Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

The male body stereotypes?

Page 5 of 7 [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

04 May 2017, 4:42 am

Well, I suppose there is the beergut/dadbod thing too. But that's not one many aspire to.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,034
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 May 2017, 6:03 am

Moccu is right on the V shape.



RichardBrooks
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Location: Tennessee

04 May 2017, 9:59 am

Some earlier comments in this thread were commenting on the size of Michelangelo's David's 'member'. Here's another image of the statue.
Image
It's important to take into context this was a kid facing a giant. He was terrified, so I'm sure there was some shrinkage happening.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

04 May 2017, 11:50 am

Kind of looks like me sneezing.

I guess I should not be surprised that dominant ideology passively associates women with dangerous spiders & dudes with Pythagoras. Like we have to build a perfectly aligned staircase straight into a glass celing & watch out for falling venomous arthropodia. :roll:

I'm not even in disagreement with beauty standards but don't they feel limiting?


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

04 May 2017, 5:12 pm

Closet Genious wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
While I'm straight, and therefore hardly an authority on what would be appealing in the male body sex-whise, I figure that a physique born from actual labour rather than obsessive gym-sculpting should be preferrable. Hence why my current daily workout features two large water containers filled with 20 litres each, and walking. Lots and lots of walking.

Also trying the periodic fasting thing. Surprisingly easy so far.


Closet Genious wrote:
In theory, no. Muscle mass is muscle mass, it's not like there are different kinds of muscle mass. Lifting weights is simply more effective at building it.


I seem to recall there being two types of muscle fibers, though. Can't recall their techincal names, but basically a quick, explosive type and a slow but much stronger type. They vary across populations, hence why there are more Kenyans in the sprint and more Icelandics doing the Strongman thing. But I imagine you could focus on building one type over the other. Probably?

But more to Seaweeds point, unless you focus almost exclusively on the big compound excersices, you run the risk of looking disproportionate. Some guys miss all the leg days, and look weird as a result. Others just want to look good at the bar, so they're nothing but pecs and biceps. That sort of thing is less likely if you get most fo your excercise from doing manual labour, or something similar.

Symmetry does have an appeal.


I don't get why it is preferrable though. For those of us who don't work hard labour jobs, I figure it should be preferrable to still have some muscle, at the very least for good health. And honestly, some of us actually really enjoy doing heavy lifts.
I am getting really tired of the constant projecting, just because some people hate going to the gym, doesn't mean that everyone who goes there hates it too, and only are there because they are obsessive. I personally hate playing football, but I don't make assumptions and judgements about people who play it.

There are fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, but it's not a factor in how you look. There are only really two variables there, total amount of mass and total amount of body fat. For most muscle groups though, slow twitch movements will build mass more effectively.


there is a difference between working out with the goal being to build muscle mass as efficiently and effectively as possible/to attain a specific physique and working out because the sport of it is enjoyable, or it's part of the job, and the muscles are mainly important in what they can do for that person to be better at their sport/job. that in addition to the amount of time/intensity put into it (what else does this guy do with his time?)
different sports and activities do have a different effect on which muscles are built and how, and by saying that lifting weights is more effective in building their mass you've exemplified my point.

but this is where it gets into stereotypical preference vs. unconventional preference. personal preferences aside, i'm not dissing on anyone who likes to work out at the gym for the primary goal of achieving a stereotypically ideal physique.



Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

05 May 2017, 2:53 am

seaweed wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
While I'm straight, and therefore hardly an authority on what would be appealing in the male body sex-whise, I figure that a physique born from actual labour rather than obsessive gym-sculpting should be preferrable. Hence why my current daily workout features two large water containers filled with 20 litres each, and walking. Lots and lots of walking.

Also trying the periodic fasting thing. Surprisingly easy so far.


Closet Genious wrote:
In theory, no. Muscle mass is muscle mass, it's not like there are different kinds of muscle mass. Lifting weights is simply more effective at building it.


I seem to recall there being two types of muscle fibers, though. Can't recall their techincal names, but basically a quick, explosive type and a slow but much stronger type. They vary across populations, hence why there are more Kenyans in the sprint and more Icelandics doing the Strongman thing. But I imagine you could focus on building one type over the other. Probably?

But more to Seaweeds point, unless you focus almost exclusively on the big compound excersices, you run the risk of looking disproportionate. Some guys miss all the leg days, and look weird as a result. Others just want to look good at the bar, so they're nothing but pecs and biceps. That sort of thing is less likely if you get most fo your excercise from doing manual labour, or something similar.

Symmetry does have an appeal.


I don't get why it is preferrable though. For those of us who don't work hard labour jobs, I figure it should be preferrable to still have some muscle, at the very least for good health. And honestly, some of us actually really enjoy doing heavy lifts.
I am getting really tired of the constant projecting, just because some people hate going to the gym, doesn't mean that everyone who goes there hates it too, and only are there because they are obsessive. I personally hate playing football, but I don't make assumptions and judgements about people who play it.

There are fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, but it's not a factor in how you look. There are only really two variables there, total amount of mass and total amount of body fat. For most muscle groups though, slow twitch movements will build mass more effectively.


there is a difference between working out with the goal being to build muscle mass as efficiently and effectively as possible/to attain a specific physique and working out because the sport of it is enjoyable, or it's part of the job, and the muscles are mainly important in what they can do for that person to be better at their sport/job. that in addition to the amount of time/intensity put into it (what else does this guy do with his time?)
different sports and activities do have a different effect on which muscles are built and how, and by saying that lifting weights is more effective in building their mass you've exemplified my point.

but this is where it gets into stereotypical preference vs. unconventional preference. personal preferences aside, i'm not dissing on anyone who likes to work out at the gym for the primary goal of achieving a stereotypically ideal physique.


No I have not. And I still think it's a silly point, and I don't see why it should even matter. I do it because I enjoy heavy lifts(aka powerlifting), and more mass equals more strength, which equals me being able to lift heavier(better at my sport). Looking good is merely a side effect, I would have quit lifting long ago if it weren't for the fact that I enjoyed it. I want to be able to regularly put more weight on the bar, what's the difference between that and a long distance runner who is looking to increase the distance he can run in a single session?



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

05 May 2017, 3:37 am

Closet Genious wrote:
as someone who has worked out and tracked my nutrition for 2 years trying to achieve an ideal male physique, and I'm still not satisfied.


i guess i misunderstood lol



Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

05 May 2017, 4:00 am

seaweed wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
as someone who has worked out and tracked my nutrition for 2 years trying to achieve an ideal male physique, and I'm still not satisfied.


i guess i misunderstood lol


You got me. That was the initial reason why I started yes, but there's no way I could keep doing it for so long if I didn't actually enjoy lifting. And you still made the assumption that no one enjoys it.

A point I want to include though, is that being strong is vastly more useful in everyday life, than kicking a ball around on a field.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,835
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 May 2017, 2:09 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ltcvnzl wrote:
I think we can't ignore that there is much more emphasize in woman's beauty than male beauty.



This is all a myth that many of you women always love to repeat. I don't buy any of it.

When for example 90% of women refuse to date men shorter than them or when the vast majority state strong preference for taller/bigger, isn't that a super strong emphasis in men's beauty imposed on men by women? It's imposed by real women , you can see them on dating sites, and not by some fashion industry like how Wolf explained about the mythical female beauty that doesn't reflect real straight men's preferences in reality.



Can you site an actual study that proves 90% of women on earth would refuse to date men shorter than them? A majority do have a preference for males taller than themselves but I say it is false claim that 90% of them would see it as a deal-breaker.

A majority of males have a preference for women shorter than them, does that mean 90% of them would refuse to date a taller woman?


I have cited researches before showing that males do not care if women taller than them - and if anything, males don't try with taller women because we know that they will reject us, this preference is on the women side.

When it comes to height pickiness, it is your gender, not ours; 90% of people of your gender. Just accept it and stop arguing this every time, it has been proven so many times in so many studies and so many males here and on boards stated they won't mind dating taller women.

"One 2008 study of college students found that about 50 percent of guys wanted their partners to be shorter than them, while 90 percent of women wanted their partners to be taller than them"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

"Nearly half of men indicated their tallest acceptable date could
be taller than them (24%) or their height (23%), while only half (53%) required that their
partner be shorter than them. For women, the vast majority indicated that the shortest per-
son they would date would still be taller than them (89%), with only a small minority being
willing to accept a mate who was their height (7%) or shorter (4%)."


It hasn't been proven once that 90% of the worlds females will flat out refuse to date males shorter than them. Now I could buy that most women have a preference for guys taller than them, but NOT that 90% will flat out refuse to date any guy shorter than them.

Also 2008 was a long time ago so trends could be different now, and they surveyed one small, specific demographic, they'd need a much larger sample size for more accurate and general results.

Do you understand how statistics work?...Or do you think regardless of the sample size results of statistical surveys can be applied to vast demographics like the entire male or female gender.


_________________
We won't go back.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,034
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 May 2017, 5:13 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ltcvnzl wrote:
I think we can't ignore that there is much more emphasize in woman's beauty than male beauty.



This is all a myth that many of you women always love to repeat. I don't buy any of it.

When for example 90% of women refuse to date men shorter than them or when the vast majority state strong preference for taller/bigger, isn't that a super strong emphasis in men's beauty imposed on men by women? It's imposed by real women , you can see them on dating sites, and not by some fashion industry like how Wolf explained about the mythical female beauty that doesn't reflect real straight men's preferences in reality.



Can you site an actual study that proves 90% of women on earth would refuse to date men shorter than them? A majority do have a preference for males taller than themselves but I say it is false claim that 90% of them would see it as a deal-breaker.

A majority of males have a preference for women shorter than them, does that mean 90% of them would refuse to date a taller woman?


I have cited researches before showing that males do not care if women taller than them - and if anything, males don't try with taller women because we know that they will reject us, this preference is on the women side.

When it comes to height pickiness, it is your gender, not ours; 90% of people of your gender. Just accept it and stop arguing this every time, it has been proven so many times in so many studies and so many males here and on boards stated they won't mind dating taller women.

"One 2008 study of college students found that about 50 percent of guys wanted their partners to be shorter than them, while 90 percent of women wanted their partners to be taller than them"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

"Nearly half of men indicated their tallest acceptable date could
be taller than them (24%) or their height (23%), while only half (53%) required that their
partner be shorter than them. For women, the vast majority indicated that the shortest per-
son they would date would still be taller than them (89%), with only a small minority being
willing to accept a mate who was their height (7%) or shorter (4%)."


It hasn't been proven once that 90% of the worlds females will flat out refuse to date males shorter than them. Now I could buy that most women have a preference for guys taller than them, but NOT that 90% will flat out refuse to date any guy shorter than them.

Also 2008 was a long time ago so trends could be different now, and they surveyed one small, specific demographic, they'd need a much larger sample size for more accurate and general results.

Do you understand how statistics work?...Or do you think regardless of the sample size results of statistical surveys can be applied to vast demographics like the entire male or female gender.


Why don't you go teach the researchers how to do stats? You sound more expert than them.



Moccu
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Ontario

06 May 2017, 1:04 am

RichardBrooks wrote:
Some earlier comments in this thread were commenting on the size of Michelangelo's David's 'member'. Here's another image of the statue.
Image
It's important to take into context this was a kid facing a giant. He was terrified, so I'm sure there was some shrinkage happening.

Yes, and with or without shrinkage, it's not fair to judge someone that is clearly not aroused. People need to keep in mind that male genitalia is very stretchy, so you can't tell what someones 'size' while it's just a flap of skin hanging there.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 29 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 193 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical


Muziek
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 396

06 May 2017, 1:21 am

The capacity to shrink is highly underestimated. Shrikage means more blood available for the brain. :mrgreen:


_________________
I'm a straight guy, '80s geek, and musician.

As a musical term for sure, "the '80s" imply the late '70s and early '90s. You can think of them as tapers of this golden decade.


seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

06 May 2017, 2:40 am

Closet Genious wrote:
seaweed wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
as someone who has worked out and tracked my nutrition for 2 years trying to achieve an ideal male physique, and I'm still not satisfied.


i guess i misunderstood lol


You got me. That was the initial reason why I started yes, but there's no way I could keep doing it for so long if I didn't actually enjoy lifting. And you still made the assumption that no one enjoys it.

A point I want to include though, is that being strong is vastly more useful in everyday life, than kicking a ball around on a field.


well i'm glad you've found enjoyment in the sport of it, too! i never made the assumption that no one enjoys it but i can see why you inferred that.

alright i'll bite even though this is getting off topic.
because...1, kicking a ball around on a field is a gross oversimplification and 2, i don't think the usefulness of one sport over another can be quantified like this.

i'd say being strong has a more generic benefit than specific sports.

in my varsity soccer years the whole team had to go to the gym together a few times a week for strength training, because being strong is useful in soccer (and in life). but to say that being strong is vastly more useful than being a skilled soccer team player is a futile argument and i'm wondering if you didn't think it through.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,034
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 May 2017, 3:15 am

Moccu wrote:
RichardBrooks wrote:
Some earlier comments in this thread were commenting on the size of Michelangelo's David's 'member'. Here's another image of the statue.
Image
It's important to take into context this was a kid facing a giant. He was terrified, so I'm sure there was some shrinkage happening.

Yes, and with or without shrinkge, it's not fair to judge someone that is clearly not aroused. People need to keep in mind that male genitalia is very stretchy, so you can't tell what someones 'size' while it's just a flap of skin hanging there.


Some expect us to be hard and big like a horse 24/7.



Moccu
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Ontario

06 May 2017, 3:28 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Moccu wrote:
RichardBrooks wrote:
Some earlier comments in this thread were commenting on the size of Michelangelo's David's 'member'. Here's another image of the statue.
Image
It's important to take into context this was a kid facing a giant. He was terrified, so I'm sure there was some shrinkage happening.

Yes, and with or without shrinkge, it's not fair to judge someone that is clearly not aroused. People need to keep in mind that male genitalia is very stretchy, so you can't tell what someones 'size' while it's just a flap of skin hanging there.


Some expect us to be hard and big like a horse 24/7.

Like a deflated balloon before it gets air blown into it lolol


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 29 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 193 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical


Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

06 May 2017, 3:30 am

seaweed wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
seaweed wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
as someone who has worked out and tracked my nutrition for 2 years trying to achieve an ideal male physique, and I'm still not satisfied.


i guess i misunderstood lol


You got me. That was the initial reason why I started yes, but there's no way I could keep doing it for so long if I didn't actually enjoy lifting. And you still made the assumption that no one enjoys it.

A point I want to include though, is that being strong is vastly more useful in everyday life, than kicking a ball around on a field.


well i'm glad you've found enjoyment in the sport of it, too! i never made the assumption that no one enjoys it but i can see why you inferred that.

alright i'll bite even though this is getting off topic.
because...1, kicking a ball around on a field is a gross oversimplification and 2, i don't think the usefulness of one sport over another can be quantified like this.

i'd say being strong has a more generic benefit than specific sports.

in my varsity soccer years the whole team had to go to the gym together a few times a week for strength training, because being strong is useful in soccer (and in life). but to say that being strong is vastly more useful than being a skilled soccer team player is a futile argument and i'm wondering if you didn't think it through.



You got me again :P . You're right, I didn't, and it's a stupid point. Sadly I get defensive about my interests sometimes, you could easily say equally condescending things about me playing guitar, playing guitar is not really useful for anything other than playing guitar. I just feel like deadlifts and squats in particular have become a trendy thing to hate on lately.