True Male Beauty!
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
LOL.
Just LOL.
You and me both. I'll pop some popcorn and you can go get the drinks.0 -
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:0 -
:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:
A concise, articulate rebuttal, bro.0 -
: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.0 -
Love This! lol (it was a picture of everyday dudes modeling ck)0
-
so men dont love their kids huh?
bull****. as a man i find that offensive. SOME men dont love their kids, so by exstrapolation, that must mean that all men are dogs and dont actually have any feelings. but when a WOMAN doesnt love her kids, then she is sick, its a "syndrome" and we must feel sorry for her.
all men only do things that benefit themselves
again, if find that offensive. i have given up and will continue to give up and personal benefit that is required of me for the benefit of my family.
what stared as a thread parodising those "real woman have curves" thing has turned in to feminist propoganda.
thats not to say that i agree with the other guy either. "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"
so what your saying is that after marriage men dont run out on their families? but if they arent married they are free to do whatever (or whoever) they please?
seriously, you a both as deluded as each other.
im am now out of this thread.0 -
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:
In for Jeff.
0 -
Keep em comin'
That's what she sai....
Lol0 -
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:
the only way to respond to this drivel.0 -
No, no, no... I'm not saying that men don't love their kids.
Oh my.
There is a very specific [pseudo-]science that deals with evolutionary psychology and biology (although the biology part is usually better done that the psychology). To say that something is 'hardwired' is very specifically defined in those fields.
I didn't speak to the non-biological aspects of it at all. There are TONS of those, and I agree that they very often (most often?) override any theoretical biological hardwiring we have goin' on as a species.
We do have tons of perception-related ones (like vision, I mean) that are my favorites, just as a side note. Those really are hardwired and evolutionary, and it's awesome!
0 -
it's all good!0
-
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:
I feel like :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: too!!!
How can you say women are hardwired to look for stability yet men are selfish for looking for a nurturing, caring, affectionate mate?! What a double standard. Ps- men didn't CREATE marriage, nor do they force a woman to enter into the union against their will. It's a 2 way street in which both people should give in the ways they best know how, and receive the fruits of the others labor. Women are naturally more nurturing and motherly than men so obviously, traditionally we would "take care" of our man, and of course he should take care of us in return, whether it's financially, emotionally, sexually , or whatever it is he is contributing to the partnership. YEEESH!0 -
0 -
As a masculinist, I am troubled by the inequality of the movement toward the acceptance of body shapes for women and the absence of same for men.
The Dove Real Beauty campaign, showcasing the beauty of women of varying body types in order to sell soap, made me feel as a man quite marginalized.
I have created this thread so that we men, too can be proud of our bodies no matter what sort of shape they are! Be they triangle, square, rectangle, or pumpkin, we should be PROUD of ourselves! And that's real beauty!
Men in underwear is sexy
Also my husband looks like the first statue and I am always letting him know how much I LOVE his body :happy: 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions