Nude Beauty: male vs. female

[CharleyH]

I don't mean to pick out anyone here. I think all people are beautiful in their own right, but a specific thread on Lit did get me thinking of something and I turned to hubby and said, "the female body is truly more beautiful than the male body". This turned into a discussion on how predominantly featured the male body was in classical art, because a perfect well toned male body does have a lot of dynamism and brings a lot of strength and light/shadow contrast to a composition - more so than the female body.

But perhaps the difference is that when you compare the real-life bodies of real-life people to those classical art (not contemporary fashion) ideal models, real-life women rarely fall all that short from the fantasy, whereas real-life men, with their flabby stomachs and poorly defined muscles, can look like they don't even belong to the same species as their ideal counterparts.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this at the moment, but what are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[GoldenCojones]

Uh oh

I got into a spat for my opinion on reality, but hey, I'll bite on this (I'll just try to be a little more toned down)

I have only ever seen one woman that I had to say was Ugly. She was ugly from head to toe and inside and out. Truly miserable, with a sickening personality as well as physically unattractive. I've seen more men that fit that description.

I, as a man, find women far more attractive as well as erotically stimulating. I don't see men like that at all. The soft round lines of women define beauty to me.

 

[sr71plt]

But perhaps the difference is that when you compare the real-life bodies of real-life people to those classical art (not contemporary fashion) ideal models, real-life women rarely fall all that short from the fantasy, whereas real-life men, with their flabby stomachs and poorly defined muscles, can look like they don't even belong to the same species as their ideal counterparts.

What makes you think there are more men in real life with flabby bodies than there are women with flabby bodies? That's really sort of a weird assertion.

 

[CharleyH]

What makes you think there are more men in real life with flabby bodies than there are women with flabby bodies? That's really sort of a weird assertion.

Re-read, sr7. You've missed the mark.

 

[jomar]

I think it boils down to women not being too giddy about our floppy bits when not in the mood and that dudes will froth at pretty much any naked woman.

 

[sr71plt]

Re-read, sr7. You've missed the mark.

I don't think so. I think you've made an unknowable assertion and your whole discussion is based on that false premise.

 

[GoldenCojones]

I think it boils down to women not being too giddy about our floppy bits when not in the mood and that dudes will froth at pretty much any naked woman.

I don't think I actually froth, but I do like looking at pretty much any woman.

 

[CharleyH]

I don't think so. I think you've made an unknowable assertion and your whole discussion is based on that false premise.

Merry Christmas.

 

[jomar]

I don't think I actually froth, but I do like looking at pretty much any woman.

Artistic license.

Merry Christmas.

He can be pissy.

 

[sr71plt]

He can be pissy.

I suppose you don't think that's a pissy comment right there.

Maybe I can, but where am I being pissy here? I think I'm being quite restrained about some highly (and I mean highly) subjective (notice I didn't say "dumb") assertions being made here, starting with "the female body is truly more beautiful than the male body" and going on to asserting that in the world population men's bodies are more flabby than women's are. But I'll just let it pass and won't bother to read in on the thread anymore.

And a Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[PennLady]

I don't mean to pick out anyone here. I think all people are beautiful in their own right, but a specific thread on Lit did get me thinking of something and I turned to hubby and said, "the female body is truly more beautiful than the male body". This turned into a discussion on how predominantly featured the male body was in classical art, because a perfect well toned male body does have a lot of dynamism and brings a lot of strength and light/shadow contrast to a composition - more so than the female body.

This seems to contradict your statement. If the female body is/was so beautiful, why was the male form predominant?

But perhaps the difference is that when you compare the real-life bodies of real-life people to those classical art (not contemporary fashion) ideal models, real-life women rarely fall all that short from the fantasy, whereas real-life men, with their flabby stomachs and poorly defined muscles, can look like they don't even belong to the same species as their ideal counterparts.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this at the moment, but what are your thoughts on the subject?

I think I have to disagree. For one thing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. For every person you think isn't far from the classical ideal, someone else will feel they're worlds apart. Just because a lot of people -- women in this case, apparently -- are overweight doesn't mean they're Reubenesque (sp? reference properly?) in their figures.

If the female figure appeals to you, then great. But I think your generalizations, while good for starting a conversation, aren't sustainable.

 

[sr71plt]

So, I'm waiting for CharleyH and Jomar to call PennLady pissy for challenging the exact same highly subjective assertions I questioned.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I maintain that it's because of the way the media saturates us with pictures of hot ladies.

I mean, they sell everything from pepsi to iphones to fucking drain cleaner with sex appeal. And it's almost NEVER male sex appeal.

I had to fucking HUNT for those pictures on the other thread. I can't avoid pictures of naked or half-naked or sexually appealing women. I see them when I drive to work.

After seeing that all your life, you see it as the norm. Where most of the men you see... They're men. Real men out on the street. Shlubs and dads and grandpas and little kids. Even in our tv shows and movies and video games, men have variety. They can be ugly, shlubby, sloppy, ill-dressed, and a whole mess of things that women usually aren't.

What you see on a screen really effects how you see the world. And when life imitates art, women generally put more effort into their appearances every morning. Because of how women's clothes are, a lot of women simply have to put more effort into their clothes and appearance just for work, etc.

Male bodies are fucking gorgeous. And if we put as many naked lithe young men on billboards as we did for the ladies, maybe we wouldn't be asking this question.

 

[stickygirl]

Surely no one thinks if they buy product A they will end up having sex with the model used to advertise it? Our brains associate the happy-horny feeling with the product and so we buy it, thinking it will fill our lives with happiness.
Older women are used to conjure a sense of mummy-comfort; older men are protector-father figures. Younger men ( usually with beards ) are increasingly being used as tokens of something, though I'm not sure what.

 

[jomar]

I suppose you don't think that's a pissy comment right there.

Maybe I can, but where am I being pissy here? I think I'm being quite restrained about some highly (and I mean highly) subjective (notice I didn't say "dumb") assertions being made here, starting with "the female body is truly more beautiful than the male body" and going on to asserting that in the world population men's bodies are more flabby than women's are. But I'll just let it pass and won't bother to read in on the thread anymore.

And a Merry Christmas to you too.

Ya know, on re-read I apologize publicly. It hit me wrong on first read but is actually quite restrained, as you say. Keep it up!

 

[Handley_Page]

I maintain that it's because of the way the media saturates us with pictures of hot ladies.

I mean, they sell everything from pepsi to iphones to fucking drain cleaner with sex appeal. And it's almost NEVER male sex appeal.

. . .

I've noticed more recently that "dinner parties" or some other social gatherings are almost exclusively populate by 30-somethings is some fashionable dress. Even the traditional cold remedy adverts feature a lady who looks real good after her head is clear and the lights are on properly.

This is not the time for Elsie & Doris chatting over the garden fence !

Surely no one thinks if they buy product A they will end up having sex with the model used to advertise it? Our brains associate the happy-horny feeling with the product and so we buy it, thinking it will fill our lives with happiness.
Older women are used to conjure a sense of mummy-comfort; older men are protector-father figures.
Younger men ( usually with beards ) are increasingly being used as tokens of something, though I'm not sure what.

That's puzzled me, too.

 

[49greg]

I'm going to weigh in on the side that thinks women are better to look at than men. Women are just better looking, overweight with sagging belly and wallet tits, they can still be erotic, but men just aren't.

For me a woman is a work of art, men are functional. Think of it like looking at a '67 E-type Jag parked next to a pickup truck. My eyes go to the Jag even though I own a pickup and have had one or another since the seventies. (And yes I've had a couple of sports cars too.)

There's nothing wrong with enjoying the look of a guy, but for me, I'll always take that extra glance at the female of the species.

 

[legerdemer]

I'm going to weigh in on the side that thinks women are better to look at than men. Women are just better looking, overweight with sagging belly and wallet tits, they can still be erotic,

>Good to know...

For me a woman is a work of art, men are functional. Think of it like looking at a '67 E-type Jag parked next to a pickup truck. My eyes go to the Jag even though I own a pickup and have had one or another since the seventies. (And yes I've had a couple of sports cars too.)

There's nothing wrong with enjoying the look of a guy, but for me, I'll always take that extra glance at the female of the species.

I'm very much an equal opportunity appreciator of beauty. And beauty is affected by so many things other than the mere physical manifestation of some societal norm, whatever it might be. Character coming through trumps a vapid face and beautiful body most every time.

 

[SandraMustard]

I don't think I actually froth, but I do like looking at pretty much any woman.

I've seen men froth over pretty women. The pressure builds until the regulator let's off some semen.

 

[Edward Teach]

Merry Christmas.

 

[RoyceConnors]

Everyone is beautiful to someone, so who's to judge who they find beautiful. What does it for me, doesn't do it for you, but that doesn't lessen her beauty to me over someone else.
The representations of what is beautiful in the human body has changed and will continue to change as we evolve ourselves. Today she's the most gorgeous woman, in a decade or two, she's 'fugly', so what then is a lasting beauty in males and females?

 

[GoldenCojones]

Love your bike Royce!

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I don't mean to pick out anyone here. I think all people are beautiful in their own right, but a specific thread on Lit did get me thinking of something and I turned to hubby and said, "the female body is truly more beautiful than the male body". This turned into a discussion on how predominantly featured the male body was in classical art, because a perfect well toned male body does have a lot of dynamism and brings a lot of strength and light/shadow contrast to a composition - more so than the female body.

But perhaps the difference is that when you compare the real-life bodies of real-life people to those classical art (not contemporary fashion) ideal models, real-life women rarely fall all that short from the fantasy, whereas real-life men, with their flabby stomachs and poorly defined muscles, can look like they don't even belong to the same species as their ideal counterparts.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this at the moment, but what are your thoughts on the subject?

A) I think women are encouraged to work harder on their appearances - and I'm thinking specifically about things like wearing make-up, bras, girdles, pants with magical slimming waistlines, nylons/pantyhose, etc. So, are these generic real life women that much more attractive or merely taking advantage of more enhancements?

B) Women portrayed in most classical artwork would be considered fat by most people.

 

[Handley_Page]

A) I think women are encouraged to work harder on their appearances - and I'm thinking specifically about things like wearing make-up, bras, girdles, pants with magical slimming waistlines, nylons/pantyhose, etc. So, are these generic real life women that much more attractive or merely taking advantage of more enhancements?

B) Women portrayed in most classical artwork would be considered fat by most people.

As an aside, I think the statue of David as being brilliant.
But is it my imagination that his todger is a trifle "modest", by comparison to today's men ?

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

If scientists and other objective observers thought there was a discrepancy between the common ideoms of beauty, and the scientific reality of it, no doubt they would rapidly burst through all the advertising agency doors to explain that the overbalancing of female depictions in the advetising and marketing world was in error.

However you can't put money on the proposition that men are 'as beautiful as' or 'beautiful' at all - compared with women.

Logically the conclusion would appear to be therefore that men are NOT as beautiful, generally, as women, generally... But the actual resolution may be that there is a social norm to do with preference for a soft propaganda, or a feminine propaganda of persuasion, and a hard propaganda of convincing...

One possible explanation might be that the word 'beautiful' itself, in the way the word is being used here, relates to the external parameters of beauty observable to the ordinary senses.

'Attractive' however, is another word, which although not the same as 'beauty,' resembles the idea of something that evokes a certain positive response to some object; but the type of visceral response or emotional response is qualitatively different from the response that might be occasioned by looking at someone 'beautiful' to the external senses.

There is also a blending that goes on, with what the inner vision sees, and what the outer senses apprehend - in the way one can judge a particular person. And there are several colourations of beauty too; soft beauty, aggressive beauty, austere beauty.

This question is very complex.

But I would lean toward the idea than males generally have an aggressive template of beauty - and this is different by category to the type of beauty seen in the female as the main outward characteristic.

The only way to look at it with the chance of an obvious 'answer' or conclusion, is to take the matter like any consumed thing: crab is not lobster is not caviar is not ice cream is not T-bone steak is not olives, cashew nuts, macadamias, avocado, or chinese cabbage.