Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[Starkess]

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

And then I'd go hit for the other team, because that is seriously gross to me.

[Sirius]

For the record, McGrath isn't horrible, he's just a little too big.

If I could assume anyone else's physique, it would probably be this guy. As much as I hate to start a jacob vs whats-his-face debate on here.

[Alexia]

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

Frankly, I find those pictures very repulsive. It doesn't look masculine to me at all; it looks unhealthy, unnatural, and somewhat scary.

To the topic title, I personally agree with the poster who said that he thought feminine and masculine are defined more by personality traits than by physique. The pictures posted in the OP made me shudder (guys, do any of you find those Coco pictures sexy? :dunno:) and I don't see anything feminine or masculine about either person....just both disturbing and disturbed.

If I'm thinking of hyperfeminine, I think I'd agree with the suggestion of petite and girlish.

[Ran]

If I woke up one morning like Frank McGrath ... well, I'd freak out a lot more if I woke up looking like George Clooney, but besides that, I'd then proceed to do everything in my power to lose .. uh, 40-60 lbs. of muscle mass? I've no idea...

In all seriousness, Stego, it's entirely okay to hold non-absolutist positions. ;)

Alexia,

Coco is a model and ends up on a lot of covers for magazines that cater to that particular aesthetic. For me, she's cartoonish. For Ice-T, I suppose she's the ideal woman, figure-wise. In fact, that particular ideal for women is relatively common among a certain subset of African-American culture, as King Magazine shows.

[lessthanluke]

I'd give my left nut to look like Frank McGrath but each to their own.

[Sirius]

I'd give my left nut to look like Frank McGrath but each to their own.

Wouldn't you miss the feeling of your hands resting against your hips, and being able to lift your arms higher than shoulder level? :)

[lessthanluke]

Wouldn't you miss the feeling of your hands resting against your hips, and being able to lift your arms higher than shoulder level? :)

Nope! :)

[Kalbear]

In all seriousness, Stego, it's entirely okay to hold non-absolutist positions

Only the Sith deal in absolutes!

Also - Tempra, are you really arguing that those greek statues look more like Frank McGrath and less like Brad Pitt?

[Ran]

The Boxer of Quirinal is probably the single most "masculine" Hellenistic sculpture, and he's way closer to Brad Pitt than to Frank McGrath, to say the least.

[Ocean of Notions]

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

And how does this fit into your grand theory that females have undergone more sexual selection/males have had more control over female selection than females over males?

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

I'm not dismissing him, I'm merely pointing out that it's illogical to assume he's right just because he's famous and published a lot of books. Just because it's written, doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps he's well respected, but he's also controversial. The academic community is hardly in consensus over these issues. I can't say I'm learned in Dawkins's theories and research concerning evolutionary biology - like I said, I'm a trained anthropologist. However, I know that the evolutionary biologist I studied under (David Sloan Wilson runs the Evolutionary Studies program at my old school - which advocates an multidisciplinary approach to studying evolution), who is also rather famous, disagrees with plenty of Dawkins's thinking. Not saying Wilson is automatically right, just like how you can't assume Dawkins is automatically the be-all-end-all authority on this topic.

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.

Yes and no. It's defined by social cues as well. All of a sudden, I have that song by The Kinks stuck in my head, about how Lola "looks like a woman but talks like a man". If a male is physically very "masculine" looking, but takes on mannerisms and roles traditionally reserved for women, what will the rest of society think of him?

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.

Sure, but you can't just make crap up and call it science which is what plenty of people are doing, some of them I personally know.

[jurble]

The Boxer of Quirinal is probably the single most "masculine" Hellenistic sculpture, and he's way closer to Brad Pitt than to Frank McGrath, to say the least.

I see your Hellenic statues and raise you

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

Mustache. And it's a well known fact that Celts are more manly than Greeks.

[Ran]

In what world does a mustache beat a massive beard for masculinity points, I ask you? The Boxer of Quirinal is as much a bear as they get in antique sculpture!

[jurble]

And how does this fit into your grand theory that females have undergone more sexual selection/males have had more control over female selection than females over males?

Nothing! You asked whether we can attest dick size in dead lineages in apes! I told you we could. Jeez, pay attention.

Yes and no. It's defined by social cues as well. All of a sudden, I have that song by The Kinks stuck in my head, about how Lola "looks like a woman but talks like a man". If a male is physically very "masculine" looking, but takes on mannerisms and roles traditionally reserved for women, what will the rest of society think of him?

That depends on the society? Many societies have had a "third gender" reserved for effeminate men. Some also have them for females-as-men. It's irrelevant to sexual selection really. They're removing themselves from the possible-mate portion of the brain to most people.

[jurble]

In what world does a mustache beat a massive beard for masculinity points, I ask you? The Boxer of Quirinal is as much a bear as they get in antique sculpture!

In a better world, a world where this man:

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

Became our God.

[Ocean of Notions]

Nothing! You asked whether we can attest dick size in dead lineages in apes! I told you we could. Jeez, pay attention.

Heh, sorry. Anyway, I think that fact that there was a bone and now there isn't points that there may be plenty of female choosing when it comes to mates. And what do we know about the bacculum in hominids? (not that I expect you to be able to answer that, just throwing it out there)

That depends on the society? Many societies have had a "third gender" reserved for effeminate men. Some also have them for females-as-men. It's irrelevant to sexual selection really. They're removing themselves from the possible-mate portion of the brain to most people.

That's exactly what sexual selection is about. Traits/reasons that make you more/less likely to mate and the choosing of mate based on these traits/reasons.

[jurble]

That's exactly what sexual selection is about. Traits/reasons that make you more/less likely to mate and the choosing of mate based on these traits/reasons.

Well duh. But my point is, if I remember correctly, that if I took a time machine all throughout history, most dudes would find Christina Hendricks hot because of her boobs - barring some societal exceptions. And that boob-size is due to run-away sexual selection. Your average ape has like a 2-3 inch erect penis. Humans push 6 inches on average. A penis need not be 6 in.+ to impregnate a woman, it's sexual selection. But penis size is no where near as noticeable the sexually selected traits of women unless everyone is naked and every man aroused. A woman's secondary sexual characteristics are. So either women were indifferent as how men appeared and were willing to mate with anybody (so men have changed less in appearance over the years), or men were more active in sexual selection.

[Tempra]

Only the Sith deal in absolutes!

Also - Tempra, are you really arguing that those greek statues look more like Frank McGrath and less like Brad Pitt?

Well, one of those statutes IS hercules. The point i'm making is that those statutes represent BIG men for their day. As i've said twice now, they are not going to be as big as today's bodybuilders. They aren't. However, they are quite a bit more muscular than your average male today (significantly moreso than brad pitt in fight club), and i'd wager quite a bit larger than other men of their day.

But I'd say many of the statutes resemble Frank Mcgrath more than Brad Pitt. Here is another example.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Not sure what all this genetics babble is about. Women clearly look the way they do because God wanted us to find them attractive!

Ahem.

I dont think it matters much in the modern would tbh, since human evolution has changed drastically in the way it occurs. We are much more volatile and random in the way we select mates. Its almost as if we're abandoning mother nature.

For the last time though, bodybuilders aren't masculine. Sorry. I'd back myself to kick Frank's ass.

[cjfshaw]

Can we add Burt Reynolds as another alternative definition to hyper-masculinity?

[jurble]

Can we add Burt Reynolds as another alternative definition to hyper-masculinity?

HE IS THE ONLY DEFINITION.