|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I don't recall any classic paintings of earwax or nose hair. Weird how people depict some body parts in the best possible light and others in the worst. Weird how men are taught to view male bodies as something so disgusting it's repulsive and to think of women as pretty except their horrible monsterous diseased sinful genitals that make pious men vomit to even think about.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This one is like "French people stink of garlic" or "Spanish people eat lots of tacos." - harmless stereotypes held by unsophisticated people. Except your country collectively UTTERLY lost its poo poo when Janet Jackson revealed less boob that a woman on the beach on TV. Its such a huge/obvious thing that even Southpark mocked it in an episode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:In 1960, 27.2% of people who entered high school dropped out before graduation for the nation at large, and it could exceed 50% in some states and areas. In comparison, only 7.4% dropped out in 2010! And consider this: in 1960 43% of rural people of high school age were not in school and 37% of urban people of the same age weren't in school. In comparison, it's about 6.5% of high school age people not in school in both rural and urban areas as of 2012. This is a wild statistic to see. I honestly don't doubt it, given the percentages of people that have a HS diploma and so on, but I've spent a few years working in schools with 50%+ dropout rates from freshman-senior year. Dropout rates have concentrated to certain populations and locations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:male nipples and balls are fine, and the entire "male bodies are not as aesthetically pleasing as female bodies" thing is pure bullshit. we aestheticize the female form in ways we don't with the male form, or compare an idealized female form to a "normal" male form. if you look at any media that does treat the male form as beautiful, including modern gay art or classic stuff, this is really apparent. Two other things to note: 1. Women are under great societal pressure to beautify their own bodies according to the prevailing standard, while men are under (less severe but it still exists) pressure not to. Women actually have much more hair naturally than most men think, they just have to get rid of it to be tolerated by society. Meanwhile if a man removes all that unwanted butt (or worse, leg) hair, then he's an object of ridicule. (note, this should not be interpreted as downplaying misogyny or saying that what men face is comparable. It isn't.) 2. Most idealized images of male bodies in media are still presented through a straight male gaze--instead of being designed to communicate physical beauty or sexual desirability, they're meant to communicate power. A body like '80s Arnold Schwarzenegger is something that straight men want to be, not something that gay men or women want to gently caress. Ahnold acts but is not acted upon. He fucks but is not hosed. When men appear in the popular media who do present their bodies in a way to make themselves seem sexually available/desirable on someone else's terms, like Rudolph Valentino or Orlando Bloom, they are often loathed and considered threatening or sexually deviant by men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Valentino The original pretty boy actor. Many women thought he was beautiful, straight men despised him and saw him as taking away the women that rightly belonged to the "All-American Boy" (an image of the male body marketed to straight men as an ideal of masculine power and dominance). Some Latinophobia was almost certainly also involved. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Excellent point on #1. I think a lot of guys are so accustomed to seeing women as these hairless entities they assume that it must be a variation of their natural state. Sure, some women are less hairy than others, but it isn't always obvious. A fair skinned blonde haired woman might be able to get away with skipping shaving her legs for a bit. But a woman with dense , dark hair could have a fastidious shaving regimen yet still have noticeable stubble in some places. Some ethnicities also have noticeably dark 'peach fuzz' (vellus hair?). We have this hair all over our bodies, the back of our neck, our forearms, around our belly, our cheeks, etc. If a woman happens to have really dark peach fuzz, should she shave it off, bleach it or just say gently caress arbitrary beauty standards? On some women, this hair is 'invisible', so it's not even that they're less hairy. But when seeing those two women side by side, the dark haired woman is going to just appear more hairy and people will make all sorts of cultural assumptions about each. Hell, hairy legs and armpits in cartoons and whatnot are often meant to depict women as being unkempt at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Two other things to note: I've seen this said elsewhere, and I've even seen a dumb little comic that says the same, but it's pretty stupid to make claims about what is objectively attractive. You're doing the same thing you claim the media does, but regarding a different "type."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
quote:Why are Americans afraid of nudity? Probably because the founding religious groups were down on it and had a lot of impact on culture here. It's only been 300 years and no one has really challenged it. There have been pushes for less clothes, but not nudity. Give it some time and the trend suggests people will probably be more european on that issuse. Sexism likely plays a role as well as male nudity is more acceptable than female nudity, at least partially. Though, legally, it's getting more equal. In the past they were both equally unacceptable socially, but men made more headway suggesting sexism, to me at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Covok posted:Probably because the founding religious groups were down on it and had a lot of impact on culture here. It's only been 300 years and no one has really challenged it. There have been pushes for less clothes, but not nudity. Give it some time and the trend suggests people will probably be more european on that issuse. Yes this is exactly it. All this stuff existed long before americans had body image issues. It's why Britain is different to Scandinavia etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
504 posted:Except your country collectively UTTERLY lost its poo poo when Janet Jackson revealed less boob that a woman on the beach on TV. Most people in this country actually had no problem with it, or just plain thought it was funny if they even saw it. litany of gulps posted:This is a wild statistic to see. I honestly don't doubt it, given the percentages of people that have a HS diploma and so on, but I've spent a few years working in schools with 50%+ dropout rates from freshman-senior year. Dropout rates have concentrated to certain populations and locations. Yeah it remains a major problem in many places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I've seen this said elsewhere, and I've even seen a dumb little comic that says the same, but it's pretty stupid to make claims about what is objectively attractive. You're doing the same thing you claim the media does, but regarding a different "type." You really don't see a pattern? With the trend toward dad bods being appealing and the fact that women don't hold men to nearly the same standard it makes sense that the Mr universe look is something other guys respond to, not women. Did bodybuilding get popular because women found huge muscles attractive, or because men thought they were?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Most people in this country actually had no problem with it, or just plain thought it was funny if they even saw it. Most humans have apathy towards most events in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Yes this is exactly it. All this stuff existed long before americans had body image issues. It's why Britain is different to Scandinavia etc. Yeah, a lot of this comes from us importing British conservatism. Another factor in it is space. The US is so big that you can move to live in a like-minded community of any stripe. This means extremist groups thrive and social change is unequal. Most moral outrage on issuses like this come from the bible belt where religious conservatism might as well be law and they're a vocal group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:You really don't see a pattern? With the trend toward dad bods being appealing and the fact that women don't hold men to nearly the same standard it makes sense that the Mr universe look is something other guys respond to, not women. The Mr. Universe look is pretty freakish and not really representative of guys who get into bodybuilding. I think the 'Dad bod' thing is more of a joke than anything, kind of like how people often say that they like nerds, when in fact they can't stand to be around awkward people. If anything guys are expected to be in better shape than before--if you compare male leading actors from the 60s-70s to current ones, the actors from the earlier generation were way skinnier and flabbier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I don't think it's so much a requirement for better shape (in general) as much as a requirement for lower body fat percentage specifically. Those flabby stars of yesteryear still had big chests and arms, they just lacked definition in those characteristics. In fact I'm not even sure if muscle mass matters that much anymore so long as you have some definition. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I don't think it's so much a requirement for better shape (in general) as much as a requirement for lower body fat percentage. Those flabby stars of yesteryear still had big chests and arms, they just lacked definition in those characteristics. Below is a link to an image comparing two actors, one from the 60's, and another from recent history, who played the exact same role in a popular, long-running movie franchise: http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_45/850641/bond-style-bathing-suit-today-151106-_c2397caf26ccc9dec3b2fbd27311898a.today-inline-large2x.jpg silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
I know my wife started squeezing my bicep when Captain America started flexing to hold a chopper in Civil War, and the office tech thinks The Rock is the hottest guy on the planet. Almost no one thinks the roided up monsters in bodybuilding competitions are attractive, but McDreamy looks like he doesn't skip arm day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
How about without a bunch of you dudes making weird and creepy conjectures about what all women find attractive, we leave it at the main point that society provides only one or two basic templates of what is considered acceptable for a person of a particular gender presentation to be considered attractive, and that these templates are completely arbitrary but also totally pervasive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
So the idea of attractiveness is weird and creepy now, huh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
This is an incredibly dumb derail to come out of my real original assertion that most idealized images of male bodies are marketed towards men as aspirational, and alternative ideals of male beauty make many straight men feel uncomfortable or even angry and are thus marginalized in mainstream culture compared to the dominant "Bowflex body" ideal, it's not actually about the Secret to What Women Want, Jesus Christ. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So the idea of attractiveness is weird and creepy now, huh. it is, indeed, very creepy for a bunch of men to make authoritative statements about what women want, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
What does Scott Adams have to say on this subject?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:This is an incredibly dumb derail to come out of my real original assertion that most idealized images of male bodies are marketed towards men as aspirational, and alternative ideals of male beauty make many straight men feel uncomfortable or even angry and are thus marginalized in mainstream culture compared to the dominant "Bowflex body" ideal, it's not actually about the Secret to What Women Want, Jesus Christ. quote:A body like '80s Arnold Schwarzenegger is something that straight men want to be, not something that gay men or women want to gently caress Also your original point isn't helped when your examples are 30/90 years out of date or someone who I don't remember any sort of hetero-backlash over. There were articles in the late 90s about how the traditional muscle-man action hero and look had massively faded because Arnold and Stallone were old and there weren't any replacements. Like, since 2010 what major media would you say is pushing a specific idealized male form towards men, outside of general "not fat/skinny, some muscle definition"? Zachack fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Well if you're nude, someone could walk right up and grab your pussy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Well if you're nude, someone could walk right up and grab your pussy. The old Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Well if you're nude, someone could walk right up and grab your pussy. The unforeseen consequence of the stolen nose gag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Well if you're nude, someone could walk right up and grab your pussy. You don't even have to be nude for this to happen. I had an ex who liked to go clubbing and she said every now and then she'd get some drunken clod reach down and grab her crotch area under her skirt. I know women get unwanted touching all the time but I figured it was in the boobie reigion not a full-on clam grab.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I dunno, this look a lot like you telling women what their standard for sexual desirability is. Maybe if you don't want people to focus on dumb poo poo you supposedly didn't want to discuss you shouldn't write it in the first place. I admit to becoming increasingly alienated from mainstream pop culture as time goes on, but in light of the all-pervading and seemingly never-ending fad for superheroes and superhero movies being one of the most obvious and immediate reasons for said disengagement, I'll present superheroes as an entire class of characters and storytelling as exhibit A. They almost universally present models of hegemonic masculinity designed specifically to appeal to a straight male target audience, completely devoid of any human vulnerability whatsoever. Their bodies are idealized, but along very specific lines so as to present what little sexuality they have as entirely active and outward-directed (there's probably more specific language for the concepts I'm thinking of, but I am not a philosopher or a sociologist--in fact I have like 10 or 15 concepts in my head right now about this very subject that I can't properly articulate because I don't have specific words for them).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
I believe the point you are trying to articulate is that both men and women are primarily sexualized for the benefit of men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Not just men, straight men. Straight men fill mainstream culture with the male bodies that they want to imagine themselves as having, not loving, while alternative forms of beauty are marginalized, because men may be sexy but to a straight men no man must be allowed to be seen as fuckable, because it is the man's role to gently caress, not be hosed. Images of male bodies targeted at women and gay men tend to be far more diverse (even though most of them are equally idealized, they are idealized in many different ways) but they are excluded from the mainstream because straight men think everything belongs to them and that if their supremacy is challenged they'll all catch the gay or something.
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coNQAucXoNM
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Thank you for this, hbomberguy videos are awesome and this gets pretty close to what I was going to say (I was actively trying to avoid bringing up video games even though it would have been easy). Also I'm going to have to work the word "killicide" into conversation somewhere, it sounds so fun to say. And now I'm reminded of that "Free!" anime about male swimmers who were definitely objectified in such a way as to appeal to people who want to have sex with men, and even though it looks like an awful obnoxious pile of anime and creepiness that I have no intention of watching, I'm glad it exists because of the hilarious meltdowns I've read from straight male otaku about it. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Not just men, straight men. Straight men fill mainstream culture with the male bodies that they want to imagine themselves as having, not loving, while alternative forms of beauty are marginalized, because men may be sexy but to a straight men no man must be allowed to be seen as fuckable, because it is the man's role to gently caress, not be hosed. Images of male bodies targeted at women and gay men tend to be far more diverse (even though most of them are equally idealized, they are idealized in many different ways) but they are excluded from the mainstream because straight men think everything belongs to them and that if their supremacy is challenged they'll all catch the gay or something. For someone who claims to not pay attention to mainstream culture (and for a very weird reason) you sure seem to think you have your finger on the pulse of mainstream culture and what imagery is prevalent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Zachack posted:For someone who claims to not pay attention to mainstream culture (and for a very weird reason) you sure seem to think you have your finger on the pulse of mainstream culture and what imagery is prevalent. This is not even an argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:This is not even an argument. It's an argument, because you are basically clueless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Not just men, straight men. Straight men fill mainstream culture with the male bodies that they want to imagine themselves as having, not loving, while alternative forms of beauty are marginalized, because men may be sexy but to a straight men no man must be allowed to be seen as fuckable, because it is the man's role to gently caress, not be hosed. Images of male bodies targeted at women and gay men tend to be far more diverse (even though most of them are equally idealized, they are idealized in many different ways) but they are excluded from the mainstream because straight men think everything belongs to them and that if their supremacy is challenged they'll all catch the gay or something. This is vastly oversimplified and somewhat out of date. Your larger point that the straight male gaze dominates sexualization in media is has validity to it but you're burying it by having not noticed this is no longer the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's an argument, because you are basically clueless. Ad hominem is not a valid argument, sorry. I posted an example, OwlFancier posted an hbomberguy video that covers the same phenomenon in video games, now put up a rebuttal or gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Ad hominem is not a valid argument, sorry. I posted an example, OwlFancier posted an hbomberguy video that covers the same phenomenon in video games, now put up a rebuttal or gently caress off. My entire lived experience as a person living in the world, though I agree it's not as compelling as a video by a minor LP youtube account. My argument would be that you, the person supposedly opposing normative statements about attractiveness, are basically the only person in this discussion making said normative statements, in some misguided crusade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
I think the argument is not normative statements of attractiveness but rather the proliferation of a particular publicized concept of attractiveness, and who should be attracted and in what ways, informing a lot of media design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the argument is not normative statements of attractiveness but rather the proliferation of a particular publicized concept of attractiveness, and who should be attracted and in what ways, informing a lot of media design. And he assumes that the people who design those things are either completely unaware of the audience to which they should be selling, or actively working to undermine their marketing by pandering to the sensibilities of people who have no stakes in the marketing campaign. If anything it's the muscular dude models who get kinda mocked in my experience, because they trigger insecurity in male audiences. The relatively effete models just don't get really commented on by males because they neither threaten, nor are aimed at them. Actually I've heard plenty of guys being relieved that the trend recently has been to promote skinny, lanky and even sort of unkempt models in many fashion campaigns, because they are less discordant with their body image than the old school muscle freaks. At the same time, women in my experience seem to be more dazzled by muscle than men, except for extreme body builder types who are not attractive to anybody except for few weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Not just men, straight men. Straight men fill mainstream culture with the male bodies that they want to imagine themselves as having, not loving, while alternative forms of beauty are marginalized, because men may be sexy but to a straight men no man must be allowed to be seen as fuckable, because it is the man's role to gently caress, not be hosed. Images of male bodies targeted at women and gay men tend to be far more diverse (even though most of them are equally idealized, they are idealized in many different ways) but they are excluded from the mainstream because straight men think everything belongs to them and that if their supremacy is challenged they'll all catch the gay or something. What alternative forms of male beauty are being marginalized here? They wouldn't happen to be body types that belong to people who visit fat pride tumblrs would they? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!