COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Nude Beauty: male vs. female

RoyceConnors said:
The problem with judging beauty lies in how we look at it. Is it for the sake of the beauty of form itself, or are their personal sexual preferences attached to it?

I can look at the nude male form in art and appreciate the interpretation of the artist. I can admire a man for his cock and how he uses it, without feeling any attachment to it in any way sexually. Homophobia makes it very hard for men to appreciate another man's body, for all the known reasons, while women tend to do the opposite and are constantly looking and judging other women's bodies.

It boils down to what elements are present in a person's mind when they are looking at someone. Subjective or objective, the same person can look differently to others be cause of it.

No matter what, it's still a personal taste that ultimately decides on the person's beauty or not.
Click to expand...

Well said, especially that Homophobia part.

tolyk said:
Ewww.
Click to expand...

I was more like....

baby-face-ew.jpg
 
I would say that part of it is that "beauty" often implies a certain type of aestitic appeal involving gracefulness, delicateness, etc. So, in that sence, the female body is more beautiful in form than the male body. It doesn't mean, however, that the male body doesn't have it's own type of aestetic appeal or even that it's entirely without beauty.

Compare, for example, a "pretty boy" guy with a more buff one. They might both be aestetically pleasing, but we'd usually pick words other than beautiful for the latter to convey that. For a more extreme example, if you were descussing the aestetic qualities of a male peacock and male lion, even though both have a somewhat hindering display, I'd bet you'd see a similar pattern.
 
If a male sees a hot young cunt parading in front of him, he might well just think beautiful, with no other concern.
Now, I eschew violence, to the extent practical. However, "If you lookin' for trouble, you came to the right place. If you lookin' for trouble, look right in my face." Some girls like the kind of warrior look that I present. Most boys don't and none of the wimp boys do, because of the possibility of violence.
"If you're hunting tigers in rabbit country, you can ignore the rabbits. The reverse is not true."
I have never been called beautiful, but, "Hiya Big Boy" gets me most ever' time!

"Compare, for example, a "pretty boy" guy with a more buff one. They might both be aesthetically pleasing, but we'd usually pick words other than beautiful for the latter to convey that."
Yes. Bad motherfucker is often used.
 
I guess some folks just can't be objective and acknowledge that theirs isn't the only opinion in the room--nor need it be. That subjects like this don't have the pat answers many here are trying to give them.
 
Yet even so, sr1plt, surely there MUST be a common definition for the word itself, rather than just the fact that each person's perspective can be different?

If it is the case that straight males ARE saying 'beauty' has a feminine-gendered word+idea quality, but gay males are saying that attractive males comply with the definition of 'beauty' albeit not necessarily as a feminine gendered word+idea - just what is that definition?

I totally agree with you that there isn't a pat answer to this.

I think there IS a common definition; I'm not sure exactly what it is. So far a lot of the discussion is going down the fatally flawed, disputatious road about people's perspectives or points-of-view.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can come up with some ideas about commonality of precise definition and advance the argument along those lines.

People have different standpoints - that's a given. But everyone wants to appropriate the word itself for the same end purpose. How can there be no set common definition somewhere along the line? If there wasn't people would be talking, and appearing to communicate, whereas they would be all talking effectively, nonsense to each other.

Surely?
 
Desiremakesmeweak said:
...surely there MUST be a common definition for the word itself, rather than just the fact that each person's perspective can be different?
Click to expand...
BEAUTY: eye of beholder. No, there is no common definition, same as UGLY and SACRED and PROFANE and all sorts of weighted abstractions. BEAUTY is what we say it is at any point in spacetime. Many people, places and things are distinctly beautiful (or ugly or sacred or profane or whatever) with nothing in common but their appeal to somebody's senses and imagination.

Maybe that's the common definition: something seems to possess any quality IFF it triggers an audience's senses and imagination to that quality. The quality actually resides in the audience, not in the object assayed. The beauty or ugliness or whatever within you is only apparent if my eyes are open to it. My mindset of 'beauty' is superimposed on what I sense. If I've seen or heard (like XMas carols) something often enough, I may grow sick and tired of it, no matter how 'beautiful' others may consider it -- it's lost its beauty to me.
 
I've been considering this issue from the viewpoint of a young male who is tasked with servicing the staff of a Harem. Not all of the slave girls are beauties and he finds that..
1. Girls are more beautiful naked and quivering.
2. Most women can be beautiful if you concentrate on their good points. ( Although some have rather furry good points!)
3. If you bend them over it's easy to find their best profile !

:)
 
I must say I really find myself liking this: "something seems to possess any quality IFF(sic) it triggers an audience's senses and imagination to that quality."

...External triggers to internal, or neural network and biochemical patterns. Can't personally argue with that.
 
Desiremakesmeweak said:
I must say I really find myself liking this: "something seems to possess any quality IFF(sic) it triggers an audience's senses and imagination to that quality."
Click to expand...

FYI: IFF is a technical relic of my codemonkey past. It's a logical condition, translated as IF AND ONLY IF. I like to throw that out every now and then.
 
Desiremakesmeweak said:
Yet even so, sr1plt, surely there MUST be a common definition for the word itself, rather than just the fact that each person's perspective can be different?
Click to expand...

No, I don't see why there MUST be any such thing. What I see is folks plugging their personal perspectives as universal truths. I don't buy it.
 
sr71plt said:
It's just my opinion, of course, but I think you'd find far more men in gyms across the world in search of a classical sculpted body than you will women.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you came around, SR7! ;)
 
Hypoxia said:
FYI: IFF is a technical relic of my codemonkey past. It's a logical condition, translated as IF AND ONLY IF. I like to throw that out every now and then.
Click to expand...

For a brief, happy, moment there, I thought you referred to "Indicator, Friend or Foe" or IFF, better known these days a s "Squawk".
I really must look up the definition you give.
 
Pilot, I'm sure language is meant to be based on implied shared or at least agreed meanings of the words in common usage.

However no doubt there ARE words and concepts whose assumed shared meanings and definitions are not clearcut.

This is of course, not a new argument: Homer - 'the face that launched a thousand ships.' And that was his description of THE face!

Or, Ludwig Wittgenstein - the Philosophy of Language.

'Personal perspectives as Universal truths...?' Yeah I think I am trying to get away from looking for some 'Universal truth' about beauty, but I don't see how one can get around everyone using the word but none of them having ANY overlapping meanings...

Six blind men of Hindustan? Is that what 'beauty' the word, actually is about - something few grasp the whole of for personal focus on particular elements?

Hmn... In that sense, I think maybe you might be spot on.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Desire, there cannot be shared meanings of the word because it is in all our psyches. My sister's beautiful new baby is regarded as a pug-nosed urchin by my OH.

The word is amorphous as we each define it separately. Body ideals don't equal beauty.

Beautiful people just means A-listers snapped by the paparazzi. Beauty parlor, beauty treatment (beatification?) means what?

Body ideals don't equal 'body sculptured males' for most women.

Keep beautiful for a personal view and try; sexy, attractive, pretty, handsome, lovely, adorable.

There is only a personal view of beauty. Hypoxia sort of nailed it.
 
Look guys... It's not that I don't get what you (some of you, anyway) are saying. It's just that I had thought this discussion was over around 320 BC, when Socrates (the Plato 'Socrates' not the actual physical one) had it out with some of the best minds of the day on the same subject.

So let me pose this question:

if - as has been suggested by a few - there is no general, common, and 'real' definition, what would be the problem with this statement: -

"Terrorists, are beautiful."
 
Desiremakesmeweak said:
if - as has been suggested by a few - there is no general, common, and 'real' definition, what would be the problem with this statement: -

"Terrorists, are beautiful."
Click to expand...

To like-minded terrorists they very well could be beautiful.

You . . . just . . . don't get it. You don't seem able to project beyond yourself.
 
We can say then, that there is a generalization of what most feel is beautiful and there is also a specific context of beauty on a personal level.

Where a majority may describe someone as beautiful, or they have a beautiful body, individuals will look upon them with a personalization of taste and lessen that beauty to suit themselves and their tastes.
 
Which is the point. The "rule" isn't universal. And unless it can be matched with reliable statistics, it isn't even a rule. And some people just can't see anything beyond themselves and their own perspectives.
 
Challenge: Write a story of an alternate world where beauty IS measurable and quantifiable, where absolute standards DO exist. What sorts of societies would result, and how do they get there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Female writers - thoughts on male writers writing a female dominant charater?
2
Replies
46
Views
819
EmilyMiller
EmilyMiller
8letters
8L Stats - Do openly Female authors get higher ratings than openly Male authors?
Replies
23
Views
855
alohadave
alohadave
A
Authors- how do you deal with objectification?
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
3K
LonRivers
LonRivers
AG31
BDSM vs NC/R
Replies
14
Views
343
RainyDayPen
R
Trionyx
Less than perfect characters
2
Replies
38
Views
806
Bramblethorn
Bramblethorn
Back
Top