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

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 May 2017, 4:05 am

Moccu wrote:
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


That's the weirdest penis talk I have read in a while.



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 May 2017, 4:15 am

Closet Genious wrote:
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.


i'm sorry i didn't mean to condescend.

playing guitar is also good for playing in a band.



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 May 2017, 4:16 am

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


mr. hands died you know 8O



Outrider
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,007
Location: Australia

08 May 2017, 12:50 am

Closet Genious wrote:
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.


Hey man, I agree with you.

I think it's complete bullsh*t to only be attracted to a man's muscles if he developed them from a non-bodybuilding/powerlifting sport or hard labor.

The vast majority of men can't develop much muscle from their sport, maybe with lottery genetics they can.

They can improve their skill at the sport, and some natural strength and hypertrophy gains will come of course, but most actual athletes have to spend at least some time strength training and weightlifting.

Even soccer players, tennis players and swimmers.

There are photos of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps hitting the weights at the gym.

Also, just because a man does a hard labor job, doesn't mean he'll necessarily have a muscular looking body, because while there is somewhat of a connection between visual hypertrophy and strength levels, it's still possible to be thin but have high functional strength, or have well developed muscle due to hypertrophy but only moderate functional strength.

Doesn't mean the hard labor guy is weak, mind you, he'd have high functional strength, but I have seen plenty of men who can lift far heavier and work much harder than me for longer despite having thinner and smaller looking muscles than me.

Weightlifting is the most efficient, effective, and reliable method to have a muscular body. Period.

Almost all athletes need to weight-train, unless they're a long-distance runner, lower division swimmer/tennis player or high school athlete perhaps.



Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 May 2017, 3:28 am

^ Great points, and very well articulated.

Most men I see in my area, working hard labour jobs rarely have much mass. They also tend to have a beer gut, but that is of course unrelated to strength and this discussion in general.

Another thing: Someone mentioned something about bodybuilding resulting in uneven muscle development, and that is just untrue. If anything, compound lifts will give you the most even mass AND strength development compared to any other activity.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 May 2017, 4:46 am

I think you misunderstood me; I specifically said that UNLESS you focus on the large, compund lifts and INSTEAD opt for what I referred to "obssessive sculpting", by which I meant super-targeted excersises like the bicep curl, you may well wind up looking disproportional.


_________________
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: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 May 2017, 5:08 am

They want us to have a six-packs from work and not from gym, tsk tsk...some women and their unrealistic standards.....

So much of objectification.



Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 May 2017, 5:17 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
They want us to have a six-packs from work and not from gym, tsk tsk...some women and their unrealistic standards.....

So much of objectification.


It sucks. I didn't realise before now that I got my six pack the "wrong way". Might aswell get fat now, and get abs again by playing badminton. :lol:



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 May 2017, 5:59 am

Closet Genious wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
They want us to have a six-packs from work and not from gym, tsk tsk...some women and their unrealistic standards.....

So much of objectification.


It sucks. I didn't realise before now that I got my six pack the "wrong way". Might aswell get fat now, and get abs again by playing badminton. :lol:


They probably think Hugh Jackman got his six packs from acting.... tsk tsk...



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 May 2017, 8:40 pm

I actually got mine from a random mix of physical labor & hooliganry. Girls get 6 packs from bikes & skis too.


_________________
"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:


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 May 2017, 10:21 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.


Because they already know how to do it...its the general public that needs more educating about it for the most part. I learned about taking statistics in college, but I am sure the info is out there on the internet or in books anyone could view.

90% of women at one college, isn't the same as 90% of women in general for instance.


_________________
We won't go back.


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 May 2017, 10:31 pm

Perhaps we should focus on aesthetic subtleties then.


_________________
"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:


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

09 May 2017, 12:11 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.


Because they already know how to do it...its the general public that needs more educating about it for the most part. I learned about taking statistics in college, but I am sure the info is out there on the internet or in books anyone could view.

90% of women at one college, isn't the same as 90% of women in general for instance.


it is a representative sample of the most educated girls.

And most people go to college, so it is not a bad representation of a whole population, sweetleaf. Stats are done based on samples, you know.



Moccu
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Ontario

09 May 2017, 6:58 am

Too much fat around the midsection can look like a poor health indicator for both men and women, as it can negatively affect most of your organs and cause heart problems. A six-pack isn't necessarily needed to be attractive with/without clothing, a flat stomach and trim body is just as good.

Also, a good diet alone will achieve a slim body faster than exercise with a poor/excessive diet. If you are very overweight, then you can't expect to do as much as someone that's already in decent health does, so results would vary, even if you are doing the same exercise.

Men don't really need to strive for a fitness-model body, and achieving a fitness-model body doesn't guarantee making you attractive from the shoulders-up (face/profile). A lot of women that I know don't really sensationalise abs or large forearms. A man that has to workout for hours in a day, just to maintain and supplement his physique, would take too much time away from them.


_________________
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

09 May 2017, 7:18 am

Moccu wrote:
Too much fat around the midsection can look like a poor health indicator for both men and women, as it can negatively affect most of your organs and cause heart problems. A six-pack isn't necessarily needed to be attractive with/without clothing, a flat stomach and trim body is just as good.

Also, a good diet alone will achieve a slim body faster than exercise with a poor/excessive diet. If you are very overweight, then you can't expect to do as much as someone that's already in decent health does, so results would vary, even if you are doing the same exercise.

Men don't really need to strive for a fitness-model body, and achieving a fitness-model body doesn't guarantee making you attractive from the shoulders-up (face/profile). A lot of women that I know don't really sensationalise abs or large forearms. A man that has to workout for hours in a day, just to maintain and supplement his physique, would take too much time away from them.


For most people, if you have a flat stomach you are already pretty damn close to having visible abs. Genetics play a part in this aswell though. I know for myself, that from flat stomach to good ab definition only takes 2-4 weeks of dieting. :)



Moccu
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Ontario

09 May 2017, 8:01 am

Closet Genious wrote:
Moccu wrote:
Too much fat around the midsection can look like a poor health indicator for both men and women, as it can negatively affect most of your organs and cause heart problems. A six-pack isn't necessarily needed to be attractive with/without clothing, a flat stomach and trim body is just as good.

Also, a good diet alone will achieve a slim body faster than exercise with a poor/excessive diet. If you are very overweight, then you can't expect to do as much as someone that's already in decent health does, so results would vary, even if you are doing the same exercise.

Men don't really need to strive for a fitness-model body, and achieving a fitness-model body doesn't guarantee making you attractive from the shoulders-up (face/profile). A lot of women that I know don't really sensationalise abs or large forearms. A man that has to workout for hours in a day, just to maintain and supplement his physique, would take too much time away from them.


For most people, if you have a flat stomach you are already pretty damn close to having visible abs. Genetics play a part in this aswell though. I know for myself, that from flat stomach to good ab definition only takes 2-4 weeks of dieting. :)

I find bike riding is really effective for a nice all-over tone, and it's not boring to do and gets me to places faster.


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