I agree the US is still holding onto Purtianical notions of sexuality. We still see how quick people, mainly women, pick on a woman if she has had lots of boyfriends or sexual experience. Usually labeled a whore or a slut yet men are expected which is a very unfair double-standard for both genders. Men with less 'experience' shouldn't be made to feel inferior. I'm reminded of my high school health teacher who felt compelled to tell us that his daughter wore a purity ring pledging to him she would remain a virgin until she married. He never mentioned if his son had made the same pledge. Women are still bear the burden of purity for both genders. And I can see how a many may be more vunerable naked than a woman. If a woman has small breasts it doesn't convey if she's good in bed. No one perceives her sexual abilities to be any more or less than a woman with larger breasts. No one judges her on the basis of breast size. A man, however, faces an unfair standard. For whatever reason, penis size = virility and lovemaking ability. A man with a smaller penis, I think, would get judged more harshly. It would take a tremendous amount of confidence for a male actor with an average or smaller penis to go full frontal especially with the internet.
While I don't deny this paradigm, I do think it's changing, in the US at least. Shows like "Sex in the City" and the gazillion female to female BFF relationships on screen and in literature suggests a shifting paradigm. As for women as virgins and men need not be, we have an entire world culture to battle before this changes. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. But on the bright side, I've never had a boyfriend who once said he cared if I was a virgin. Not sure that's a consensus, but I'm not a guy so I can't say for certain. Yes people do. That I'm sure of. It may be a contributing factor, but I'm not so sure it's the key variable.
To amplify your earlier statement, @GingerCoffee , regarding the fallacy of male humans evolving for brutishness, I agree that that ideation is factually incorrect. When looking at human evolution, from ardipithecus ramidus to anatomically modern sapiens (AMS, or us) there are two very strong trends: Trend toward neoteny. We show an evolutionary pattern of the adult form being more like the infant form than in other higher primates like gorillas where the adult form shows considerable morphing from the infant form. Infant gorillas are remarkably similar to humans infants, but adult humans are quite different than adult gorillas. Trend toward gracility. We have become light boned and more gracile over the evolutionary stretch, and at any time period, when you pick a female example and a male example, it is always the female example that shows what is to come next. Female leads the way. Always. Human males have not evolved toward brutishness, but away from it. We are more like humans females than most other male primates are like their female counterparts. Regardless, the idea that humans males are inherently unattractive because of typical male traits completely dismisses the very real dynamic of female (and gay male) attraction to the male of the species. (I was unable to quote even part of your statement, Ginger. Server error)
I don't doubt humans are evolving away from brutishness. But evolution is slow, very slow. It still boggles my mind that civilized adult males still think solving disputes with violence is normal. It's oversimplified but we seem to have a culture closer to chimpanzees than to bonobos. I'm not sure about your females always lead the way genetically if I'm interpreting that correctly. I'm trying to imagine an evolutionary mechanism for why females would evolve slightly ahead of males. Female selection accounts for male peacocks, but I can't see it driving the selection of male elephant seals. There is, however, no doubt both genders are equally attracted to whichever individual(s) appeals to them. It's not unidirectional. Even in cultures with arranged marriages, people still fall in love and even risk their lives to be with the one they are attracted to rather than the one chosen for them as the best provider.
Don't confuse attraction with beauty. They aren't the same. As I said with my earlier post the female form, generally speaking is one of smooth lines, soft curves and and a certain amount of natural color. This is the type of beauty that is appreciated by women. Men appreciate the beauty of the female form, but are also attracted to it. The male form, on the other hand tends to have more sharp lines and hard muscular corners. While this is attractive to females it is not universally considered as beautiful as the female form. The bottom line is that men and women are different and are created for different, but complimentary purposes.
I don't believe anyone was, however they do overlap. I know a beautiful female body when I see one, and sometimes I envy it. I'm not sexually attracted, but I'm not sexually attracted to every male body I find beautiful either. That's just one opinion, it's not some universal truth or fact. And there is no way it even applies to all male bodies.
I'm speaking solely of human evolution. Not other species. I should have been more specific. . There is much debate in anthropology circles as to why this should be the case, but the fact of it is undisputed.
I'm not going to argue with you Ginger, it's not worth my time. If your going to disagree about every little thing I say the conversation just becomes tedious. There is universal beauty, universal attractiveness and I don't need to link a study to prove it. Are there exceptions? Of course, I'm just assuming everyone in this thread is intelligent enough to understand that when your dealing with trillions of human beings as a data pool, there's going to be a small percentage that bucks the trend. Whatever you personally like or dislike is irrelevant. Take a large group of people, equally male and female and show them the female form and the male form. More women will find beauty in the female form than men in the male form. It's just how we're wired and, in my opinion why you see more nude females than nude males. Let's be honest, the penis is not the most beautiful thing in the world. It's not really meant to be attractive as much as it is a tool to procreate.
Nope. Not wiring. Conditioning. There are countless examples of cultures that have prized male beauty. The ancient Egyptians, the Greeks during the Hellenistic period were obsessed with the male form, the Fulani people if Africa...
I disagree. The examples you listed are conditioning of a society most often based on religious beliefs and we don't have the data that shows if the people as a whole actually preferred men over women. Even in ancient cultures, the males were feminized, not made to look more masculine. But in regards to here and now, it's just nature and it's not really under debate. Women are more attractive to both men and women than men are and common sense tells me that's the way it should be.
I disagree. As for universal beauty, there are some things one could probably support: baby faces, for example have in some studies been found to have certain universally attractive features like large eyes relative to the face. Babies of other (but not all) species are also universally attractive. Unblemished skin is universally attractive. There is cross cultural research that supports the source of this beauty being more hard-wired than cultural. But as to female form over the male form, no, without seeing some actual evidence all you have is your personal preference. Your opinion is not persuasive without at least some additional evidence. It's odd you dismiss evidence of the beauty of the male form as cultural, while claiming to know better. Look at Michelangelo's Statue of David. That represents classic beauty as much as The Mona Lisa does. I see curves, I don't see hard lines or whatever it was you said male bodies had that wasn't beauty. And just to bring the thread back on topic, it's easy to find historical times where public display of male genitalia was common.
No one is disputing the fact that fewer men will admit to seeing beauty in the male form than woman will admit to finding it in the female form. We're talking about the why of it. Keep up. You are also neglecting the serious foibles of using only emic data for your argumentative source.
The issue is the question itself, which is based off a false narrative of equality. Men and women are not equal and any attempt to create a hypothesis denying this fact will ultimately be for naught. Garbage in, garbage out as it were.
I direct you back to Liz's comment in post #24: Your straw man is a fail. No one is arguing, least of all me, that men and women are not different. I celebrate the differences. There is no false narrative here of equality. There is, however, an argument over some of the differences you are calling universally recognized as beauty. And I'd also throw in I don't personally agree with all the adjectives you've applied to the male form.
Once again, whether you personally agree with the general physical attributes of a male human is irrelevant. They are what they are.
Can I input a question and something I hear women say all the time. Its whats on the inside that counts? Personality matters Now I've heard women say this on more than one occasion. in fact it seems to be quite common amongst females to state this. That your body has no effect on a woman's psyche. Or is this just something less attractive females say to help them get through the day. Anyway its just one more point to consider. What truly is aesthetically pleasing and who gives off the aroma of pleasure.
It certainly is under debate. I understand that it feels like a universal truth to you, one that's so obvious as to not require justification. I, too, have opinions on various subjects that feel to me like the "right" opinion. But I know that my gut does not define the truth. The same goes for you--the fact that you feel something as a truth does not mean that it is one. Your gut, your instincts, do not define the instincts of the rest of humanity, and I'm disconcerted that you seem to feel that they do, and that no other evidence is required.
Looks and personality both matter. I doubt many people are attracted to a partner solely on the basis of looks or personality. And I've met guys I wasn't attracted to physically at first but that changed as I got to know them. I don't completely understand the role pheromones play, but it's clear they do. There are men I find very attractive, but I would describe it as, "they're not my type", and I'm sure most men find women that way as well. People may have broader or narrower limits on who they are attracted to. And age plays a role. When you are a teen or young adult, the number of people one finds attractive is typically many. Bottom line, attraction and beauty are very complex and widely variable things.
I would you go about conclusively demonstrating that it is either one or the other? I don't think one can do it.
This idea is not negated in the least. I can fully appreciate the aesthetic beauty and physicality of someone who I know is a complete jackass, and therefore I don't have an attraction to him or her.
Are you even familiar with the Hellenistic period? The Dying Gaul Hellenism, and its re-advent during the Renascence, gave us the modern image of the idealized male, and that male is in no way a 'feminized' version of masculinity.
Okay I'm going to weird people out. What is aesthetically pale and what time can do to you?. Have you ever watched star trek and wondered about all those species. Have you ever seen episodes where you get a half Klingon half Human character? If not this is what I'll attempt to bring to light. You see I know that everything you know in your life takes time to be acquired. So it can be stated that you are and have been the product of your surroundings your whole life. This Earth that we know has given you life and meaning. You find whats attractive in the end because its taken a life time to evolve. Yet ever wonder like Mr Roddenberry did? If we all lived in the future with many races and intelligence being a much more causal effect would this change the entire role of aesthetically pleasing qualities. I mean it wasn't that long ago where blacks only had children with blacks and Asians with Asians etc. However now as time has moved on an awareness has awoken. That what we deem aesthetically pleasing at one age and the next changes with the wind. Just a point to consider, I do of course have more ideas on this topic though... one step at a time me thinks
Ha! I was all about Billy Mumy's character in Babylon 5 and he had a conch shell deal on his head instead of hair. I'ld'a stamped that book.
