So... Are we over hating Twilight now?

[Dr.Samurai]

AMFV, why take a person serious when they call men the "unproductive half of the species"? This is clearly delusional.

[Lord Joeltion]

Mostly, but not entirely accurately. Most famous men that are known for being good looking I can acknowledge as good looking, but there are some that just confuse me how people find them attractive.

Well, some people like wine, others prefer beer; some privileged ones can handle the two. Me, personally, can't even smell guys wine or get anywhere close to them it. I am so much a girl beer guy; I got crazy for one, and will enjoy it at any occasion, specially if it is one I particularly enjoy. For me, nothing can be bad with a girl beer, and there is almost no such thing as a girl beer with no redeeming qualities.

With boys wine, I can make the mental exercise as to why people might like them it, on a purely theoretical study. Maybe it's the body, or the smell, or because it makes them feel better. Or people simply rather take a boy wine rather than a girl beer, but don't particularly mind. After all, there is not much alike about them, except that they get both you drunk and eventually you and up a mess, sprawled all over on a forgotten bed/shower.

But yeah, basically, I can't actually fathom what people find about wine; and for me the tastiest and the cheapest is equally disgusting. It will always give me the pukes

Spoiler

Show

And no, I know people would rather believe it has to do with insecurities, but that's not the only reason. There actually IS people out in the world who will find [whatever other people find pleasure in] a disgusting practice and wouldn't engage into it for whatever reason. Not everybody likes diet coke, not everybody likes a cake, and yes, there are some who find them truly disgusting and unappealing. It's called "having standards". It's part of having a taste of your own. "There are people who find male bodies hideous". What a surprise. Well, chek out this one: some people think the same about butts, body hair, dogs and babies. And they come in both sexes! *gasp*

[Wookieetank]

Spoiler

Show

And no, I know people would rather believe it has to do with insecurities, but that's not the only reason. There actually IS people out in the world who will find [whatever other people find pleasure in] a disgusting practice and wouldn't engage into it for whatever reason. Not everybody likes diet coke, not everybody likes a cake, and yes, there are some who find them truly disgusting and unappealing. It's called "having standards". It's part of having a taste of your own. "There are people who find male bodies hideous". What a surprise. Well, chek out this one: some people think the same about butts, body hair, dogs and babies. And they come in both sexes! *gasp*

You forgot cats, but then most people find them to be evil little bits of fecal matter born out of wedlock

[AMFV]

Self-justifying tripe.

You're claiming that your (and my own, by extension) existence is unjustified. Since I'm included in the category here, any attempt at defense is by definition going to be self-justifying. Because your argument is literally attacking a fundamental part of myself.

And again, do you see no positive values in the things that are masculine? I mean you have physical strength, that's certainly got some positive values. Men can grow and style beards, that's got artistic value.

And we're indulging in the cult of the worker? I thought that particular relic had been smashed along with the labor movement that spawned it. Apparently not.

Well, I mean people like to live in buildings and they like to have bridges to be able to get over rivers. It's not really a cult to comment on that being hard work. I mean if you want to go back to living in caves and having all travel stopped by rivers and starving to death when there's a local shortage cause you can't travel along interstate highways, I mean I guess that's whatever.

It's not like I'm asking you to worship me, or men like me. But we are an integral part of a modern mechanized society, it cannot exist without people that can do the work I do.

AMFV, why take a person serious when they call men the "unproductive half of the species"? This is clearly delusional.

Well I don't think I'd really gain anything from dismissing him out of hand, even if he is deserving of that. And I (or he) might learn something if I can take the argument seriously.

Well, some people like wine, others prefer beer; some privileged ones can handle the two. Me, personally, can't even smell guys wine or get anywhere close to them it. I am so much a girl beer guy; I got crazy for one, and will enjoy it at any occasion, specially if it is one I particularly enjoy. For me, nothing can be bad with a girl beer, and there is almost no such thing as a girl beer with no redeeming qualities.

I don't know, I think there's something to be said for being able to appreciate the physical artistry of somebody who works on their body. I saw William Bonnet at the Arnold, and I can definitely appreciate his physical form, he had to work on balancing it, basically turning his body into an artwork, and I can value that without necessarily wanting to have the sex with him.

It's interesting because I can also appreciate female forms that I wouldn't be interested in sexually. Like I can appreciate slender ballerinas and the art and work required to produce that physical form and those lines, but I wouldn't want to have the sex with them either, just not my thing. It's the difference between understanding physical art and wanting sex.

Not all appreciation of the physical is sex-based. Which is where your analogy breaks down. Beer and wine is generally only appreciate for the experience of smelling and then inbibing, whereas a body can be appreciated in far more ways.

[Peelee]

Ya know, I don't believe I have thalassophobia, but this has really gone off the deep end. I'm out.

[An Enemy Spy]

I think we can all agree that zimmerwald1915 has... some serious issues and following this particular conversation will result in nothing but this thread being locked.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well I don't think I'd really gain anything from dismissing him out of hand, even if he is deserving of that.

I get it. I suspect you have nothing to gain here though, his argument is absolutely ludicrous. On the one hand, he will proclaim you the oppressor, the brutal tyrant that has lorded over everyone else throughout history and is the reason for why everything is as it is.

And then on the other hand he will give you no credit for any of it and call you unproductive.

Seems pointless to me to try to parse that but if you think there's some nugget of wisdom hidden in there, by all means...

And I (or he) might learn something if I can take the argument seriously.

Fair enough. The apparent amount of disdain he has for you and me and himself makes me think otherwise, but I understand.


As far as good-looking guys go, I enjoy seeing what they achieve in Men's Classic Physique.

[Lord Joeltion]

You forgot cats, but then most people find them to be evil little bits of fecal matter born out of wedlock

Those people have no soul, and you know it!

I don't know, I think there's something to be said for being able to appreciate the physical artistry of somebody who works on their body. I saw William Bonnet at the Arnold, and I can definitely appreciate his physical form, he had to work on balancing it, basically turning his body into an artwork, and I can value that without necessarily wanting to have the sex with him.

But Art=/=Taste. You can appreciate art for what it is; then you can enjoy it, despite of it. FWIW, male body has it's obvious artistic properties (proportions, for instance). Any shape can have artistic value. That doesn't mean people need to find them appealing. Mozart isn't appealing to anyone. The same can be said for any kind of art. When it comes to human attraction (of any kind) it's even more complicated and more arbitrary. While a lot of what people think it's attractive is permeated by social values/norms; most people don't follow everything society says "it's appealing/desirable". There are deviations from the norm, and it's only natural that they happen. BTW, I don't mean to justify people who throw obvious hate towards people whose enjoyment of life works different. Only that some people may dislike a thing so much that are simply unable to differentiate "regular crap" from "A quality crap". If people tell me a [piece of music from a genre I don't like] is so good; I have no option but to believe them. I have no weight by what to measure it's value among things of the same class, because they may be all equally tasteless.

It's interesting because I can also appreciate female forms that I wouldn't be interested in sexually. Like I can appreciate slender ballerinas and the art and work required to produce that physical form and those lines, but I wouldn't want to have the sex with them either, just not my thing. It's the difference between understanding physical art and wanting sex.

But I wasn't referring to sexual attraction alone. I meant to say that some people may find an entire class of things completely unappealing/valueless. I know I have a bias towards women in general because I rather spend my time with one than with a men. And I don't mean for sex. I simply dislike most things men usually tend to talk about, and find a lot of them absolutely boring.

But I digress. Point was that I don't see a problem in preferring one thing one over another; and that you need at least a minimal amount of interest in a particular set of things to actually assess their value. Male bodies can be equally disgusting as long as I am not particularly interested on them. For example, I can totally understand/relate myself with people who are into body building for all those reasons that aren't related to male beauty. Because, out of all the reasons I would go to a gym; becoming more attractive will never get in my list (and that has nothing to do with self-loathing; just that male beauty isn't a thing in my mind).

Not all appreciation of the physical is sex-based. Which is where your analogy breaks down. Beer and wine is generally only appreciate for the experience of smelling and then inbibing, whereas a body can be appreciated in far more ways.

I don't think that's true (that [something] cannot be appreciated in more ways that bodies), but in any case, analogies always eventually break down, don't they?

I can tell you why I like beer: it tastes good. I can't explain why it tastes good for me while not for others though. And I know a lot of people who talk about beer as if it was an "acquired taste"; when I always liked it since day 1. The point of the analogy wasn't to make a comparison with beer; but with tastes. When you like something, you get involved with it. You get interested in it. So, with years, you become more knowledgeable about the thing. And then discover more and more.

That doesn't apply to all people though. Some people require more pushing; and even with years of experience, people may find no real sense of scales and remain self-absorbed in their singular reasons as to why enjoy one thing (i.e: "movie is the best because it's the best"). But others, may reject the thing entirely no matter how they are pushed into it. Those people may become completely blind about the qualities/properties individual cases of the thing may have; because they aren't interested in things in general.

For the case of bodies, though, there isn't much way around it. Either you like human shapes or you don't. Either you like a certain type of chin, or you don't like chins at all. Finding them ugly is probably an extreme case, but I don't think they are impossible to be disliked. Or that they have to do with mental issues or self-whatever. It's just the way people are, IMHO.

ETA: If it looked as if I was defending any other poster here, that's totally not what I am doing. I just wanted to talk about how finding oneself puzzled about what others call "attractive" isn't at all a bad thing or something one should be ashamed of.

[Ramza00]

• Page 1: Are we over hating Twilight now? Plus "Dear Stephenie Meyer: ^{I'm Sorry}"
• Page 8 and 9: zimmerwald1915 has a different opinion than everyone else, and instead of asking him about it. He must have a problem, he must be disordered or have a horrible childhood.

The irony, it is too much! You must conform to the things I like, or else there is something wrong with you that must be fixed.

[This is my personal plea to zimmerwald1915, I am trying to step away from the other social conversations that are going on in this public place and making a personal one to one conversation.

I think comparing the male body to "lovecraftian beings" is silly, yet at the same time I kind of get it, continue being as you be but if you want to talk about why we can continue, for maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but most likely the true insight does not belong with either of us and only through conversation can we discover the greater thing.

Then again I am a nut for I find one of the most important thing in art is to be the sense of discovery, but this is a personal love of the aesthetics of discovery, you can make the argument that other parts of art are more important. That is the beauty of aesthetics, there are multiple things that are beautiful and each person gets to have their own order and ranking of these multiple things.]

[An Enemy Spy]

• Page 1: Are we over hating Twilight now? Plus "Dear Stephenie Meyer: ^{I'm Sorry}"
• Page 8 and 9: zimmerwald1915 has a different opinion than everyone else, and instead of asking him about it. He must have a problem, he must be disordered or have a horrible childhood.

Pretty sure zimmerwald1915 having different opinions isn't the issue here. It's that he projects those opinions through hatred.

[Ramza00]

Pretty sure zimmerwald1915 having different opinions isn't the issue here. It's that he projects those opinions through hatred.

Yes, and the counter stroke may be too intense and be worse than the original "crime." [Yes I am entering a straw man word into the discussion, I brought up the word crime first, and this is kind of a strawman, but it really does have to do with Stephanie Meyer and the intensity of the people disliking her works to the point they use language such as crime and so on.]

Furthermore is what zimmerwald1915 having an opinion on really a crime? I do not share his opinion he has about males and the male form, but is it really that toxic, that innocuous, etc?

[Dr.Samurai]

• Page 1: Are we over hating Twilight now? Plus "Dear Stephenie Meyer: ^{I'm Sorry}"
• Page 8 and 9: zimmerwald1915 has a different opinion than everyone else, and instead of asking him about it. He must have a problem, he must be disordered or have a horrible childhood.

The irony, it is too much! You must conform to the things I like, or else there is something wrong with you that must be fixed.

I thought the first bullet point was also an opinion not to be taken seriously. You shouldn't need other people to like what you like. Don't worry about it. If half of people hate something, but you like it, that's okay. The original premise of this thread was unwarranted to begin with.

As to the second bullet point, you're mischaracterizing it as merely a difference in opinion. So let me tell you where I'm coming from; it's a bad opinion to have. It's objectively false. In considering whether men can be attractive, Zimmerwald is foisting all of their actions throughout history onto their appearance. That's fine. If those types of actions impact his attraction to something, its okay.

It's his opinion of men's role throughout history that is simply wrong. Zimmerwald is basically saying that nothing good has come from men, and they are unproductive. This is such a ridiculous opinion to hold. Sure, we can ask him about it, but basically he needs to read more books. Or look around him even. He is just wrong. He is so wrong in fact, that if it weren't against the rules I'd accuse him of... well, you know.

[warty goblin]

To me that shows someone so insecure about their masculinity that they have to over compensate. And it looks super dumb... I'm sorry but it does.

Yes, and the counter stroke may be too intense and be worse than the original "crime." [Yes I am entering a straw man word into the discussion, I brought up the word crime first, and this is kind of a strawman, but it really does have to do with Stephanie Meyer and the intensity of the people disliking her works to the point they use language such as crime and so on.]

Furthermore is what zimmerwald1915 having an opinion on really a crime? I do not share his opinion he has about males and the male form, but is it really that toxic, that innocuous, etc?

I will agree with zimmerwald up to the level of being able to understand the male body as not aesthetically pleasing, although I wobble back and forth a bit on that*. I don't feel that I bear the collective guilt for every crime ever committed by men since the dawn of the species, simply because I am not those men. In their circumstances I might be, and I certainly need to exercise vigilance against wrongdoing myself, but I am not guilty of things I have not done.


*Let's just say that if Jason Momoa shows up in full Khal Drogo costume and asks if I want to go set fire to various cities and then just admire him in their flickering red light, I'm so there.

[ThunderCat]

for the past ten thousand years men have been largely principal agents in most of society's productions. In fact before the past hundred years or so, women were needed to raise children and so they wound up not being able to help with things like growing food on the scale that men were. I mean I'm glad we've moved past where childbirth is the most common killer of women and all men need to work with their strong backs for life. But that was a thing.

As much as I approve of trying to ease zimmerwald1915's self-loathing (seriously, men can be absolutely wonderful, and imo, quite sexy too), I have to object to this. The idea that the American 1950s style nuclear family with a male provider and a female nurturer is somehow universal, or even especially common for humans, is not supported by historians or anthropologists.

The only kind of societies where men consistently bring in more in terms of calories (or wealth to be traded for food) are the arctics, where big game hunting and fishing are the primary source of food, and societies where women are barred/discouraged from many jobs for cultural reasons. There are also certain agricultural activities where upper body strength is a major asset, but these have not been the norm for most of human history (let alone pre-history), and even in those cases, women had plenty of other things to do which didn't involve child-rearing.

Not that it should matter (there are plenty of men who recognize that doing all of humanity's reproductive labour is no mean feat, even if that was all women ever did), but it feeds into the idea that men are independent of women while women are dependent on men for survival, which again feeds into the idea that men were the creators of society, which again feeds into the idea that men own society and women somehow owe men for the privilege of living in it, which is one of the cornerstones of male supremacy.

[AMFV]

• Page 1: Are we over hating Twilight now? Plus "Dear Stephenie Meyer: ^{I'm Sorry}"
• Page 8 and 9: zimmerwald1915 has a different opinion than everyone else, and instead of asking him about it. He must have a problem, he must be disordered or have a horrible childhood.

The issue is not his opinion. But the fact that his opinion is rooted in what seems to be actual hatred for his own gender. I mean I'm fine with people saying that men are not attractive. That's largely a taste issue. But if you're saying "Men aren't attractive because they are violent rapists and oppressors and are lazy and unproductive" that's a statement that's going to naturally require a more intense response.

Also of note, I did ask him about it, and had all of my questions completely ignored and my statement ground down to "self-justifying tripe" in his words. If he were trying to defend his opinion in a reasonable way, or even arguing that it's a matter of taste that wouldn't engender this sort of response. Look at the responses to Joelton and Warty Goblin in this thread, those are indicitive of the responses you might see to somebody who is just expressing a taste issue, which in my case involved trying to explain the ways in which one might see artistry or work in terms of the male form. But he's still fine to disagree on that point.

I will agree with zimmerwald up to the level of being able to understand the male body as not aesthetically pleasing, although I wobble back and forth a bit on that*. I don't feel that I bear the collective guilt for every crime ever committed by men since the dawn of the species, simply because I am not those men. In their circumstances I might be, and I certainly need to exercise vigilance against wrongdoing myself, but I am not guilty of things I have not done.

Well I think a lot of it has to do with learning how to appreciate it, as I was saying. For me, my interest in bodybuilding actually really helped that, since I had to evaluate the male physical form (my own included) in ways that were completely removed from any kind of thoughts of sexual anything. And that's particularly liberating.

As much as I approve of trying to ease zimmerwald1915's self-loathing (seriously, men can be absolutely wonderful, and imo, quite sexy too), I have to object to this. The idea that the American 1950s style nuclear family with a male provider and a female nurturer is somehow universal, or even especially common for humans, is not supported by historians or anthropologists.

Men typically are involved in the more dangerous aspects of work, so while they might not gather as much food, they certainly are more involved in protecting that food. So your statement about calories is pretty misleading, because even if the lady hunter gatherers can bring in thousands of calories more, then it won't matter when they're killed and murdered by a group of male hunter-gatherers.

And also you'll note that I was specifically referring the large-scale construction that makes our modern life possible, that's something where phyisical strength is very paramouunt, as somebody who works in that industry I can say that there are not many woman that can do it. There are some, but not

The only kind of societies where men consistently bring in more in terms of calories (or wealth to be traded for food) are the arctics, where big game hunting and fishing are the primary source of food, and societies where women are barred/discouraged from many jobs for cultural reasons. There are also certain agricultural activities where upper body strength is a major asset, but these have not been the norm for most of human history (let alone pre-history), and even in those cases, women had plenty of other things to do which didn't involve child-rearing.

That's only really true in hunter-gatherer societies, as soon as you start mechanizing and increasing the scale, physical strength becomes really important. Large scale agriculture is backbreaking work, that's why as soon as you see that in human history, bodies of men become much more muscular and developed. And definitely large scale construction of roads and buildings requires that kind of physical strength.

Actually I would argue that outside of physical defense, hunter-gathers were much more egalitarian than societies later on, but some of that is because work got more intense and physically demanding as the scale of that work increased exponentially.

Let's take bridges, I worked on three bridges which were started and completed last year. A hundred years ago, one of those bridges would have taken probably ten years to finish, now a lot of that is made possible by equipment, but the physical load and work is still increased to a much higher level of intensity than a slower pace would allow.

Not that it should matter (there are plenty of men who recognize that doing all of humanity's reproductive labour is no mean feat, even if that was all women ever did), but it feeds into the idea that men are independent of women while women are dependent on men for survival, which again feeds into the idea that men were the creators of society, which again feeds into the idea that men own society and women somehow owe men for the privilege of living in it, which is one of the cornerstones of male supremacy.

No... you need both men and women to have society as we have it now. That was definitely what I was going for. Zimmerwald claimed that men were the "unproductive" half which is horse****. I'd say the same exact thing for somebody claiming that women were the "unproductive" half.

<Super long and articulate post snipped for length but you definitely should read it>

I'm certainly not arguing that you can't have taste preferences. It was more an attempt to show you like the reasons and ways that I can appreciate that form. So I mean that's not for everybody, but it's a fun exercise to do.

Edit:

As far as good-looking guys go, I enjoy seeing what they achieve in Men's Classic Physique.

I like physique alright, but the limitations on it are pretty troubling to me. As well as the fact that leg development is completely excluded from it. And to be fair the Open Bodybuilding category at the Arnold is usually fairly well balanced since the judges at the Arnold have never really favored mass monsters that much. I mean Roelly took fourth and he was in the best conditioning he has ever been (I would have placed him 2nd or 3rd personally). But that's just how that particular competition goes.

Also the less standardized nature of the poses is kind of frustrating to me since it makes direct comparison of various weakpoints more difficult.

[ThunderCat]

I don't know, my experience has been the following. Women are much more diverse and varied in their physical tastes than most men are. I don't know if that[s actually true as a general rule or if that's just my own personal experience. But I mean there are women who find big strong very masculine guys more attractive and women who find slighter less muscly types attractive.

In my experience, men and women are just loud about different things. Men who have diverse taste usually don't advertise it, maybe because it can lead to a loss of status and result in their sexuality being questioned, similarly to homophobia. For instance, it's well known that a good deal of men have a fetish for chubby (or even fat) women, but when men are seen with a fat woman, observers rank him lower in social status and express less intention to hire him for a job (seriously). Plenty of men go against the grain, but it tends to be perceived as more controversial, or even political, when they they express it.

In contrast, women who have a more diverse taste are generally very proud of it, and tend to advertise it far and wide, probably because it's similar to not caring about appearance at all. Girls have historically been shamed for going after more obviously handsome guys, and are expected to be nice, not judge on appearance, or at least not be too picky. The ones that succeed in this usually want the world to know.

Mostly, but not entirely accurately. Most famous men that are known for being good looking I can acknowledge as good looking, but there are some that just confuse me how people find them attractive.

My boyfriend finds plenty of famous women attractive, but for some reason, Megan Fox doesn't do anything for him and he doesn't understand why someone would want to have sex with any part of Scarlett Johansson that isn't her voice. I feel the same way about some male celebrities, so I think it's pretty normal regardless of your sex or sexual orientation.

[Kish]

My personal opinion is that I do not at all get the waxed chest thing, and thus the photos presented made me recoil without it saying anything about how attractive or horrific men in general look.

[AMFV]

In my experience, men and women are just loud about different things. Men who have diverse taste usually don't advertise it, maybe because it can lead to a loss of status and result in their sexuality being questioned, similarly to homophobia. For instance, it's well known that a good deal of men have a fetish for chubby (or even fat) women, but when men are seen with a fat woman, observers rank him lower in social status and express less intention to hire him for a job (seriously). Plenty of men go against the grain, but it tends to be perceived as more controversial, or even political, when they they express it.

It's certainly possible, again I'm talking largely from my own experience. Here's the kicker though. I've been with women who were attracted to me and had my body type shift drastically throughout the relationship and maintained about a similar level of attractiveness. Whereas most guys I know, have expressed a distaste for dramatic changes in their partner's appearance. Like I went from chubby to lifting weights in one relationship. Then I went from doing bodybuilding to deciding that I wanted to focus on strength and do strongman. Now that's a drastic shift in body types. Like we're talking 60 lb shifts and 8 inches of waistline difference.

So again that's been my personal experience is that women even when they are focused on appearance can have a wider range of things that attract them, especially if it turns out that the guy they like has other aspects. Like the emotional or connective aspects, or physical things that I'm not as sure about it.

In contrast, women who have a more diverse taste are generally very proud of it, and tend to advertise it far and wide, probably because it's similar to not caring about appearance at all. Girls have historically been shamed for going after more obviously handsome guys, and are expected to be nice, not judge on appearance, or at least not be too picky. The ones that succeed in this usually want the world to know.

That's also probably a factor. But again there's certainly an actual difference in what women pay attention to, at least in the women I've dated. Like one of my S/Os didn't notice a 15-20 lb weight shift, which is a noticeable thing physically. Especially when that's largely adding muscle. And she really did not notice I had gained weight, now it's possible that it's because it was done slowly, but it wasn't that slow.

My boyfriend finds plenty of famous women attractive, but for some reason, Megan Fox doesn't do anything for him and he doesn't understand why someone would want to have sex with any part of Scarlett Johansson that isn't her voice. I feel the same way about some male celebrities, so I think it's pretty normal regardless of your sex or sexual orientation.

There certainly are some taste differences. But you'll notice a much wider range of body types in the male "sex symbol" celebrities and a much narrower range of body types in the female categories. Now that may be industry driven, but I'm sure that there are reasons for it.

My personal opinion is that I do not at all get the waxed chest thing, and thus the photos presented made me recoil without it saying anything about how attractive or horrific men in general look.

You can actually blame bodybuilding and the Mr. America pageant for that. The reason bodybuilders started shaving and waxing is because hair can hide how developed or underdeveloped a chest is. So they started to shave so you'd see all the striations and what-not.

[Ramza00]

My personal opinion is that I do not at all get the waxed chest thing, and thus the photos presented made me recoil without it saying anything about how attractive or horrific men in general look.

Real men have hair, and this is sexy. Except some men do not grow hair on their chest naturally and they are also sexy.

But what I do not understand is excessive removal of chest hair via waxing and other methods. This just seems off / uncanny valley for me. It is okay to trim, but hair is good. Even Jean Luc Picard / Patrick Stewart is sexy for he has some hair.

Wait is Jean Luc now a lovecraftian "being" in the Star Trek universe?

[ThunderCat]

Men typically are involved in the more dangerous aspects of work, so while they might not gather as much food, they certainly are more involved in protecting that food. So your statement about calories is pretty misleading, because even if the lady hunter gatherers can bring in thousands of calories more, then it won't matter when they're killed and murdered by a group of male hunter-gatherers.

You're inadvertently arguing in favor of Zimmerwald's viewpoint here. You're saying that while women might have gathered the most food, men murdered the most people to take their food. Violent men causing women to need the protection of other men isn't an example of men being the ”principal agents in most of society's productions”, it's a protection racket.

And also you'll note that I was specifically referring the large-scale construction that makes our modern life possible, that's something where phyisical strength is very paramouunt, as somebody who works in that industry I can say that there are not many woman that can do it. There are some, but not

Here's your actual quote (highlights mine):

Also for the past ten thousand years men have been largely principal agents in most of society's productions. In fact before the past hundred years or so, women were needed to raise children and so they wound up not being able to help with things like growing food on the scale that men were. I mean I'm glad we've moved past where childbirth is the most common killer of women and all men need to work with their strong backs for life. But that was a thing.

And personally as somebody who makes a living doing backbreaking labor, I can tell you that masculine strength certainly has some advantages if you're wanting to have things like bridges or buildings.

I responded to the top part, where you specifically talked about ten thousand years, which includes parts of the stone age, as well as a lot of hunter-gatherer societies. You also excluded the last hundred years, which excludes your own job.

There's also a huge difference between being especially suited for some particular functions in society and being "largely principal agents in most of society's productions" like you said. There are a ton of crafts and agricultural functions that don't rely primarily on physical strength but which you still need to make society work, and the only way to come to the conclusion that most of society's productions would require immense physical strength and therefore exclude women, is by discounting most of them. Which is what has historically been done to women's contributions, by labeling them as not real work and pretending they were a luxury rather than a necessity.

Seriously, I'm not arguing that physical strength is unimportant, that backbreaking labor isn't valuable, or that men haven't contributed to society. I'm just asking you to please not contribute to the tired, old and untrue stereotype about how men built all of society while women were busy babysitting.

[AMFV]

Real men have hair, and this is sexy. Except some men do not grow hair on their chest naturally and they are also sexy.

But what I do not understand is excessive removal of chest hair via waxing and other methods. This just seems off / uncanny valley for me. It is okay to trim, but hair is good. Even Jean Luc Picard / Patrick Stewart is sexy for he has some hair.

Wait is Jean Luc now a lovecraftian "being" in the Star Trek universe?

Again that's a result of bodybuilding and the Mr. America pageant. It's because muscle definition and development is obscured by hair.

You're inadvertently arguing in favor of Zimmerwald's viewpoint here. You're saying that while women might have gathered the most food, men murdered the most people to take their food. Violent men causing women to need the protection of other men isn't an example of men being the ”principal agents in most of society's productions”, it's a protection racket.

Men were also responsible for protecting women from animals, from natural disasters, where those fast-twitch muscle fibers are pretty advantageous. And I don't think it's a protection racket. For it to be a protection racket the men who are protecting would have to be in on it, and they aren't.

Here's your actual quote (highlights mine):


I responded to the top part, where you specifically talked about ten thousand years, which includes parts of the stone age, as well as a lot of hunter-gatherer societies. You also excluded the last hundred years, which excludes your own job.

It doesn't exclude my job. People have been building bridges for a LOT longer than the past hundred years. And if you look at the buildings the physical aspects of society most of those were constructed principally by men. That's the point I was making. And they were responsible for a lot of the ability to perform agriculture at scale. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not a farmer. But it is very physical work, work that men have a physical advantage at, in terms of their ability to produce. Men are better at building shelter without the tools of modern society.

There's also a huge difference between being especially suited for some particular functions in society and being "largely principal agents in most of society's productions" like you said. There are a ton of crafts and agricultural functions that don't rely primarily on physical strength but which you still need to make society work, and the only way to come to the conclusion that most of society's productions would require immense physical strength and therefore exclude women, is by discounting most of them. Which is what has historically been done to women's contributions, by labeling them as not real work and pretending they were a luxury rather than a necessity.

Which agricultural functions are you referring to? Specifically?

Yes, there are many societal functions that women worked with, but most of the buildings you see were built by men. Most of the roads you drive on were built by men. Most of the trucks that bring you food even in the winter, were built, maintained and at one point mostly driven by men.

And yes, road building and bridge building requires immense physical strength. For our society to work the way it does we need people who are physically strong. We just do.

Seriously, I'm not arguing that physical strength is unimportant, that backbreaking labor isn't valuable, or that men haven't contributed to society. I'm just asking you to please not contribute to the tired, old and untrue stereotype about how men built all of society while women were busy babysitting.

That isn't what I was saying though. I was saying that most of the things that have allowed our society to exist as it does now are the result of male labor. ALL of the things that allow society to exist as it does now are the result of female labor... get it? (Sorry couldn't resist). But like the roads that make our modern society possible, built by men. The bridges that allow us to cross rivers even in the rainy season, built by men. The buildings that shield us from the elements and have allowed us to store food, built by men.

Now in the past 100 years, this has changed somewhat, but up until that point, it was certainly the case.

[Ramza00]

Again that's a result of bodybuilding and the Mr. America pageant. It's because muscle definition and development is obscured by hair.

Fashion is way more complicated than a single signal, it is an organic process that takes multiple signals and organically creates something new. Creating a signal from the noise, and the noise is created by the numerous different "vectors" colliding together, yet the signal appears out of this noise. I can make arguments that while what you say about Bodybuilding is true with fashion, the same arguments for manscapping also comes from the meterosexual movement and a separate movement of gay male porn (less hair makes it look bigger) and both of these two arguements are completely seperate from your body building / Mr. America pageant, and there are even a dozen other vectors not just the 3 we have talked about.

I am agreeing with you AMFV but also disagreeing for the world is complicated, especially when we talk about societies, for an individual is complicated but groups of humans are even more so complicated.

Are crab people "lovecraftian beings?"

[Dr.Samurai]

You're inadvertently arguing in favor of Zimmerwald's viewpoint here. You're saying that while women might have gathered the most food, men murdered the most people to take their food. Violent men causing women to need the protection of other men isn't an example of men being the ”principal agents in most of society's productions”, it's a protection racket.

A protection racket???

We’re animals. Resources are limited. Competition will happen. Men are better suited to combat. The violence that men enacted was not only for their own benefit, but for the benefit of women as well.

You’re not of the mind that violence exists simply because men exist are you?

Anyways, those women wouldn’t have survived if there weren’t men doing violence on their behalf. And I’m not talking about the defenders, I’m talking about the attackers raiding and killing for more resources. And that’s not speaking to what women contributed, it’s just a fact to counter this notion that men are bad because they were/are warriors.

[ThunderCat]

It's certainly possible, again I'm talking largely from my own experience. Here's the kicker though. I've been with women who were attracted to me and had my body type shift drastically throughout the relationship and maintained about a similar level of attractiveness. Whereas most guys I know, have expressed a distaste for dramatic changes in their partner's appearance.

My boyfriend and I both gained weight while being in a relationship with each other, and I think it bothers me far more than it bothers him, for both of us. There's also quite a big difference between expressed distaste and actual behavior in a relationship. And lot it is nurture. Girls grow up surrounded by stories about looking past appearances, and have historically been told that choosing a man (if they're lucky enough to get a choice) is choosing a whole lifestyle, because they're supposed to become part of the man's family and be completely dependent on him. Boys grow up with stories about winning the hot chick. Looking past appearance, being practical and valuing relationship isn't just a preference, it's a skill. And in my experience, it's simply not taught to boys at the same rate as girls.

And that actually brings me back to Twilight. Because it's about pure physical attraction. It's a subversion of everything girls have been taught (but fits completely with what they've learned). After story after story in which the hot girl realizes what a jerk her (hot) boyfriend is and falls for the (more average looking) nice guy, Twilight completely subverts it. Every description of Edward is about him being hot. He's rarely portrayed as nice, funny, smart, considerate, etc., but he possesses all the most shallow criteria for the perfect partner: Beautiful, popular, desired by other girls, rich, hot, with a high social status (son of a doctor), handsome, strong, and physically attractive. He's a prize, not a person.

And Bella is immediately attracted to him based on his appearance, and never changes her mind. She's also constantly told (even by him) that he's bad for her and dangerous, which in most other stories would lead to a lesson about not falling for the bad boy but learn to appreciate the unassuming nice guy, but here, everything ends up just fine. Bella is completely motivated by physical lust, and at no point in the story is it portrayed as a bad or problematic thing. She's never forced to reconsider and change her mind, learn to settle, or see past what's right in front of her. The average looking guy who hits on her in Newmoon is just an inconvenience, and even Jacob is just there to spice things up a bit. Bella is never wrong, and she ends up being validated in her sexuality, not shamed for it and is never told it's her fault for falling for the bad boy.

It's actually not terribly surprising so many girls and women end up eating it all up. Most of us have been indoctrinated our whole life with the idea that bad boys are inherently attractive (hence why they're usually played by better looking actors, are more interesting, and are so often the girls' first choice), but also tantalizingly forbidden, existing only to teach us a lesson about how we always have to second-guess our attraction and are only supposed to lust after a guy when he's shown that he deserves it, after which attraction becomes mandatory. If people are looking for someone to blame for Twilight, I'd go with the partriachy

So, in conclusion: Give us more male eye-candy

There certainly are some taste differences. But you'll notice a much wider range of body types in the male "sex symbol" celebrities and a much narrower range of body types in the female categories. Now that may be industry driven, but I'm sure that there are reasons for it.

I don't think there are that many male body types except buff (for action stars) and slim/average (for everyone else). There are no extreme body-builders and fat men. There are also more male Hollywood actors to begin with, and therefore more options for men to become sex symbols in the first place.

I think that if you take a bunch of random women, some of them would be considered attractive by almost all men and some of them would be seen as unattractive by the vast majority of men, but a lot of them would receive mixed reactions, with some men finding them attractive and some not. It's just that the latter group of women rarely make it to Hollywood. The same thing applies to men, except that men who receive mixed reactions from women are more likely to become celebrities, because men in Hollywood are more often cast as characters, with an appearance matching what the character is supposed to be, while women are cast to be love interests whose main purpose is beauty. I'm not saying there are no statistical differences between men and women in this (though I think most of them are cultural), but if you cast a variety of men but stick mainly to the most conventionally attractive women, there's bound to be more of a division between women as to whether or not a particular man is hot.

[Zmeoaice]

Sexy


Or this:

Spoiler

Show

Only the 1st and 3rd dont look disgusting, and we only see their baby face, not their bodies :3

Lol I'm gay

[The Eye]

Look! For once I'm not the absurd one, today was a good day.

[zimmerwald1915]

Look! For once I'm not the absurd one, today was a good day.

You're welcome.

[Zurvan]

"Mostly because there is no female humanoid form that isn't fundamentally grotesque. How anybody is attracted to it defies the imagination - I strongly suspect anyone who claims they are is making it up to mess with people."

Can you see how bad this sound now?

[S@tanicoaldo]

I really love when a guy looks good with chest hair, more then a guy with a waxed chest, but not all guys with chest look good and to me most don't.

For me the the right amount of chest hair is not an exact science and deals with some quite arcane and weird concepts, what is the right amount for some is not the right amount for others and deals with some quite arcane and weird concepts, what is the right amount for some is not the right amount for others.

I'm also a big sucker for muscles in special pecs, and chest hair (or tattooes) kind of ruin something that if is well worked looks great already.

So to me if you are very muscular go without chest hair, if you are medium to not muscular go with chest ahir but try to find the rigth abount that looks manly but not unkeept.

[zimmerwald1915]

Says he, while using the internet, created by men.

No, it wasn't. Found that in 20 seconds of Googling. Now imagine how ignorant you sound to someone who actually knows the history of the Internet.

Just for you to know, blind hate is a very barbaric thing to do, why are you doing the very thing you claim to hate about "the masculine"?

Blind hate is a characteristic of civilized peoples, actually.