and double blind placebo controlled studies and then we can discuss stuff.

[Relic]

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

You gotta be kidding me. Other than (maybe) putting on 5 pounds of muscle and (definitely) toning certain areas im perfectly fine with my body. And more importantly, the opposite sex is as well. I know you think differently tho :P

As for the post about doing x if you re genetically programmed to do x when applied to running, I'd say the whole fight-or-flight idea supports the whole human running thing.

Good point.

[Relic]

Evolutionary psychology = inventing grandiose theories with minimal to no supporting objective data. Can't stand it, myself. Give me statistics, numbers, and double blind placebo controlled studies and then we can discuss stuff.

Ok, thats great...but you can't have that info retroactive to 20,000 years ago, so you just have to make educated observations. You can't simply dismiss it.

Ran -

When I was a kid, I hoped I'd grow up to look like Harrison Ford, not particularly known for his muscles).

You need a bumper sticker that reads " My best friend is a wookie".

[lessthanluke]

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

See the 2nd post in this thread :D

[Gertrude]

Every man posting in this thread would change their physique for Frank McGrath's.

I sincerely hope not. I honestly do not find any of that attractive. The veins gross me out.

[S John]

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

I would dispute it. I have enough physical strength and stamina to go about my daily business, lift the occasional heavy item, and run for long distances in the event of zombie apocalypse. All without carrying around all that body mass. Really too much more than what I've already got would be entirely superfluous, and honestly I've never been capable of stuffing my face with the amount of daily calorie intake that would be required to get as big as that guy. Sure, Frank might be able to flip a Honda Accord, but I really just need to be able to put in a days worth of manual labor from time to time and sometimes open jars. Massive bulk, not required.

The only reason that I might possibly want to be that big is if women found it to be irresistibly attractive, but as the other thread has shown, most (all?) of the women reporting preferred their men to be muscular, but not massive. Not that board women are the be all, end all authority on this... just sayin'.