That just sounds wrong In regards to guys wanting to be tall, I don't get it, then again I'm considered tall. As long as you're medically fine then it really doesn't matter what height you are.
You know, 123, I really like you, but you are so terribly misguided in this respect, I'm really sad to see how you've been conditioned to think this way. According to you, (I'm, extrapolating, bear with me please) men are so weak, they have no self control whatsoever in the presence of a beautiful woman, so much so that whenever one (or ten) walks down the street she's endangering all those weak willed men behind the wheel into losing control of their vehicle and crashing, possibly killing and injuring others. Imagine that I'm responsible for someone's hard on making them crash and kill? If this line of thinking is in any way valid, why don't we have as a part of a driving test for males, a parade of girls in the bikinis as they're driving, just to make sure they're not 'dangerously sensitive to displays of female beauty'? We don't because that line of thinking is BS and not all men are so pathetic as to be wringing their necks every time they see something they like. This is the exact same mentality and logic employed in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other places where women are considered slaves and property. They are forced, under threat of beatings and execution, to cover themselves from head to toe, so that men don't get tempted into 'losing control of their urges'. And even if they are covered, if a man 'loses control' ie rapes her, it is the woman who is put in jail, because we all know that female beauty is the 'ultimate weapon'. How come, since we are so well-weponised, are women so well-victimised across all societies? How come we have so little political power, if we have weapons of mass destruction in our bras and panties? This is an excellent example of what I was saying, how the tails of murderous misogyny still drag themselves through our 'advanced' society, in which a woman is considered to be someone who has to be 'kept under control' because men are too weak to keep themselves under control. So sad, for both men and women. Luckily, it's a total and utter BS that can be reversed within one generation, by education, enforcing just laws and curbing misogynystic speech in the media.
C'mon @jazzabel are you telling me you don't have weapons of mass destruction? Agree though, I very rarely look but then I'm happy with my Mrs
It...does. Sorry, I know no other way of putting it. I'm 5'10, so have been spared the worst, but guys shorter than me (especially those under 5'8) really get s*** on socially. As for what you said about confidence, you may be able to teach people to act confident over a period of time (not 'one leap' as you put it, they may have been grappling with issues their whole life), but actual confidence only comes from past success, and if you haven't had any it's impossible to achieve it.
As a parent, it's hard for me not to look at these issues more closely than I probably should. I thankfully have a son. I don't know what I would do raising a daughter in this day and age. My seven year olds female classmates are already being brainwashed and hyper-sexualised by the media and their parents do not seem to give two shits. One of the young girls in my sons class wears make-up to school because she doesn't think she's very pretty. Another turned up to his last birthday party wearing a mini skirt almost as short as I've seen on some strippers. A wak through the local mall shows parents dragging young girls dressed in tights, low cut tops and high heels before years before they even begin puberty. A woman I work with is even trying to convince her gorgeous seventeen year old daughter that she needs to start botox NOW! And we wonder why the rate of teenage pregnancy has near doubled in the last ten years. Why there are more rapes and sexual crimes, especially against young girls in the western world. Truly, our world is disgusting.
I'm curious. Why does it sound wrong? Is it the usage of a noun as a verb or the message? 'Cause I honestly wanted to do more than just yell "stop making yourself miserable", I wanted to shake and bitchslap my 16yo self, convinced she was fat at 5'7'' and 92lbs. What an idiot. Yeah, but this is like a pretty girl sayin' "you don't have to be beautiful to be accepted, honey. Beauty is only skin-deep." Sure, it should be, but life is much crueler than that. Like if there's truth to what @Sonne Lore just posted... Just wow. Botox at 17, what a novel idea. Not saying things can't change, but they won't if attitudes don't.
This standard view of feminist history doesn't take into account something very obvious: men were slaves and property, too. The vast majority of humanity spent their lives in the exact same condition. Most men got the right to vote not more than a decade before most women. If these hereditary memories you speak of existed (it seems to be a very nebulous concept), it would apply to men, as well. Is your definition of 'objectified' is 'found sexually attractive or unattractive' (that's the definition a lot of people seem to use these days, sadly)? If that's the case, then I doubt this is true, but it's hard to debate it without relying on anecdotes and observations. A man has to worry equally about being physically attacked; more violent crime is committed against men. As for the rest of that, I agree - the system is shockingly obstructive. I'v unfortunately seen this happen to four women, and not a single one of them has wanted to go to police. The only reason I flat-out ignore feminists on this issue is because they like to believe all men are directly or indirectly responsible, through (trigger warning, people) 'rape culture,' blaming fathers, sons, brothers, boyfriends, etc. It's pretty nasty. Physical strength means next-to-nothing in a street fight, and this simply isn't true in many places. Anyone walking outside late at night is open to attack, whether they're male or female, and men most certainly think about it. That's still a total irrelevance to the younger generations. They only study it in history. What possible benefit could it bring to current affairs to imagine something that happened a hundred years ago? That statement seems to just brush all men's concerns aside, demanding women get special treatment. In other words, it's the side of feminism I can't bring myself to like.
@KaTrian - Unfortunately, it's true in this case. The woman I referred to has six kids, all under 30, half of whom already regularly get botox treatment. Her eldest daughter (27) has even had four plastic surgeries so far because her mother wasn't happy with how she looked. And if you thinks that's crazy, just watch an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras, if that doesn't make you want to commit hari kiri...
@KaTrian it's a phrase, so to see it changed just sounded wrong. @Gallowglass depends on the social group I guess, 5'6-5'8 wouldn't get more than a passing joke maybe.
That's scary. I guess I can see some warped thought process behind it all, the mother trying to do what she thinks is best for her kids, especially if they're planning careers in some sector that requires a certain look and of course people are free to do what they want with their faces and bodies as long as they don't harm others, but really, four surgeries? Nose- and boobjobs and tummy-tucks, or...? I don't know, seems really redundant to me, especially if the end result doesn't turn out to be exactly what one wants... ETA: @Lae Yeah, that was intentional
I can't blame 1234 for exiting this thread...He basically got overwhelmed for pointing out what a lot of men think It's all about aesthetics...It's got nothing to do with morality, equality, or political correctness. When you begin to talk about unfairness you're missing the point Beauty is SUBJECTIVE When some people point out (I think it was Chickenfreak) that there are many shades of beauty, yes there are many shades of 'beauty' as you put it because there are many people with their subjective opinions. However, if you want to talk about common opinions, or what the 'majority' of people think, *sigh* it's not ideal to be getting into anecdotes etc, but from experience I would venture to say a majority of men are attracted to slim, toned women; striking facial features such as wide eyes, high cheekbones, a proportional face, nice teeth, whatever. You'll also find that clothes (re the debate about heels) do seem to help but they are not the be-all and end-all. If a woman has naturally beautiful features that will shine through regardless. I know men like fit bodies because I have spoken to LOADS of men about women my whole life. Me personally, I know what I like and whether this is due to conditioning or instinct, I don't know. All I know is I know what I like. Imperfections on a woman does not mean they can not be beautiful to me, it really depends on the person, but at the same time I know perfection when I see it, and as a man I'll always appreciate it when I do see it. That's how aesthetics works people...
@Galowglass: I would be careful calling things I don't know anything about 'nebulous'. In fact, hereditary memory has been confirmed in animal studies, even though scientists speculated for a long time about it. Specifically, they taught mice to fear a specific stimulus that was generated in the lab (ie. nothing a mouse can be expected to fear naturally, even though these natural awareness' are thought to be hereditary), and observed that several generations of descendants displayed fear toward the same stimulus. Another is a phenomenon of epigenetics, or gene expression being triggered by one's environment, and there's also evidence that baby leaves behind its cells in the nervous system of a mother, which can then be transferred to a new offspring testify to how people can feel they 'knew' a sibling even if it was miscarried, aborted or stillborn. Science is discovering incredible ways in which nature and humans interact, so concept of 'hereditary memory' is anything but 'nebulous'. 1. Just because SOME men were slaves too, doesn't mean that it isn't a complete travesty that ALL women were considered slaves and property. That is a MASSIVE difference, for obvious reasons. 2. Objectification of women shouldn't require any explanation in this day and age, but here's a nice, palatable article that pops up as first result on Google search (which I highly recommend you do yourself and spend some time learning and understanding). It also quotes a few out of thousands of studies and papers that have been written about it link 3. About why it is bullshit that "most violent attacks are caried out against men". Please read the whole article and follow it up with further reading. 4. I'm not going to argue about why it is obvious that women have a role of prey much more than men, during their lifetimes. If that isn't obvious to you, then it is so because you are wilfully ignorant and unable to put yourself in another person's shoes. There has to be a line that is drawn in these kinds of arguments and if someone is denying something that's obvious and universally accepted, then further discussion is pointless. It's like denying today that Earth is round and demanding that someone convinces you of it, despite all the evidence that exists which you conveniently refused to accpet. If you disbelieved that, you'll disbelieve anything I have to say also. So I'd be wasting my breath. 5. The fact that women weren't allowed to vote being still in living memory, testifies to the fact that all our new rights are only recent and thus vulnerable. You saying lack of rights women still struggled with less than 100 years ago is irrelevant today, is the same as if someone claimed that issues of genocide as defined after WWII are no longer relevant, because WWII ended 60 years ago. In our own society, discrimination of women is more subtle today then it was then, as is discrimination towards nations that were the subject of WWII genocide, and both need to be vigilant in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. The most poignant example just how fragile our civilised society can be is Kabul, a city formerly known as "Paris of Middle East". In the 70s, it enjoyed a progressive government and women wore what they wanted, studied at universities, dated, rode motorbikes (google images "Kabul in the 70s"), and yet, over the past 30 years or so has been dragged into the middle ages, even under the protective guidance of the US which invaded it on the account of ensuring human rights. Well, US is all but withdrawing and Afghan government just passed a new law forbidding raped women to even testify about their own rape, thus making it practically impossible to prosecute anyone for that crime, or protect the woman from further harm. Not to mention the rest (must marry their own rapist, must be imprisoned when they are raped for being 'unfaithful and promiscuous' and the fact honour killings are no longer illegal). This is a loud and clear warning to us all, just how easy it is to lose our hard gained rights, and why it is mandatory to be vigilant about any and all misogynystic speech, policies and values. This is why I'm commenting right now. I don't actually care what some guy on the internet thinks about all this, I daresay he won't be saying that face to face to the woman he fancies so that's the extent of the strength of his convictions, but it is my duty as a woman to at least occasionally set the record straight, because it takes effort on all our part. In fact, true equality in the eyes of the law and society can only be achieved if men support it too, so it's very important. 6. One of the core arguments of misogynistic rhetoric is that simply by trying to remedy age-long abuse of all women kind, and efforts to educate patriarchal society about it, somehow 'brush all men's concerns aside'. It is a very effective tactic to automatically alienate men from female plight, as well as simple spin such as saying to someone who's campaigning for rights of animals, that they are 'brushing aside the plight of all hungry children' because they aren't campaigning for them instead, thus sabotaging their efforts to protect animals from abuse. In fact, if you educate yourself about feminism (not radical extremists, every movement has those, right?) you will find that men's equal rights are also something we are fighting for, especially rights of men to get children after divorce, rights for men who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, better working conditions for all etc. Men are also badly affected by patriarchy, feminists more than anyone else know this. This is why many men consider themselves a part of that movement. Anyway, this is really as much energy as I want to spend on this conversation. Like I said, I don't care whether you accept all this or not, I only felt you deserved a chance to be educated. It's up to you from this point onwards, what kind of man you want to be.
@Mackers : I haven't read all of this thread because it's became too big with different conversations, it's hard to keep track. But I think the issue was that 1234 claimed cover of the magazine looks are what is 'naturally beautiful' and it isn't at all. Most men are supposed to be attracted to it like most women are supposed to be attracted to muscly abs hunks purely because of the media. It is an image shoved down our throat constantly, and the implication is that if you fancy something different, you are somehow 'settling' and thus your value as a human being is decreased ('you are as good as the person you are with' rationale). As a woman and a visual artist, who also cares about aesthetics, genes etc. I always found lanky, tall, ginger blokes super sexy and muscly hunks totally unattractive. I went out with a lot of different guys, but those that stayed with me the most all looked remarkably similar to my 1/4 Welsh 1/4 Irish 1/2 English, 6ft3, ginger, glasses, bike riding husband. My best friend, a gorgeous tall blonde, loves short guys, she won't go out with anyone over 5ft7. She reckons they are best fit for her sexually. My mum likes macho men, my dad is a classic silverback if I ever saw one. My youngest sister is attracted to strong black guys, every one of her boyfriends since she finished high school has been so and then she married a Jamaican guy, my other sister likes yoga practicing Indian blokes and also most guys she went out with are like this, and now she married a Malaysian banker/yoga instructor. Every woman I knew had specific tastes and only a minority and young ones fall for the typical magazine image. The variety in tastes that women have isn't there because 'men aren't naturally beautiful' so looks aren't that important. That is a heterosexual male perspective, which has sadly been the only perspective for so long that it's been accepted as universal truth. Of course hetero males don't think other males are beautiful, but ask a woman, or a gay man, just how paralysingly beautiful we find some men, if in Shakespearian times they dared to publish poetry written by women and gay guys, we'd be reading sonnets about some guy's butt, pecs and eyes, not only about a woman. Looks tell us, on a subconscious level, what genes are best to mix with ours. It's been suggested that further away geographically you are, the better genetic mix you are likely to produce, which might account for a lot of personal preferences. How this exactly relates to gay guys, we can discuss perhaps another time. The image propaganda about how men should look, even though still present, isn't nearly as omnipresent and toxic as propaganda about the way a woman should look in order to be considered attractive. This is why it's not healthy for all men to be conditioned to like just one type of woman. And as far as cheekbones, eye distance, perky butt etc are concerned, they come in all skin colours and nationalities, and certainly don't justify the tall, blonde airbrushed fantasy everyone is supposed to have. Unfortunately, this kind of insidious change of people's perceptions is akin to brainwashing. Techniques are very subtle and permanent, they get you on a visceral level and when you are young, so you end up towing the party line swearing on all that is sacred, that those are your own choices and preferences. Anyway. I know I can't correct any wrongs with my comments alone, but I feel compelled to respond sometimes.
You shady character you. @jazzabel good points, well made. Most modern men would agree with most of it.
Hi Jazz, I have quickly scanned through some of the posts and I can not see where he said magazine looks are what is naturally beautiful? Sorry if I've missed it...However, he did say this: This should be the starting point of any discussion here; the subjectivity of beauty. I don't think he is wrong for believing in the possibility of near-perfect beauty. This will have its own arbitrariness but when you talk about aesthetics, you talk about symmetry, grace, style, flamboyance, sexiness, and so on. That's the nature of the game, and only a small amount of people will ever attain the "full package", if you want to look at it like that. the sheer rarity of it makes 'ultimate beauty', or whatever similar label you want to use, a rare thing and something that should be appreciated when encountered. You point out a great diversity of tastes that women you know including yourself have in men. Okay, that's fine. Women may be different than men in that regard, but men are not like that for the most part. (I'm not speaking for all) You take every man in that example of yours i.e. your friend's boyfriend/husband and your dad even, and show them pictures of, for the sake of argument, models like Adriana Lima (since she was mentioned before), or models like Emily Ratajkowski, Beyonce, or even fitness models like Jamie Eason, and say to them: "Do you think they're beautiful?" I guarantee you they will say HELL YES! They will look at their faces, their nice teeth, their completely fit bodies and their manhood will do the rest for them. If they don't, and they say something like, "I don't like women like that/I'm not into women like that", then they obviously have their wife or girlfriend standing over their shoulder with a scowl By the way, no one has mentioned a blonde, airbrushed fantasy. You seem obsessed with this magazine stereotype standard. That's not what 1234 is getting at. Essentially he's saying we should appreciate rare beauty when we see it, something that comes naturally, through genetics, and something which physically can be worked on in the gym. Physical fitness comes into it in a way because it is something that has to be worked for, through dedication. Not everyone can achieve it, which relates back to the rarity of what I mentioned before. (For example, a woman with a shapely derriere and toned legs though squatting sets a man's blood racing, believe me, and that's just an example, please don't be offended )
Well I guess that's that then... Maybe you should look at my post and see that I bolded for the most part Sometimes I need to remind myself that I'm on a niche creative writing website and that posters may not fulfil a large representative sample...
@Mackers : I'm sorry if it wasn't 123 that was saying that, you are right, I wasn't really following a lot of comments and some comments get edited (mine most of all, lol). I did notice that lots of other comments were talking about that, and 1234 did talk about beauty repeatedly in terms of ideals from the mag covers (long legs, catwalk sexy walk, full lips, etc) so I might have misunderstood or he might have changed his mind or who knows. I think two arguments got amalgamated into one in this thread, which didn't really work out. And I'm so sorry 1234 left the discussion, I really like him so I hope he wasn't too upset, because I always aim (whether I succeed or not is another matter) to have a harmonious conversation where everyone feels validated. But sometimes, when someone is totally wrong about something, and everyone is telling them that, it can get really upsetting, because our values are us, in a way, and it's impossible not to take it personally. But I hope we can disagree here, and carry on being forum friends. All of us Ok, about all those girls you listed, it's again a mix of issues. First of all, those girls you mention are actually very different in their natural (ie. no make up, naked) form. They are different races, body types, hair colours, facial features, quite a diverse group. Second, did you see all those girls when they wake up first thing in the morning, or without makeup? If you did (internet is full of those pics) you'll most likely conclude that those women look a lot less 'perfect' in terms of symmetry, fitness, skin and hair quality, proportions then their usual media images. Heck, even their limbs get extended, waist gets narrowed, eyes realigned, pimples get removed in photoshop as a matter of course. The problem is mixing up the styled images with 'natural beauty'. If you put Scarlett Johansson without make up next to say KaTrian without make up (sorry @KaTrian , but I think you're really pretty so I used you as an example, I hope you don't mind), you might just find that they belong to the same category, intensity of beauty-wise. But no, Scarlett is typically thought of in her supremely styled form, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, money that KaTrian probably doesn't have, but Hollywood producers do. So Ka end up supposedly below Scarlett in a 'natural beauty' scale. Its been shown time and again, just how quickly male expectations of female beauty change in response to media images. Sometimes during one hour of viewing time, their attitudes towards women's rights, freedoms and beauty deteriorate beyond recognition (especially in response to watching R&B videos, apparently). So to sum up, you show Beyonce, Cara Delevigne, Angelina and Nicole Scherzinger, when they are styled to perfection, to any man, and put them next to picture of me, jannert, Ka etc, of course they'll say the styled women are more beautiful. All style is about is beautification, so if it was ineffective, nobody would bother. But give them pics of those celebrities un-made up, and you might get a very different answer. I wonder if this was what they were discussing and disagreeing about. ps. Gosh, not offended at all. I have done some modelling myself when I was younger so you can imagine that I heard it all. But paradoxically, as much as men think women crave attention, they don't understand that what we are in fact getting in this society isn't the right kind of attention and it comes at too high a price. But I could keep writing about that, I hope you understand what I mean
Ha i agree on all BUT beyonce. Also i wouldnt change my answer even if my mrs was right next to me Scarlet or KA? well depends on the body i guess, but i agree that the styling helps. There's an old rule me and my brother USED to go by, its all well and good debating beauty or rating on a scale but the rule itself is very simple. Would you, Yes or no? 8/10 for most single men, disregarding social issues would be a yes. Added the "used"
Jazz, ask yourself, what do those women have in common? They all have symmetrical, beautifully proportioned faces. They have nice teeth. None of them are morbidly obese. I keep trying to turn the discussion towards aesthetics because that's what it really boils down to imo. It's got nothing to do with nationalities or hair colour, even. For me it's about form more than anything. You say they have different body types but they are all sleek, slender and toned. By the way I agree with what you're saying re the beauty products etc...But these women would be beautiful with or without it. I could watch films dating back to the 1920s and 1930s and see beautiful women. They have the same qualities what beautiful women nowadays have. It's timeless imo. I could go back even further in time if there were the technology for it! The kind of beauty I'm talking about goes beyond that, and I won't be swayed by arguments such as saying the Victorians held heavy-set women in higher esteem than what we do today, for e.g. I agree that the picture can be distorted by throwing money and products at things. I wish that weren't the case, but that's the way it is. Sorry Cart, for the sake of consistency I should have said all of them would agree, bar one or two exceptions to include the conscientious objector. My bad. I wish I hadn't used those examples because they are now being used as a stick to beat my arguments! haha...I still believe the argument about aesthetics is valid, though...
One need not be a feminist to see the justice in Chicken's point. I'm no feminist in the "movement" sense of the word, but it's sensible and possible, at the least.
@Lae: Given a few pints of lager and 3 am on Saturday night, you might answer Yes about someone you wouldn't if you were sober. And if you fancy Beyonce no matter what she looked like, that's perfectly ok. Give me Vin Diesel or Johnny Lee Miller with a flu and I'll think he's gorgeous, we all have likes and dislikes. The issue here is different, because we are discussing it from different perspectives. Male perspective on female beauty is driven by sexual attraction, which isn't the same as female perspective on female beauty. We are all humans who count, and men don't have an exclusive deal on beauty appreciation, so beauty is a term that we all have to agree on. So if we, women, understand that for you guys, it's the 'fuckability' (excuse the vulgar term) that equals 'natural beauty' in a woman, then you need to understand that half the humanity (straight women and gay guys) will define natural female beauty differently. And it will be just as important. This is the crux - by insisting on keeping the 'natural beauty' definition purely male, you are basically insisting on sexual objectification of women. Because to a man beauty = I'd have sex with 'that'.
