Quote from: FA on May 30, 2014, 06:33:24 PMBut generally, women are more 'something to look at' than men.

To be honest I think men talk more openly about looking at women. Women don't really discuss it much, only quietly amongst themselves, but trust me when a good looking guy walks by we're looking.

Ecologist speaking here. I studied a bit of evolution. Doesn't mean much, but here's my two cents. It's mainly down to sexual selection. I second what others have stated, and that is that when it comes to reproduction, we are much like animals. Women are the so called choosy sex. They get to pick what males breed with them. Big, bulky males means stronger offspring. Big bulky males were also the ones who would breed as they would win in a conflict. This is why men are bulkier and bigger. A woman with curves, means she has more fat on her body. Something that was rare in the old days. This enabled her to survive, and gave her a bigger chance to produce and raise viable offspring.

Also, it is speculated that beauty is translated with symmetry (look up the golden ratio). A symmetrical face is seen as more beautiful than an unsymmetrical one. And symmetry is related to high fertility and health. All good qualities to ensure offspring. Of course, this is not set in stone and there are studies that dispute this theory.

So why did not both genders become ' beautiful' and symmetrical? Simple. It is a trade off with strength. Whereas for women the extra fat was really good, helping their pregnancies, it had no added benefits for men. Only to a certain extend to live through famine. And as a lot of things in nature, you can not have both things.

It is engraved in us that big men and curvy women stand for good reproduction. That is why we idealize women with curves, and see them as the 'pretty' gender, while men are supposed to be strong. It evolved into our culture where women are supposed to be beautiful because they don't have to fight, and men are supposed to be rough 'n sturdy.

Just me hypothesizing a little. Of course, to me as a gay man, women are really not more beautiful than men.

^^ But I would think much of modern society negates a lot of that. Strength and bulk isn't needed any longer, we're no longer prey. Our intelligence has superseded the survival necessity of these qualities. I'd argue that a lot of today's testosterone drive is misdirected and has manifest itself in quite a bit more inhumanly ways in modern times. Instead of running circles, spears in hand around dinosaurs, we're running circles, spears in hand at ourselves.

When we developed the ability to sweat all over and stand up straight, it is theorized that evolution developed an attraction to smooth hairless skin so that natural selection would breed away our thick apelike fur.

That to me seems to explain why females are perceived to be more attractive perhaps...

But then what about in the 80s when all the porno men were hairy beasts?

See now, this is why I think of mountain peaks and trees and cats and paintings and stuff when I hear the term beauty. In humans, it's so hard to see beauty without being distracted by which details are and are not sexually attractive.

Outside of trying to be objective for the sake of discussion, I find Data from the second Star Trek show to be really beautiful. Nate Silver is beautiful. That Kishibashi guy is beautiful. I think my bloodline might be evolving to overvalue intellect and its signifiers, or maybe we've just all gotten neurotic over the years. Or both. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have experienced a Dr. Who crush or two.

Hmm, I find guys to be more beautiful. :O Because a man's face tells a story. A woman's face, culturally, is just meant to invite one. That's not always the case, but that's what is pushed on women and what is the norm. There can be something hollow about female beauty.

But I do understand that most people think of beauty as a feminine trait.

I think it's sad though. I think the men of the world need love and affection and to be treated as something beautiful... they're so cut off from the ability to feel cherished in that way by our culture.

QuoteI think it's sad though. I think the men of the world need love and affection and to be treated as something beautiful... they're so cut off from the ability to feel cherished in that way by our culture.

I totally agree with this but never really thought of it until now. Thanks for voicing it.

Quote from: sad panda on June 11, 2014, 02:06:49 AM
Because a man's face tells a story. A woman's face, culturally, is just meant to invite one.

Very interesting point. Never thought of it that way before.

QuoteI think it's sad though. I think the men of the world need love and affection and to be treated as something beautiful... they're so cut off from the ability to feel cherished in that way by our culture.

I agree with KAT. This is a good point.

And actually, I agree with you and others that said they find men beautiful. I actually used to  tell male partners that all the time. I don't disagree with that at all. Though the men I typically found beautiful often had childlike or feminine features.
So, I don't disagree with that at all. It was just an observation I made when I made this thread.

Quote from: Felix on June 03, 2014, 02:41:59 AM
See now, this is why I think of mountain peaks and trees and cats and paintings and stuff when I hear the term beauty. In humans, it's so hard to see beauty without being distracted by which details are and are not sexually attractive.

Exactly. It's almost impossible for us to be objective. I sometimes use the term "mind-control hormones" that cause us to (generally, I'm an exception, obviously) to be sexually attracted to the complimentary gender. I don't find the term "opposite" to be accurate. Think about animals. We're not (generally) sexually attracted to them so we can be objective. In most animals species, we would find the males more beautiful. Just off the top of my head, look at most bird species--ducks, peacocks, turkeys. Look at lions. We wouldn't say female lions are more beautiful because they're less hairy. We usually find furry animals to be prettier. Many of the females are smaller and less attention-getting as a survival adaptation. The males are generally more expendable from a reproductive POV and much of the natural selection of genes takes place on the male side, i.e. nearly all females reproduce but often only a few of the most successful males do (females tend to be VERY selective). We might, however, describe the females as more "cute". Cuteness again is parallel with neotony. We are programmed to feel a need to protect and care for children, also an important survival of the species trait. Therefore, we find childlike features to be "cute", e.g. relatively large eyes compared to head-size, smooth skin, generally less dramatically developed body and facial features. All these things are cute to us. And women are more valuable from a reproduction POV so it benefits the survival of the species for them to appear more child-like (exhibit greater neotony) and trigger males to want to protect and care for them, maybe even at great risk to their own lives as it means their genes might survive.

In short, women aren't more beautiful objectively (probably, because we can't really be objective with our own species). They're more cute.

Side note: Maybe it's because I'm gay but I frequently refer to men as beautiful and I get annoyed when they won't take it as a compliment, as it's intended.

BTW, an argument could be made (and I guess I'm making it?) that we are evolving toward greater neotony across the genders. I think it's partly because sheer physical prowess just isn't nearly as important for survival of the species with the advance of modern technology. I think it's also because the survival of our species is no longer hinging on popping out babies constantly because mortality rates are so low compared to history, particularly infant mortality. We just aren't in danger of dying off from lack of numbers. Those are just a few things off the top of my head. Neotony means adults using less resources--needing less food, taking up less space, etc. We've got big machines when we need to move large things. We've got guns and locked houses to fend off predators. We don't need fur to protect ourselves from the cold. I think you can see this in the choices women are making in mates. Men don't have nearly as much of an impact on the shape of a species. They become whatever women want, both genetically and culturally. Just look at the popularity of boy bands. Just listen to the whining about where have all the "real" men gone. Sorry guys. They're not necessarily into the cave men anymore. They're selecting men who are smarter and will stick around to help raise kids over being able to wrestle a tiger. They're selecting for monogamy. Women are choosing differently and arguably for good reasons as far as natural selection goes. They're selecting men for a modern world. It's weeding out the competitive nature of men, sometimes to the point of self-sacrifice for the sake of the perpetuation of their genes, for more cooperativeness. The good news is it means more men will get to reproduce and will be less expected to put themselves in harms way for women and children (adults in general will still put children first). Over time, I expect men and women to be more and more alike, more androgynous.

It cracks me up to be writing this as a completely gay man.

Quote from: Mr.X on June 02, 2014, 03:46:56 PM
Ecologist speaking here. I studied a bit of evolution. Doesn't mean much, but here's my two cents. It's mainly down to sexual selection. I second what others have stated, and that is that when it comes to reproduction, we are much like animals. Women are the so called choosy sex. They get to pick what males breed with them. Big, bulky males means stronger offspring. Big bulky males were also the ones who would breed as they would win in a conflict. This is why men are bulkier and bigger. A woman with curves, means she has more fat on her body. Something that was rare in the old days. This enabled her to survive, and gave her a bigger chance to produce and raise viable offspring.

Also, it is speculated that beauty is translated with symmetry (look up the golden ratio). A symmetrical face is seen as more beautiful than an unsymmetrical one. And symmetry is related to high fertility and health. All good qualities to ensure offspring. Of course, this is not set in stone and there are studies that dispute this theory.

So why did not both genders become ' beautiful' and symmetrical? Simple. It is a trade off with strength. Whereas for women the extra fat was really good, helping their pregnancies, it had no added benefits for men. Only to a certain extend to live through famine. And as a lot of things in nature, you can not have both things.

It is engraved in us that big men and curvy women stand for good reproduction. That is why we idealize women with curves, and see them as the 'pretty' gender, while men are supposed to be strong. It evolved into our culture where women are supposed to be beautiful because they don't have to fight, and men are supposed to be rough 'n sturdy.

Just me hypothesizing a little. Of course, to me as a gay man, women are really not more beautiful than men.

I think you pretty much nailed it. Evolution. Men were the protectors, wariors and hunters of dangerous animals in order to provide for the tribe, community or whatever. The women were the nuturers, gatherers, caretakers and so on so didn't need all of the bulk and strength that the males needed. So the human race, in order to flourish needed female attributes that attracted the most needed the best male and female qualities in thier offspring in order to sustain itself to the point we are at today.

Quote from: Evelyn K on June 03, 2014, 02:21:37 AM
^^ But I would think much of modern society negates a lot of that. Strength and bulk isn't needed any longer, we're no longer prey. Our intelligence has superseded the survival necessity of these qualities. I'd argue that a lot of today's testosterone drive is misdirected and has manifest itself in quite a bit more inhumanly ways in modern times. Instead of running circles, spears in hand around dinosaurs, we're running circles, spears in hand at ourselves.

I definately agree Evelyn. But evolution takes time and it has only been roughly about 150 years or 2 1/2 generations or so since the male qualities haven't really been needed all that much. With grocery stores, technology, and so on the male attributes aren't really neeeded, not even for war anymore. Actually it has been a little shorter than the 2 1/2 generations, possibly even the last 50 years. Males are not as strong as they used to be. Have you ever tried lifting a broadsword from the middle ages, let alone fight with one? The armor that the knights used to wear paired with having to use a broadsword? "Underwear" made from chainmale with armor over it is extremely heavy and I seriously doubt even the strongest among the males now could even fight wearing all of that with the weapons of the time on horseback even.

Me personally I see males and females as a lot more equal in physical strength in modern times as ever before in history, yeah there is still a difference but I have seen many physically strong females. And the roles are changing even in that more males are nurturers and more females are becoming the providers. But it took many of thousands of years to get to this point. But maybe we will eventually turn out like birds in which the males are the "beauties" of the species and females are the drab ones of the species.

The perception of beauty or male handsomeness or attractiveness is constantly changing. Look at some of the paintings from the Victorian era. Or even pictures from the 1800s in the US's wild west period. Neither males or females of those times I don't find beautiful or handsome in a way that would attract me to them as male or female. I would almost bet though if we could go back in time that those people would think the same way about us. They would probably see way too skinny females and way too many weak, physically and emotionally and possibly too effiminate, males. And find both genders physically unattractive.

But in relation to FA's original question, it isn't just about beauty, male or female. It is usually about looks that first attract but you also have to add into the mix pheromones, libido and our basic sexual desires and our needs to have a mate to love and return that love to us. In other words "Chemistry" between two people is a lot stronger than physical beauty across the whole spectrum of the human race. 

Until you quoted that, I didn't realize that I had practically repeated what was already said. I expose my failure to read the whole thread before posting. Oh well. At least I feel somewhat validated.

EDIT: Now that I have read it, I realize it wasn't the exact same thing. I suppose I added a little to the conversation. haha.

Quote from: Jess42 on June 11, 2014, 08:04:49 AM
I think you pretty much nailed it. Evolution. Men were the protectors, wariors and hunters of dangerous animals in order to provide for the tribe, community or whatever. The women were the nuturers, gatherers, caretakers and so on so didn't need all of the bulk and strength that the males needed. So the human race, in order to flourish needed female attributes that attracted the most needed the best male and female qualities in thier offspring in order to sustain itself to the point we are at today.

I definately agree Evelyn. But evolution takes time and it has only been roughly about 150 years or 2 1/2 generations or so since the male qualities haven't really been needed all that much. With grocery stores, technology, and so on the male attributes aren't really neeeded, not even for war anymore. Actually it has been a little shorter than the 2 1/2 generations, possibly even the last 50 years. Males are not as strong as they used to be. Have you ever tried lifting a broadsword from the middle ages, let alone fight with one? The armor that the knights used to wear paired with having to use a broadsword? "Underwear" made from chainmale with armor over it is extremely heavy and I seriously doubt even the strongest among the males now could even fight wearing all of that with the weapons of the time on horseback even.

Me personally I see males and females as a lot more equal in physical strength in modern times as ever before in history, yeah there is still a difference but I have seen many physically strong females. And the roles are changing even in that more males are nurturers and more females are becoming the providers. But it took many of thousands of years to get to this point. But maybe we will eventually turn out like birds in which the males are the "beauties" of the species and females are the drab ones of the species.

The perception of beauty or male handsomeness or attractiveness is constantly changing. Look at some of the paintings from the Victorian era. Or even pictures from the 1800s in the US's wild west period. Neither males or females of those times I don't find beautiful or handsome in a way that would attract me to them as male or female. I would almost bet though if we could go back in time that those people would think the same way about us. They would probably see way too skinny females and way too many weak, physically and emotionally and possibly too effiminate, males. And find both genders physically unattractive.

But in relation to FA's original question, it isn't just about beauty, male or female. It is usually about looks that first attract but you also have to add into the mix pheromones, libido and our basic sexual desires and our needs to have a mate to love and return that love to us. In other words "Chemistry" between two people is a lot stronger than physical beauty across the whole spectrum of the human race.

I like your angle about cultural perceptions being in a constant state of flux.

Quote from: dalebert on June 11, 2014, 08:25:39 AM
.

EDIT: Now that I have read it, I realize it wasn't the exact same thing. I suppose I added a little to the conversation. haha.

Of course.  It is interesting to ponder how we'll change. I suspect you're right, that such strong sex differentiation doesn't serve as much a purpose anymore. And will gradually become less.   

Quote from: Jill F on June 11, 2014, 08:51:34 AM
I like your angle about cultural perceptions being in a constant state of flux.

Thanks Jill, sometimes I do have brain farts. But yeah I just had to mention about how our ideals of beauty changes over time. Fat used to be attractive as an indicator of wealth for both males and females. Skinny, not skin and bones but low levels of body fat, used to be a sign of poverty and or sickness. In modern times though we have done a seemingly 180 on that.

But yeah, constant and fast. Even in my lifetime the perceptions of beauty or attractiveness has changed. Remember the eighties and the clothes and hair? Young one's nowdays laugh at us like we laughed at the generation before us that wore funny hairstyles and clothes. I mean it is small and minute and physical differences apparent but it is an example of perceptions.

Quote from: CandiceSkirvin on June 11, 2014, 09:45:44 AM
We women are 'something to look at' because of the culture we live in. Our culture, and I'm obviously speaking from a strictly American perspective though I believe the same thing applies to many other cultures throughout the world, was born from women and men holding certain positions in life. Women were the homemakers, and men brought home the bread. Women were dressed in gowns and petticoats that greatly exaggerated our womanly curves, and men liked to look. Basically, it was our job as women to take care of the kids and be servile to our men. We were their prizes or trophies. But we liked it. Back in the 'good ol' days' of frontier expansion and chaos we women liked the protection offered by our men and were more than willing to put on clothing that made our hips look like we could pop out 3 or 4 babies at once. We were told that to survive we needed men (their strength) to protect us. We were told the way to get the men was to look pretty, busty, and hippy. And that's what we did.

Fast forward to the modern era and things have changed a bit. The times of frontier expansion and chaos are long gone and things have calmed down to the point that we don't feel the need to be protected by the men. We generally don't feel the need to make our boobs or hips look huge (though many women still feel this need), and we believe we are now equal to these men who just a couple of centuries were key to our survival, and the survival of our newborn culture. In this modern era many women are desperately seeking escape from the ideals of the past. But these ideals are so deeply engrained in our culture it will be a difficult to change them. We are mostly still seen by men (and many women) as the weaker, more submissive sex...the beautiful sex. And the beauty standard really hasn't changed much from the busty/hippy days. The hourglass figure is still widely sought, corsets are making a comeback, and we're getting freaking hip and butt implants. Maybe it hasn't changed at all, or maybe it's only changed for some. Either way, beauty culture is here to stay, women are still firmly in the lead of the 'most beautiful sex' competition, and I believe it's inescapable.

I guess it beats the crap out of being forced to wear burqas.

Well, aesthically speaking, ithink the most beautiful people in the world are honestly beautiful transpeople, femboys, androgirls, etc. Contrast is beautiful, to me, so I see Andrej Pejic, An Oost hell even Elijah Woods asmore beautiful than any masculine men or feminine women ever could be (that's dull/uninteresting, compared).

Then sexually I find men/males attactive but I think thius thread was more about aesthetic.
.

Quote from: Abbyxo on June 14, 2014, 09:09:59 AM
Well, aesthically speaking, ithink the most beautiful people in the world are honestly beautiful transpeople, femboys, androgirls, etc. Contrast is beautiful, to me, so I see Andrej Pejic, An Oost hell even Elijah Woods asmore beautiful than any masculine men or feminine women ever could be (that's dull/uninteresting, compared).

Then sexually I find men/males attactive but I think thius thread was more about aesthetic.
.

Oh, I agree. I'm bi, but it's funny how for some reason I enjoy drawing female nudes more than male ones. Even though, in practice, I've been with a lot more men than women. Like, it's sort of this 'zen place' drawing women. The curves and everything. Fun to draw men too, just not in quite the same way.

Quote from: FA on June 14, 2014, 09:21:19 AM
Oh, I agree. I'm bi, but it's funny how for some reason I enjoy drawing female nudes more than male ones. Even though, in practice, I've been with a lot more men than women. Like, it's sort of this 'zen place' drawing women. The curves and everything. Fun to draw men too, just not in quite the same way.

It's funny because I know a lesbian...like 100% dyke...who njoys drawing male bodies. She says its becase the muscles and lines andsuch fascinate her. Beautyis completely amatter of perspective.

I just think human bodies are beautiful things in general, so gender doesn't necessarily need to play a role. I'm a very body positive person. So to me it's just about what you personally appreciate.