Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[Gertrude]

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

I don't know how you're seeing Frank McGrath in those statues. Yeah, they are more massive than that photo of Brad Pitt, but no where near the size of McGrath.

[Ocean of Notions]

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.

Sure... let me know after you've built that time machine. Too bad we're talking about the evolutionary process that produced H. sapiens, ie: before there were actually anatomically modern humans.

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.

As far as I know, many ancestral hominids didn't walk around in trousers and blouses so those genitals were in fact on display. And as far as I know, we haven't had any major morphological changes in the last XX,000 (maybe more) years. Now, if you can prove to me that breasts are in fact getting larger specifically due to sexual selection and not due to genetic drift or better nutrition...

[Kalbear]

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

Okay, moreso than Pitt in Fight Club - but that's not the only Pitt. What about Pitt in Troy? Same actor, more buff and less chiseled, and from the same movie where Stego said that he had more people on his football team that had bigger muscles.

Heck, the proportions on McGrath are simply wrong. It just looks weird.

[slim da reaper]

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.

I do kinda agree but the guy hasn't developed his chest and that's minus points for my own personal ideal. I also kinda actually see where Stego is coming from with the super muscles, but muscles that come from sport or an activity that looks beyond ourselves, outside of the safety of a gym, where the goal is not just physical aesthetic, some might say it shouldn't be a component at all, but I see nothing wrong with creating a pleasing aesthetic, the gym does create the danger of taking the aesthetic to inhuman levels. But hey who am I to say evolution isn't at work here, like the Birds of Paradise. Maybe Stego is the new stage in evolution.

Of course muscles have nothing to do with masculinity, has nothing to do with it at all, I suppose bravery, honesty are the things which make a prime example of a Man, but these qualities can equally be shared by everyone. For power the Farnese Hercules, this is the definition of power, superstrong and in proportion. He might a coward? His physique has nothing to do with his masculinity. Bravery requires acting in the face of fear. The cowardly lion, he was actually the bravest bugger going, he always acted despite his fear.

[jurble]

As far as I know, many ancestral hominids didn't walk around in trousers and blouses so those genitals were in fact on display. And as far as I know, we haven't had any major morphological changes in the last XX,000 (maybe more) years. Now, if you can prove to me that breasts are in fact getting larger specifically due to sexual selection and not due to genetic drift or better nutrition...

Morphological changes never cease, it's just that diet changes can cancel them out easily: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/10/22-01.html

But as to whether nutrition = larger breasts, that's just absurd. If I eat a crapton of cheese, I'm not going to get taller, I'm going to get fat. Genes make boobs big, obviously they need nutrition to grow large, but better nutrition doesn't account for the fact that female human breasts look NOTHING like an ape's breast. Christinia Hendrick's boobs would detrimental to her survival in the wild, they're like a male peacock's tale, a fisherian run-away trait. Boobs have probably stayed the same size for thousands of years, because for the most part, even the ugliest people alive can find mates. Just because small-boobs exist among the population doesn't mean larger breasts were selected for - we still find whales with atavistic leg bones embedded in their torsos. (Not that small boobs are atavistic, even small boobs are larger than ape boobs.)

Look at the shit in favor of boobs being the result of sexual selection:

1. They confer no advantage in survival.

2. They're nutritional requirements are an impedance.

3. At larger sizes they are physical hindrance.

4. Men like boobs.

Against sexual selection of boobs:

1. It could just be random mutations and drift!

2. Founder effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory when that occurred and the human population hit extremely low levels, into the thousands, a few freak mutants with breasts much larger than the flat-chested ape-boob survived, and went on to found the human race.

[Eurytus]

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.

Funnily enough I have never desired a physique that is only found attractive by other guys.

[Tempra]

Okay, moreso than Pitt in Fight Club - but that's not the only Pitt. What about Pitt in Troy? Same actor, more buff and less chiseled, and from the same movie where Stego said that he had more people on his football team that had bigger muscles.

Heck, the proportions on McGrath are simply wrong. It just looks weird.

It's hard to tell because of the tricks that cameras play. I don't think he's as big as you assume. Besides, most women I know find him repulsive in Troy and prefer the Fight Club Pitt. They'd be shocked to know that he weighed less than most women.

ETA: A quick google search put his Fight Club weight at 150 pounds (at 5'11"). He was up to 185 for Troy. Most guys on my high school football team were larger than that.

[Kalbear]

The only real difference between Pitt in those pics and the statues are that the statues were...statuesque. Or tall. Pitt's pretty short by comparison. I just don't see the bulk or muscle mass in those statues (save the Hercules one).

[Stego]

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

Greek statues are made to look like the young Greek boy toys who modeled for them. They were pedos back then, too.

[Ocean of Notions]

Morphological changes never cease

I agree, but no one says they will always trend in the same direction or that certain traits won't stay constant for certain periods of tiem. And my point from earlier is that to get to this point, the male penis was indeed on display. What I'm refuting here is your theory that females have undergone more sexual selection than males and that females have had less power to choose.

But as to whether nutrition = larger breasts, that's just absurd. If I eat a crapton of cheese, I'm not going to get taller, I'm going to get fat.

What!? If you honestly think nutrition has nothing to do with gene expression, then you really have no clue what you're talking about. EG: better nutrition and living conditions have definitely pushed females to undergo puberty at an earlier age, etc.

Genes make boobs big, obviously they need nutrition to grow large, but better nutrition doesn't account for the fact that female human breasts look NOTHING like an ape's breast.

Never said it did.

Christinia Hendrick's boobs would detrimental to her survival in the wild, they're like a male peacock's tale, a fisherian run-away trait. Boobs have probably stayed the same size for thousands of years, because for the most part, even the ugliest people alive can find mates. Just because small-boobs exist among the population doesn't mean larger breasts were selected for - we still find whales with atavistic leg bones embedded in their torsos. (Not that small boobs are atavistic, even small boobs are larger than ape boobs.)

etc

I never said breasts weren't selected for. I'm sure they were. They're a visual cue that may indicate fertility. My point is that you can't jump to the conclusion that females have undergone more sexual selection/males were the ones who have more choice.

[Tempra]

The only real difference between Pitt in those pics and the statues are that the statues were...statuesque. Or tall. Pitt's pretty short by comparison. I just don't see the bulk or muscle mass in those statues (save the Hercules one).

Look at Pitt's torso, he's as slender as a reed. Look here, he lacks muscle fullness. The other statues are quite a bit fuller in the torso. Very apparent.

[Tempra]

Greek statues are made to look like the young Greek boy toys who modeled for them. They were pedos back then, too.

???

Are you referencing the abnormally small penises? That has to do with the notion that the ideal Greek is not focused on sex.

[slim da reaper]

It's hard to tell because of the tricks that cameras play. I don't think he's as big as you assume. Besides, most women I know find him repulsive in Troy

^^ :lmao: Be serious.

and prefer the Fight Club Pitt.

Someone said on the board a few months ago that it had much more to do with the mental persona of Tyler Durden that made that aesethic even more appealing, without all the persona and the ideas within the movie, that physique becomes just another.

That particular physical form, lean, muscular, is the hungry outsider, the hellraiser, the extreme innovator. On a primal level big well fed guys are established, which has connotations of being part of an establishment, but really it's no indicator of that at all.

[Kalbear]

Look at Pitt's torso, he's as slender as a reed. Look here, he lacks muscle fullness. The other statues are quite a bit fuller in the torso. Very apparent.

Okay. I guess I have a very different definition of what a 'reed' is. I'll bow down to your superior study of muscly men in this case, Tempra.

That particular physical form, lean, muscular, is the hungry outsider, the hellraiser, the extreme innovator. On a primal level big well fed guys are established, which has connotations of being part of an establishment, but really it's no indicator of that at all.

The funny thing is that Pitt got that physique to do that specific role; he needed to look more like Norton and more like a guy who didn't do a ton of bodybuilding and got his muscles from exercise and fighting.

[sologdin]

for bearded classical statues, how about laocoon getting his ticket punched?

[Ixodes]

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.

And I quote:

Did you ever know that you're my hero,

and everything I would like to be?

I can fly higher than an eagle,

'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

:)

[jurble]

I agree, but no one says they will always trend in the same direction or that certain traits won't stay constant for certain periods of tiem. And my point from earlier is that to get to this point, the male penis was indeed on display. What I'm refuting here is your theory that females have undergone more sexual selection than males and that females have had less power to choose.

Then what's your evidence that they have had an equal impact in sexual selection?

[Ocean of Notions]

Then what's your evidence that they have had an equal impact in sexual selection?

I don't. For one thing, these things are a bit hard to quantify and you can't prove things in either direction with our current knowledge and technology. You can't just jump to these conclusions. Well, you can, but that would be rather presumptuous of you.

And I quote:

Did you ever know that you're my hero,

and everything I would like to be?

I can fly higher than an eagle,

'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

:)

Awww. Thanks. :)

[slim da reaper]

The funny thing is that Pitt got that physique to do that specific role; he needed to look more like Norton and more like a guy who didn't do a ton of bodybuilding and got his muscles from exercise and fighting.

Maybe be what an everyman would be like if he was true to his primal self.

[/threadjack]

The central premise is that the everyman shouldn't simply conform, he needs to be an individual in the true sense of the word. Norton's character, the actions of his ego are the backlash that takes control of his deep psychic need. The need to free himself is used by the ego, because it's the ego Durden ends up conforming by looks (really just a movie selling thing though), but more by his inhuman drivenness (from the book), that is the thing which our ego is, inhuman power. Individuality was needed in Norton's life (does his character even have a name I don't think he does), but it's still not achieved for the ego simply conforms to the absolute of individualism.

I love thinking about this stuff.

[slim da reaper]

On the waist-to-hip ratio, I remember hearing that studies suggested that this was a universally appreciated trait. That men liked different things in women across cultures and time...but that was the one constant. Every culture, every period of time.

That's very interesting if true.

I know that it makes me sound shallow, but I do pretty much go for the "hyper-feminine" look. Certain things can be taken too far. Breasts, lips, booties...these things can get too full/big, it just doesn't happen very often.

Face and personality and intelligence trump these things at the end of the day.

Triskele, I think it's called the golden ratio I rememeber hearing about that too.

Hmmmm more I look at that Coco, just by the pics I like her, she looks healthy and those physical traits well they work for me haha. I certainly do not go for just that kind of woman, in fact nothing is a necessity at all.