The Human Form: His and Hers

[happyninja42]

Sorry, but as a straight male, of the 2 images given, I still say Chris is the better looking of the two. While if asked which I would rather have sex with, it would still be the woman, but she's a little too over exaggerated for my tastes. On the question of simple aesthetic appeal, Chris wins hands down. I still wouldn't have sex with him though. xD

 

[Dizchu]

I find "masculine" facial features 100% unattractive. Possibly influenced by a sense of disgust at my own body (being a male-born transgender individual). I find "feminine" faces, even on men, to be much more attractive. When it comes to the rest of the body, I'm less picky. I love excessively voluptuous bodies, petite and delicate bodies, muscular and toned bodies, chubby bodies... and of all skin colours too.

So you're probably thinking "what does this have to do with the discussion"?

These are my own preferences and I acknowledge this. Some people like hairy guys with jaws that look like anchors and that is fine. You can't say one kind of person is absolutely and objectively more attractive than another, that's ridiculous.

What you are doing is perpetuating male gaze and heteronormativity. I know they're feminist buzzwords (gasp) but really, that's what's going on. Somehow men that are considered attractive are "inferior" to women that are considered attractive, just because of what you think.

And that's not to say that you don't have a point in some way, maybe physical attractiveness in women is considered more beneficial than physical attractiveness in men? But you can't claim one is better than the other in an objective way just because of your preferences.

Also the woman you posted a photo of is okay. Big boobs are nice but there's nothing about her appearance that really excites me. Judging solely on her appearance, I'd hardly be able call her "irreplaceable". But that's like, my opinion right? If you think she's hot, that's great. But realise that opinions differ.

 

[Padwolf]

I'm sorry but blonde and huge (most likely fake) big titties? You can find those anywhere! And... as everyone else has said, all this is proving is that you are straight.

And as a straight female, damn that picture of Thor is great. There are great looking males everywhere. Here for example:

Spoiler: Mr Tom Felton with a gorgeous smile

Are we here to post pictures of people we find attractive? No?

 

[KissingSunlight]

snip

I completely agree. All you have to do is go to a magazine rack at a store. Pick up 2 magazines created for men (Playboy and Maxim) and grab 2 magazine created for women (Cosmo. and Vogue). What do all the covers have in common? There is a beautiful woman posing on it. Sure, heterosexual women are attracted to men. That doesn't get their attention enough to look at a magazine cover and buy it like a woman on a cover does. If it did, there would be more beefcake pictures on the magazines created for women.

Captcha: Glazed Donut Hmmmmm...Donuts!

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Females have more stamina, endurance, and a higher pain threshold than men do, as part of child rearing.

I know, last time I saw a guy give birth he cried for ages. Unless you actually do mean rearing rather than giving birth, then I don't see what those things have to do with it.

Taking one small thing out of context runs the issue of the lack of context leading to massive confusion. Though I can see how the sentence is rather confusing even as part of a larger hole.

The giving birth part is of course something only biological females can do. But what I meant was the natural role differences between men and women in general, which you'd understand if you read the all of what I wrote, in spite of my badly organized thoughts.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Can we all agree to ban evo-psych from threads about gender? It's almost always baseless speculation and contributes nothing, because any Tom, Dick or Harry can make shit up to conform to their view if the world.

Yes. PLEASE. Just because you can concoct a narrative of how evolution could have yielded the result you believe, doesn't actually make that view true.

Also, history tends to disagree with most of the people citing evo-psych. The female body being viewed as the most attractive is a very new thing. For the longest time in art history, at least back to the greeks, the male form was considered the most beautiful. This went all the way up to the renaissance, I believe?

But yeah, whoever is deemed the most attractive is very much based on the current whims of society. On top of that, you're probably also biased by who you particularly find most attractive. My girlfriend considers the male form a lot better looking than the female one, and thinks that breasts look like the weirdest, most awkward things. There really isn't any good reason to say one over the other, if anything the male form wins just by the amount of time it was favored

 

[mecegirl]

Or, you know, they could have every single detail of how their pants, shoes, shirts and ties are supposed to look described to them just like the girls do(really, not even a reminder to tuck their shirts in properly). Because there actually is a right and wrong way to wear men's clothing(even for small things like which side the belt buckle is supposed to be on). And there are types of clothing that are appropriate for some venues but not for others. Its just that people rarely expect men to know such things. Its just show up in dress pants and a shirt!

Tell me, where in that little pic you posted above stated that the girls couldn't wear the same pants, shoes, shirts, ties and occasional jackets that the guys could wear? Because, it seems the girls could choose to wear them, AND the skirts/dresses, heels, etc.

If it seems the girls dress code is more strict, it's because they have so much MORE variety to choose from.

Where did you see that it said that they could? I see nothing of the sort. It says that they are to wear dresses or a shirt and a skirt. But if it were something so simple as girls having more to choose from then there would have just be a longer list of items, not detailed directions, and certainly no expectation to choose an outfit that is "pretty enough to show that you are a women and covered enough to show that you are a lady." All the measurements and modesty bullshit isn't necessary. Dress, or blouse and skirt, and dress shoes is all it would take.

Actually - the women DO have a much larger variety of clothing available. They have a range of lengths and styles for their skirts and shirts (With strong suggestions on what to wear). The men have an absolute dress code, hidden in the wording.

Women can wear skirts of almost any length as long as they meet the minimum - Men have to wear pants that cover the entire leg, varying only by a few centimeters around the ankle. Women can wear sleeves of any length as long as the shoulders are covered. For guys, it's mandatory to be covered out to the base of the palm. Women have variety in the neckline, as long as it doesn't overly emphasize the breasts - men have to wear a collared shirt and tie. Women also have a wider variety of shirts to choose from, and can wear sweaters. A guy can only choose the color of his shirt (if that).

I never even said that women didn't have a wider range of clothing.....

I'm a woman. You think I don't know the range of clothing that women have? That however has nothing to do with why that dress code was written the way it was. Like I said, if they wanted to narrow things down then a simple list would have sufficed. Don't want them to wear short sleeves? Then just list no short sleeves. No need to go on and on about modesty and being a lady. It would be all too easy to put in a "be classy" for the girls dress code just like they did for the boys. You think those girls would be stupid enough to think that they should come to an award ceremony for their achievements in education in a damn mini skirt anyway?

 

[EternallyBored]

Can we all agree to ban evo-psych from threads about gender? It's almost always baseless speculation and contributes nothing, because any Tom, Dick or Harry can make shit up to conform to their view if the world.

Yes. PLEASE. Just because you can concoct a narrative of how evolution could have yielded the result you believe, doesn't actually make that view true.

Also, history tends to disagree with most of the people citing evo-psych. The female body being viewed as the most attractive is a very new thing. For the longest time in art history, at least back to the greeks, the male form was considered the most beautiful. This went all the way up to the renaissance, I believe?

But yeah, whoever is deemed the most attractive is very much based on the current whims of society. On top of that, you're probably also biased by who you particularly find most attractive. My girlfriend considers the male form a lot better looking than the female one, and thinks that breasts look like the weirdest, most awkward things. There really isn't any good reason to say one over the other, if anything the male form wins just by the amount of time it was favored

I'll third this, evopsych is an interesting field, but a lot like sociology and psychology, the internet abuses the hell out of the concept.

Throw some sort of pseudo-scientific sounding words around and link it vaguely to something about traditional roles in hunter-gatherer societies, and voila, you can make any sort of behavior or tradition look like some kind of hard-coded biological imperative, so how dare we try to talk about changing it because it can never be changed or challenged.

The amount of times I've seen completely contradictory stances justified as "part of our evolutionary biology" is just groan worthy.

 

[flying_whimsy]

That's a lot of mumbo jumbo about evolutionary stuff, which I'll just leave to side along with those massive fake breasts in the OP. You all should just be glad there aren't any people in this thread that specialized in aesthetics as a philosophical topic.

Spoiler: I kind of rambled and a little TMI.

Anyway, I'm a straight male, but I can usually appreciate the male form to a certain degree (I think women have the prettiest form by far but hey, I was programmed that way by my hormones). For the record, I think Hugh Jackman is the sexiest man on the planet. I find it interesting when you go back and look at the first actor to play james bond: a surprisingly undefined Sean Connery that wouldn't even be allowed to take his shirt off in a modern bond flick. Then you go back to the greeks and you get back to that ripped look. Although they always seemed to do sculptures where the males were, um, limp? Fortunate for us otherwise I suspect a lot more statues wouldn't have survived intact.

This brings me to the thing that bugs me about the male form (as others have mentioned): the genitalia. From a sexual standpoint and part of that male prowess thing I can understand the appeal when a man is, err, turned on (oh god this is barely going to be pg13). But otherwise it's just a veiny rod that doesn't follow any of the rest of the lines of the male form when erect and just a shriveled pickle the rest of the time. And that's before we even start talking about the balls... To be fair I'm actually grossed out by both genders' genitalia (and before you start with the smart remarks I'm a grown adult that has had sex), but the male one I actually find ugly from a purely aesthetic point of view.

Uh, so yeah. I get the male form from an aesthetic standpoint as far as the body goes (I always thought that muscular v line the torso gets is pretty cool), but the bait and tackle just ruin it for me. It's like taking a perfect sphere made of glass the sticking some mud on one side: it wrecks the view. This is why I typically prefer erotica over full hardcore pornography.

To put some contrast here, I like the female form for the soft curves and flowing lines, even on muscular women. I always liked the inferred texture differences between men and women: an idealized man is flat and firm, while an ideal woman is curvy and soft. It makes for fascinating art because there's a built in contrast whenever you put idealized forms of the genders side by side.

This is the most I've ever talked about naughty bits with a straight face. Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll go find some sex euphemisms and snicker about it all.

 

[Ieyke]

I GENUINELY can't believe someone would ever make this as a serious thread.
This is complete silliness.

Also the idea that generic Miss. Giantfaketits up there is somehow noteworthy in her attractiveness is laughable in the extreme.

I feel like you're all being trolled.

 

[EternallyBored]

I GENUINELY can't believe someone would ever make this as a serious thread.
This is complete silliness.

Also the idea that generic Miss. Giantfaketits up there is somehow noteworthy in her attractiveness is laughable in the extreme.

I feel like you're all being trolled.

Eh, this is pretty consistent with the kind of thing Paragon has posted in the past, if I remember right, Paragon is a big fan of anime and likes drawing anime babes with humongous boobs, he's even posted in the past defending his great love of big boobied anime babes. If anything, I would suppose this is just proof that Paragon's love of giant mammary attractions extends beyond just the cartoon variety; I would agree with you though that overly large breasts like those in the OP are not something I really find attractive, much less "irreplaceable".

The rest of the sentiment seems consistent with what I remember of Paragon's posting history, unless I'm getting him confused with another poster. Paragon has created threads in the past defending his great love of heaving bosoms and drawing generously endowed women, this seems to just be an extension of things he's previously said. I will admit that I've never seen him go as far as to imply that women are inherently more attractive than men, as if it is an innate trait of humanity as a whole, but I doubt he is trolling with his opinion. Although he has yet to return to the thread to elaborate on his opinion, the rather negative reaction from almost everyone may have chased him away.

Basically, what I'm saying, is that Paragon Fury is a man that strikes me as liking big breasts a lot, like, a whole lot, like really really totally a lot. Not that I can blame him, breasts are great, but I think this may be a case of what works in anime doesn't necessarily work nearly as well in real life.

 

[Ieyke]

Basically, what I'm saying, is that Paragon Fury is a man that strikes me as liking big breasts a lot, like, a whole lot, like really really totally a lot. Not that I can blame him, breasts are great, but I think this may be a case of what works in anime doesn't necessarily work nearly as well in real life.

And that's fine. But THAT example? It's almost comedically bad.
Like, far from irreplaceable, you could replace her without effort and net multiple tiers of staggering improvement.

Hell, I don't even know what to do with the irony that in THAT picture she's actually VERY masculine looking with comical tits tacked on.
(She doesn't normally look that bad. It's like he purposefully chose the absolute worst picture of her.)

And the entire premise of women being inherently more attractive than men is something you'd have to assume came from a 12 year-old without any self-awareness or perspective on....anything.

 

[Amaror]

Actually I think it generally comes down to women being able to tell what's attractive to men and appreciate feminine beauty as well. Men aren't really wired in a way to find their own gender attractive unless they happen to be gay, so as a result you wind up with the timeless stereotype of guys asking girls what women find attractive and getting coy answers.

I have to disagree here somewhat.
I think this is something that's different for every individual. I am straight and i can still see when a guy is attractive and why. I am not turned on by them or want to have sex with them, but i can see why a woman would want to.
I generally think that sexuality isn't as binary as it's often made out to by, but it's more a range between different sexualities were few are really 100% in just one camp.
Basically you can be 100% heterosexual and find nothing at all about your own gender attractive, or you can be 100% homosexual and find nothing at all about the other gender attractive. Or you can be anywhere in between which i think is the case for most people.
I think you are for example perfectly capable of telling wether Chris Hemsworth or Kevin James would generally be considered more attractive by most women.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I like bodies that show a journey. Not necessarily age, but the idea of flawless skin just speaks to me of someone shielded from the world. One lover I had ... he had a gash wound in his back. Jagged. Looked like someone had poured beach over an ovoid-ish patch of flesh from where the twisted piece of metal tore across his skin. Scars are sexy.

I'm really self conscious about anything backless for the same reason due to a horrendous motorcycle accident. But, that being said ... I don't necessarily think it's ugly. I think it's more 'out of place' ... but that's what I like about them. I also have a pockmark in the back of my right upperarm from piece of buckshot from a shotgun after a misadventure in the Philippines.

It's not really that noticeable, and I didn't really know I was shot until well after the event. When I noticed my top was covered in blood. I thought it was mud to begin with, and given the local environs felt as warm as my own body core temperature, you'd be surprised how much your brain blots things like that out until you reach a point of safety. Fight/Flight/Freeze responses are the most powerful things in the world.

I like bodies that read like books. So someone like Chris? Meh ...

 

[Therumancer]

Actually I think it generally comes down to women being able to tell what's attractive to men and appreciate feminine beauty as well. Men aren't really wired in a way to find their own gender attractive unless they happen to be gay, so as a result you wind up with the timeless stereotype of guys asking girls what women find attractive and getting coy answers.

I have to disagree here somewhat.
I think this is something that's different for every individual. I am straight and i can still see when a guy is attractive and why. I am not turned on by them or want to have sex with them, but i can see why a woman would want to.
I generally think that sexuality isn't as binary as it's often made out to by, but it's more a range between different sexualities were few are really 100% in just one camp.
Basically you can be 100% heterosexual and find nothing at all about your own gender attractive, or you can be 100% homosexual and find nothing at all about the other gender attractive. Or you can be anywhere in between which i think is the case for most people.
I think you are for example perfectly capable of telling wether Chris Hemsworth or Kevin James would generally be considered more attractive by most women.

Well, yes and no. As a general rule I don't really "get" what makes Chris Hemsworth so much more attractive than a lot of other guys out there who do body building and such, nor do I get why even as an old geezer I've still heard girls in their early 20s talk about how sexy Sean Connery is. If you were to put Hemsworth next to Kevin James I'd probably guess girls would like Hemsworth better because he's in better shape, but then again consider that for about five minutes Richard Greico was considered to be god's gift to women, so well...

I'd also point out that like women being made up to look really good, the same applies to guys even if people don't give it a lot of credit. Hemsworth for example looked fairly different playing a Jock in "Cabin In The Woods" than he does playing "Thor", to the point where I know a few girls who didn't recognize or remember him being in "Cabin". Not to mention that I don't realty get what makes Hemsworth so much more attractive than say Chris Evans who plays Captain America and is also in really good shape.

My limit of really understanding what makes a guy "hot" is that dudes who work out for muscle definition and show it off rarely have trouble finding girls who think they are attractive. Of course at the same time, that doesn't have the kind of universal appeal that hot girls do, because you wind up with these little pretty boys and stuff too. I don't get where the line between a "hot body builder" and a "muscle bound monster" is or where the line between say "pretty boy" and "weird geek" is. A lot of the time I look at guys like Bieber (where they spend a lot of time hunting for kids like that) or Richard Greico, or Luke Perry, or young Leonardo Dicaprio and I don't get it. I'd also wonder why for example Hemsworth is some heartthrob, yet in his prime Hulk Hogan never seemed to be considered anything close to a sex symbol for women when the dude was just as blonde and ripped beyond belief.

I mean your right, I do "get it" sometimes, but a lot of the time I just do not. Hemsworth vs. Kevin James is obvious on a lot of levels, but by those same standards what about Brock Lesnar, I mean he did apparently marry the lady who performed as "Sable" (or so I heard) but I've never seem girls exactly swooning for brock, and I mean the dude is huge and has managed to work out an almost perfect compromise between definition and actual power, something very few people can actually do, he's as strong as he looks, which is bloody amazing (especially before he got sick).

 

[Amaror]

I have to disagree here somewhat.
I think this is something that's different for every individual. I am straight and i can still see when a guy is attractive and why. I am not turned on by them or want to have sex with them, but i can see why a woman would want to.
I generally think that sexuality isn't as binary as it's often made out to by, but it's more a range between different sexualities were few are really 100% in just one camp.
Basically you can be 100% heterosexual and find nothing at all about your own gender attractive, or you can be 100% homosexual and find nothing at all about the other gender attractive. Or you can be anywhere in between which i think is the case for most people.
I think you are for example perfectly capable of telling wether Chris Hemsworth or Kevin James would generally be considered more attractive by most women.

snip.

Yeah, that's why i mentioned such an extreme example as Chris Hemsworth and Kevin James. As i said i think sexuality is more of a scale and you would probably be more in the camp that sees very little attractive in the same gender, but even you can guess the attractiveness of such extreme examples. I personally can understand why girls find sean connery attractive, the shape and construction of his face is fairly attractive, for example.
And often attraction is also different for different people. What one girl might see as a weak, nerdy guy, another might see as a cute, shy guy. But again there are things which are generally more attractive. When it comes to the body i think the most important part is that the person itself is happy with their body, as confidence is generally a very attractive feature.

But overall attraction always lies in the eye of the beholder and while there are many features that most aggree on are attractive, it always comes down to individual taste. No gender is inherently more attractive then another, it just comes down to who's judging.

 

[lacktheknack]

But it'd be pretty hard to a find a replacement for someone like Maurie-Claude Bourbonnais -

Spoiler

https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11060881_10204113123176173_5414515699293166561_n.jpg?oh=37fedfe42b90e95bcbf525f486e12f1b&oe=55A15B9E

Yeah, I'm not buying it. That lady is so non-attractive that I actually cringed.

So yes, it's just you.

And it's just me.

And it's just anyone else who has an opinion on this topic.

Freaking individuality, how does it work.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I mean even really attractive men, like Thor - I mean Chris Hemsworth -
- while considered hot is pretty replaceable, and he is on the pretty high end there. But it'd be pretty hard to a find a replacement for someone like Maurie-Claude Bourbonnais -

Um, I find Hemsworth far more unique and attractive than Ms. Bourbonnais. She's pretty damn... generic, honestly. Hemsworth looks like an actual fucking god (pun intended).

I would propose that it is YOU who particularly finds Ms. Bourbonnais unusually attractive, not the world in general.

Also, your aside about anatomy on the outside - I happen to find that anatomy rather attractive looking, actually. And not just from a wanting-it-inside-me standpoint; it matches well with the general aesthetic of the male body.