True Male Beauty!

heatherloveslifting

All good, but mainly the bald one cuz he's the tallest and beefy-est. My higher brain might like smart, funny, nerdy types but my reptilian brain still responds to big, strong males.

Was gonna say...there is something very appealing about that guy!

CorvusCorax77

*lick*

btw, "masculinist" isn't a term. if you believe in men's equality, the term would still be "feminist" js.
watch the movie "Tough Guise". It's a feminist documentary about men in the media and ridiculous standards they have to live up to. It's amazing.

It's sexist that a male equality movement would require a feminine term like feminist.

I like masculinist, it is now a real term. Thank you OP for addressing this distressing trend.

Unfotunately, it IS a term. It has been used by groups that were anti-feminist (ie. misogynist) and so, unfortunately, has a bad connotation. From Wikipedia:

Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men; the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men;[1][2][3] or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority[4][5] to the exclusion of women.

Personally I prefer the term "anti-sexist" as it covers the bases. Though I have had feminists get mad at me for that, like i'm supposed to agree that the term "feminist" covers it all. I know it is supposed to...but I agree, why does the term have to have a root word that inherently reflects only one gender?

We refer to it as feminism because it's easy and has been around for decades, and feminism is about both men and women as it's supposed to remove the stigma and inequality of being feminine, men can also be feminine. There's a stigma against effeminate men, this extends to things like homosexuality (because liking other men is considered emasculating in society), the stigmatization of women AND men who have been sexually assaulted (because to be raped is to be emasculated in society), and the perceptions of men in general as masculine and powerful is also one that is addressed by feminism.

Feminism is about femininity, not the "female." The issue is that women have significantly more obstacles to face than men when it comes to leveling the playing field and finding equality in the world (and a safe environment) than men do at the moment, so that's the greatest focus of the movement because it is the greatest problem.

Make it okay for women to be women in today's society without being treated as objects because of their natural traits or their gender, and all of a sudden men who "display" traits of that gender, whether genuinely more feminine, or just based on stereotypes of what femininity is, will find that their situation improves as well.

MRAs, "masculinists," or whatever the hell else you want to call them, are just weird misogynists who are upset that fixing these issues require a focus on a gender that isn't their's, it's them having their egos reduced because in a life where everything is about them, there is something that isn't about them.
Look at the people who complain about being racially profiled because they're white, or who complain that homosexuals are infringing on "heterosexual rights" or other imaginary garbage.

People are intrinsically childish, they don't understand what they're really saying, they don't understand the topic whatsoever, and if they actually took a Women's Studies class they'd probably figure it out, but the name of that class isn't Men's Studies (see 20,000 BC - 2013 AD) so they're going to complain and whine about the name being Women's Studies and then go and scream about how there isn't a White History Month or something equally absurd.

I understand what your point is- dynamics of power, etc. I understand all of this. But I still think it is a limited view and misses the entirety of the problem.

For example, in court cases involving custody, there have been cases where children were placed with a mother that was less than suitable based on little more than the sexist notion that women are "more nurturing" than men. You may argue that this is about viewing men as "unfeminine" and it somehow reflects a hatred of the feminine. But to me, it's even wrong to attribute a human characteristic, like loving other humans, as a trait of only one gender.

There is also the problem that there are more genders than just "male" and "female" and feminism has a lot of history that is shameful- like working against giving votes to black men, or calling transgendered FTM's "traitors" or having a really heteronormative view of the world that doesn't include other genders and sexualities.

ETA: some places call it "gender studies" to address the problem of the entirety of societal gender concepts, and I think that's perfect. "Women's studies" is a turn off for me, because i'm not a separatist and there is no history or world in which only women are present.

crlyxx

Posts like these are very contradictory. If much of the people here were proud of their bodies, they wouldn't even be here...

brower47

We refer to it as feminism because it's easy and has been around for decades, and feminism is about both men and women as it's supposed to remove the stigma and inequality of being feminine, men can also be feminine. There's a stigma against effeminate men, this extends to things like homosexuality (because liking other men is considered emasculating in society), the stigmatization of women AND men who have been sexually assaulted (because to be raped is to be emasculated in society), and the perceptions of men in general as masculine and powerful is also one that is addressed by feminism.

Feminism is about femininity, not the "female." The issue is that women have significantly more obstacles to face than men when it comes to leveling the playing field and finding equality in the world (and a safe environment) than men do at the moment, so that's the greatest focus of the movement because it is the greatest problem.

Make it okay for women to be women in today's society without being treated as objects because of their natural traits or their gender, and all of a sudden men who "display" traits of that gender, whether genuinely more feminine, or just based on stereotypes of what femininity is, will find that their situation improves as well.

MRAs, "masculinists," or whatever the hell else you want to call them, are just weird misogynists who are upset that fixing these issues require a focus on a gender that isn't their's, it's them having their egos reduced because in a life where everything is about them, there is something that isn't about them.
Look at the people who complain about being racially profiled because they're white, or who complain that homosexuals are infringing on "heterosexual rights" or other imaginary garbage.

People are intrinsically childish, they don't understand what they're really saying, they don't understand the topic whatsoever, and if they actually took a Women's Studies class they'd probably figure it out, but the name of that class isn't Men's Studies (see 20,000 BC - 2013 AD) so they're going to complain and whine about the name being Women's Studies and then go and scream about how there isn't a White History Month or something equally absurd.

LOL. From the 'royal we' to begging the question to brushstrokes so broad that they are measured in AU . . . that was a true masterwork.

Thank you. I love it when 500 words is refuted by 20 so succinctly. The photo just made me .

ThinLizzie0802

BusyRaeNOTBusty

any.
day.
ever.

That's a movie character.

The real test is if you'd take that body if it were named Joe Blue and worked as a greeter at the local Wal-Mart.

My highschool boyfriend looked an awful lot like Jack Black. He worked at McDonalds.

delicious_cocktail

Posts like these are very contradictory. If much of the people here were proud of their bodies, they wouldn't even be here...

What do they contradict?

garber6th

And why is Jeff Goldblum getting no love? He's got that smart nerdy thing going on, plus I think his voice is very yummy. :flowerforyou:

I saw him when I went to see a play one day. He is stunning in person.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Posts like these are very contradictory. If much of the people here were proud of their bodies, they wouldn't even be here...

What do they contradict?

I see nothing contradictory. We can appreciate the appeal of personality and sense of humor even in overweight individuals and still want to be the best physical specimen we can.

michelleindeed

michelleindeed

any.
day.
ever.

That's a movie character.

The real test is if you'd take that body if it were named Joe Blue and worked as a greeter at the local Wal-Mart.

My highschool boyfriend looked an awful lot like Jack Black. He worked at McDonalds.

^^I had a crush on a dude for ages that looked (and probably still looks) like a taller version of Jack Black.

cafeaulait7

CorvusCorax77

*lick*

btw, "masculinist" isn't a term. if you believe in men's equality, the term would still be "feminist" js.
watch the movie "Tough Guise". It's a feminist documentary about men in the media and ridiculous standards they have to live up to. It's amazing.

It's sexist that a male equality movement would require a feminine term like feminist.

I like masculinist, it is now a real term. Thank you OP for addressing this distressing trend.

Unfotunately, it IS a term. It has been used by groups that were anti-feminist (ie. misogynist) and so, unfortunately, has a bad connotation. From Wikipedia:

Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men; the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men;[1][2][3] or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority[4][5] to the exclusion of women.

Personally I prefer the term "anti-sexist" as it covers the bases. Though I have had feminists get mad at me for that, like i'm supposed to agree that the term "feminist" covers it all. I know it is supposed to...but I agree, why does the term have to have a root word that inherently reflects only one gender?

We refer to it as feminism because it's easy and has been around for decades, and feminism is about both men and women as it's supposed to remove the stigma and inequality of being feminine, men can also be feminine. There's a stigma against effeminate men, this extends to things like homosexuality (because liking other men is considered emasculating in society), the stigmatization of women AND men who have been sexually assaulted (because to be raped is to be emasculated in society), and the perceptions of men in general as masculine and powerful is also one that is addressed by feminism.

Feminism is about femininity, not the "female." The issue is that women have significantly more obstacles to face than men when it comes to leveling the playing field and finding equality in the world (and a safe environment) than men do at the moment, so that's the greatest focus of the movement because it is the greatest problem.

Make it okay for women to be women in today's society without being treated as objects because of their natural traits or their gender, and all of a sudden men who "display" traits of that gender, whether genuinely more feminine, or just based on stereotypes of what femininity is, will find that their situation improves as well.

MRAs, "masculinists," or whatever the hell else you want to call them, are just weird misogynists who are upset that fixing these issues require a focus on a gender that isn't their's, it's them having their egos reduced because in a life where everything is about them, there is something that isn't about them.
Look at the people who complain about being racially profiled because they're white, or who complain that homosexuals are infringing on "heterosexual rights" or other imaginary garbage.

People are intrinsically childish, they don't understand what they're really saying, they don't understand the topic whatsoever, and if they actually took a Women's Studies class they'd probably figure it out, but the name of that class isn't Men's Studies (see 20,000 BC - 2013 AD) so they're going to complain and whine about the name being Women's Studies and then go and scream about how there isn't a White History Month or something equally absurd.

Do they offer degree program in victimology these days...just curious.

does it change your response to find out the person who wrote it is a dude?

faradaysdream

thin/not bulky men (Asian men in particular)<3<3<3

Me too

mmipanda

cute OP, but it sort of feels like you're trivialising something that does affect a lot of impressionable people for the sake of a laugh.


But then, the same company that owns Dove also owns Axe/Lynx, so the whole 'real beauty' campaign is utter bullsh|t designed to do just what you said - sell soap.

zorbaru

i think there are 3 important ones that have been missed

delicious_cocktail

I thought of George Costanza's boudoir photos for sure. He pulled it off, I thought.

Also, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be trivializing. Although I was being somewhat silly with language in the OP, I don't have any motives. This is just a fun thread.

CorvusCorax77

THE DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

happycauseIride

Blake Shelton. The face, the eyes, the hair, the voice, the body...sigh.

SteveStedge1

Real beauty has very little to do with how you look, male or female.

However, I couldn't give two hoots about the perceived inequality. The day when a man's worth is judged as much on the way he looks as a woman's is the day I will start caring.

So exactly WHO is judging a man's value NOT by his looks? That would be women...who are judging a man by his wallet size.

In response-as soon as women start judging a man not by his bank account men will judge women not by their looks.

It aint gonna happen sister.

Humans judge the opposite sex in ways they have no control over. We cannot control who we are attracted to. Women biologically need a mate who can provide for her potential offspring, so its isnt fair to condemn a female for looking for a mate with proper resources...whatever those resources may be. Just as men are looking for a mate that is fertile and can provide healthy potential offspring. Its our nature and it is nature. It is how we survived this long.

The media or others telling us we are "bad" for doing the things we are designed to do is the problem...they seek to control us.

Anyone who tells you your nature is wrong is attempting to control and deceive you.

cafeaulait7

Real beauty has very little to do with how you look, male or female.

However, I couldn't give two hoots about the perceived inequality. The day when a man's worth is judged as much on the way he looks as a woman's is the day I will start caring.

So exactly WHO is judging a man's value NOT by his looks? That would be women...who are judging a man by his wallet size.

In response-as soon as women start judging a man not by his bank account men will judge women not by their looks.

It aint gonna happen sister.

Humans judge the opposite sex in ways they have no control over. We cannot control who we are attracted to. Women biologically need a mate who can provide for her potential offspring, so its isnt fair to condemn a female for looking for a mate with proper resources...whatever those resources may be. Just as men are looking for a mate that is fertile and can provide healthy potential offspring. Its our nature and it is nature. It is how we survived this long.

The media or others telling us we are "bad" for doing the things we are designed to do is the problem...they seek to control us.

Anyone who tells you your nature is wrong is attempting to control and deceive you.

See, that theory has never made good sense to me. Men aren't required to stick around and provide for the woman and offspring, so why would we put all our eggs in that basket. There is no bonding hormone in men that makes them fall in love with their kids or anything. That occurs in females, so we know it could have been part of men's biological makeup, but it's not.

I think that women would be driven to have the fittest children, so they would choose the fittest man. Strong, healthy offspring are a better species-preservation goal than some vague notion of a provider. What hormone or physical sign flags a provider, anyway? How do you test it, biologically speaking?

It's pretty strange that in a supposedly scientific theory, you have things like child-bearing hips on one hand and the very biological 'fat wallet' on the other. It's a theory that conforms to the stereotype, imho. But so many evolutionary theories were based on such preconceived madness that we shouldn't be surprised, either, I don't think.

delicious_cocktail

See, that theory has never made good sense to me. Men aren't required to stick around and provide for the woman and offspring, so why would we put all our eggs in that basket. There is no bonding hormone in men that makes them fall in love with their kids or anything. That occurs in females, so we know it could have been part of men's biological makeup, but it's not.

I think that women would be driven to have the fittest children, so they would choose the fittest man. Strong, healthy offspring are a better species-preservation goal than some vague notion of a provider. What hormone or physical sign flags a provider, anyway? How do you test it, biologically speaking?

It's pretty strange that in a supposedly scientific theory, you have things like child-bearing hips on one hand and the very biological 'fat wallet' on the other. It's a theory that conforms to the stereotype, imho. But so many evolutionary theories were based on such preconceived madness that we shouldn't be surprised, either, I don't think.

Nicely stated.

dirty_dirty_eater

Do they offer degree program in victimology these days...just curious.

does it change your response to find out the person who wrote it is a dude?

Nope. Silly talk comes out of the mouth, not the genitalia.

SteveStedge1

Real beauty has very little to do with how you look, male or female.

However, I couldn't give two hoots about the perceived inequality. The day when a man's worth is judged as much on the way he looks as a woman's is the day I will start caring.

So exactly WHO is judging a man's value NOT by his looks? That would be women...who are judging a man by his wallet size.

In response-as soon as women start judging a man not by his bank account men will judge women not by their looks.

It aint gonna happen sister.

Humans judge the opposite sex in ways they have no control over. We cannot control who we are attracted to. Women biologically need a mate who can provide for her potential offspring, so its isnt fair to condemn a female for looking for a mate with proper resources...whatever those resources may be. Just as men are looking for a mate that is fertile and can provide healthy potential offspring. Its our nature and it is nature. It is how we survived this long.

The media or others telling us we are "bad" for doing the things we are designed to do is the problem...they seek to control us.

Anyone who tells you your nature is wrong is attempting to control and deceive you.

See, that theory has never made good sense to me. Men aren't required to stick around and provide for the woman and offspring, so why would we put all our eggs in that basket. There is no bonding hormone in men that makes them fall in love with their kids or anything. That occurs in females, so we know it could have been part of men's biological makeup, but it's not.

I think that women would be driven to have the fittest children, so they would choose the fittest man. Strong, healthy offspring are a better species-preservation goal than some vague notion of a provider. What hormone or physical sign flags a provider, anyway? How do you test it, biologically speaking?

It's pretty strange that in a supposedly scientific theory, you have things like child-bearing hips on one hand and the very biological 'fat wallet' on the other. It's a theory that conforms to the stereotype, imho. But so many evolutionary theories were based on such preconceived madness that we shouldn't be surprised, either, I don't think.

Your first paragraph...men actually ARE required to stick around. It's called MARRIAGE. It something that a successful, civilized society pushes for. Marriage benefits the woman by making a contractual bind so the man can't just decide one day he wants out and leave her responsible for a child. Which happens when people make babies out of wedlock.Biologically speaking men probably were designed to spread their seed all over the place and leave women to care for the kids. That's why we have marriage to force a man to do the right thing even when his penis tells him otherwise. The problem lies when the State comes in and takes the place of the man for monetary support/resources and creates unmarried, useless men and the permanent underclass we have today in the USA. And women are fooled by the whole "you dont need a man" crap. If you even had a newborn baby, or any child, you know one person cannot do it alone. I think 2 people arent really enough to raise a kid. It takes a villiage, so they say..

As far as your second paragraph...women pick men who can provide. I have a theory that is the reason women aren't attracted visually to men as much as men are to women. The intelligent women has to get intel on a man before deciding he should become her mate. Thats just the way things exist. Generally lower class women go for the bodybuilder types of men. Sorry guys. That's not my opinion that is the way things are. It would make sense to me that women dont decide what is attractive just by a picture (as a man can). Men are thus labeled as "shallow" where women are not. Its not really a fair label as its the way we are wired. Men and women are different and attracted to different things. It doesnt make women superior beings because they can be attracted to an ugly guy with a great sense of humor, they are just wired differently. In the same way, its unfair for men to judge women who are looking for financial security when we are not wired that way.

That's actually one of the great things about women...as men we are very visual so young men "assume" that all women are looking for is how sexy he is. Much of which he cannot control Men dont have makeup that can transform their looks in minutes...but it is great for us that women can be attracted to an ugly guy that has a great personality. Something that is very very difficult for most men to do.

If you think I'm wrong..that's cool. I'm just telling the story from my male perspective.

AshwinA7

Real beauty has very little to do with how you look, male or female.

However, I couldn't give two hoots about the perceived inequality. The day when a man's worth is judged as much on the way he looks as a woman's is the day I will start caring.

So exactly WHO is judging a man's value NOT by his looks? That would be women...who are judging a man by his wallet size.

In response-as soon as women start judging a man not by his bank account men will judge women not by their looks.

It aint gonna happen sister.

Humans judge the opposite sex in ways they have no control over. We cannot control who we are attracted to. Women biologically need a mate who can provide for her potential offspring, so its isnt fair to condemn a female for looking for a mate with proper resources...whatever those resources may be. Just as men are looking for a mate that is fertile and can provide healthy potential offspring. Its our nature and it is nature. It is how we survived this long.

The media or others telling us we are "bad" for doing the things we are designed to do is the problem...they seek to control us.

Anyone who tells you your nature is wrong is attempting to control and deceive you.

See, that theory has never made good sense to me. Men aren't required to stick around and provide for the woman and offspring, so why would we put all our eggs in that basket. There is no bonding hormone in men that makes them fall in love with their kids or anything. That occurs in females, so we know it could have been part of men's biological makeup, but it's not.

I think that women would be driven to have the fittest children, so they would choose the fittest man. Strong, healthy offspring are a better species-preservation goal than some vague notion of a provider. What hormone or physical sign flags a provider, anyway? How do you test it, biologically speaking?

It's pretty strange that in a supposedly scientific theory, you have things like child-bearing hips on one hand and the very biological 'fat wallet' on the other. It's a theory that conforms to the stereotype, imho. But so many evolutionary theories were based on such preconceived madness that we shouldn't be surprised, either, I don't think.

Your first paragraph...men actually ARE required to stick around. It's called MARRIAGE. It something that a successful, civilized society pushes for. Marriage benefits the woman by making a contractual bind so the man can't just decide one day he wants out and leave her responsible for a child. Which happens when people make babies out of wedlock.Biologically speaking men probably were designed to spread their seed all over the place and leave women to care for the kids. That's why we have marriage to force a man to do the right thing even when his penis tells him otherwise. The problem lies when the State comes in and takes the place of the man for monetary support/resources and creates unmarried, useless men and the permanent underclass we have today in the USA. And women are fooled by the whole "you dont need a man" crap. If you even had a newborn baby, or any child, you know one person cannot do it alone. I think 2 people arent really enough to raise a kid. It takes a villiage, so they say..

As far as your second paragraph...women pick men who can provide. I have a theory that is the reason women aren't attracted visually to men as much as men are to women. The intelligent women has to get intel on a man before deciding he should become her mate. Thats just the way things exist. Generally lower class women go for the bodybuilder types of men. Sorry guys. That's not my opinion that is the way things are. It would make sense to me that women dont decide what is attractive just by a picture (as a man can).

Im way off topic here...

LOL.

Just LOL.

Ed98043

Your first paragraph...men actually ARE required to stick around. It's called MARRIAGE. It something that a successful, civilized society pushes for. Marriage benefits the woman by making a contractual bind so the man can't just decide one day he wants out and leave her responsible for a child. Which happens when people make babies out of wedlock.Biologically speaking men probably were designed to spread their seed all over the place and leave women to care for the kids. That's why we have marriage to force a man to do the right thing even when his penis tells him otherwise. The problem lies when the State comes in and takes the place of the man for monetary support/resources and creates unmarried, useless men and the permanent underclass we have today in the USA. And women are fooled by the whole "you dont need a man" crap. If you even had a newborn baby, or any child, you know one person cannot do it alone. I think 2 people arent really enough to raise a kid. It takes a villiage, so they say..

As far as your second paragraph...women pick men who can provide. I have a theory that is the reason women aren't attracted visually to men as much as men are to women. The intelligent women has to get intel on a man before deciding he should become her mate. Thats just the way things exist. Generally lower class women go for the bodybuilder types of men. Sorry guys. That's not my opinion that is the way things are. It would make sense to me that women dont decide what is attractive just by a picture (as a man can).

Im way off topic here...

I don't think marriage is solely of benefit to women. Men have ruled the world since the beginning of time and they're the ones that invented marriage - and we all know that men don't do anything that doesn't have a direct benefit to themselves. Boiled down to basics, it's a way for him to claim ownership of a woman and have the best possible odds that the offspring she bears will have his DNA. Add to that the fact that a wife serves his needs as a cook, maid, nanny and recreational sex partner...and marriage is a pretty good deal for men. There's a reason that widowed and divorced men re-marry more often and more quickly than widowed or divorced women do. Married men also live longer and report greater health and happiness than single men, which does not hold true for women.

As for women choosing partners that provide wealth and social status, that's as old as time and I don't see how anyone can refute that we're hardwired that way. We can override it with logic and emotion, but at the core the instinct to mate with a male who can provide the best possible situation for our offspring (even if we never have any) is always there.

delicious_cocktail

LOL.

Just LOL.

You and me both. I'll pop some popcorn and you can go get the drinks.

delicious_cocktail

I don't think marriage is solely of benefit to women. Men have ruled the world since the beginning of time and they're the ones that invented marriage - and we all know that men don't do anything that doesn't have a direct benefit to themselves. Boiled down to basics, it's a way for him to claim ownership of a woman and have the best possible odds that the offspring she bears will have his DNA. Add to that the fact that a wife serves his needs as a cook, maid, nanny and recreational sex partner...and marriage is a pretty good deal for men. There's a reason that widowed and divorced men re-marry more often and more quickly than widowed or divorced women do. Married men also live longer and report greater health and happiness than single men, which does not hold true for women.

As for women choosing partners that provide wealth and social status, that's as old as time and I don't see how anyone can refute that we're hardwired that way. We can override it with logic and emotion, but at the core the instinct to mate with a male who can provide the best possible situation for our offspring (even if we never have any) is always there.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

Ed98043

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

A concise, articulate rebuttal, bro.

delicious_cocktail

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

A concise, articulate rebuttal, bro.

Where would you like me to start, sis? Perhaps with you lumping every single penis-owner into an amorphous blob of selfishness? "and we all know that men don't do anything that doesn't have a direct benefit to themselves. "

I'm not going to bother to rebut every fallacious statement you made there, because anyone who speaks such nonsense so stridently is beyond reason.