woman = beautiful + strong?

strobe

ashers222 wrote: »

Men "generally" don't want to be with someone who is physically stronger or more masculine than they are. (although some men do) Think that's all my bases covered.

*going to pump me guns

Zombienosh wrote: »

If a man is intimidated by the strength a woman, that is his own insecurity.

It's really nothing to do with a woman being physically stronger than a man, or even with physical strength per say, and certainly nothing to do with being threatened by it.

If Scarlett Johansen or someone could lift a Boeing 747 over her head with one hand it would make very little difference to how attractive or sexy men find her.

It's to do with the actual large muscles, they are in general found unattractive by most men because they look and feel stereotypically manly.

ashers222

strobe wrote: »

It's really nothing to do with a woman being physically stronger than a man, or even with physical strength per say, and certainly nothing to do with being threatened by it.

If Scarlett Johansen or someone could lift a Boeing 747 over her head with one hand it would make very little difference to how attractive or sexy men find her.

It's to do with the actual large muscles, they are in general found unattractive by most men because they look and feel stereotypically manly.

I have no idea why you keep referencing my posts in order to highlight your point, I agree that the vast majority of men do not find largely muscular women attractive. (thank god) My guess is you're just looking for an argument. My point is it's irrelevant. At least it's irrelevant to me what men find attractive.

(just so you can get a better grip of my perspective, I can and have passed as male, I've used gents toilets in pubs or nightclubs when the ladies are jammers, I have been referred to as a "lad" when amongst a group of men unintentionally. These things make me happy. I actually get pleasure from it. I would be worried, seriously, if a man did find me attractive and tbh I'd also be slightly disappointed.)

strobe

ashers222 wrote: »

I have no idea why you keep referencing my posts in order to highlight your point, I agree that the vast majority of men do not find largely muscular women attractive. (thank god) My guess is you're just looking for an argument. My point is it's irrelevant. At least it's irrelevant to me what men find attractive.

(just so you can get a better grip of my perspective, I can and have passed as male, I've used gents toilets in pubs or nightclubs when the ladies are jammers, I have been referred to as a "lad" when amongst a group of men unintentionally. These things make me happy. I actually get pleasure from it. I would be worried, seriously, if a man did find me attractive and tbh I'd also be slightly disappointed.)

Your two posts (the one wondering what the view of the guys in TGC) and the other one along with Zombienosh's just happened to catch my eye and I felt I had a response worth posting. It's nothing personal, I hadn't even reaslised I'd responded to two of your posts. Judging by your earlier post to Millicent and then to me I think it's fair to say you're being a little oversensitive and a touch paranoid.

I've less than little interest in arguing with you or reading about how masculine you endeavour to be or how little you want men to find you attractive.

Was just contributing my opinion to the thread.

ashers222

strobe wrote: »

Your two posts (the one wondering what the view of the guys in TGC) and the other one along with Zombienosh's just happened to catch my eye and I felt I had a response worth posting. It's nothing personal, I hadn't even reaslised I'd responded to two of your posts. Judging by your earlier post to Millicent and then to me I think it's fair to say you're being a little oversensitive and a touch paranoid.

I've less than little interest in arguing with you or reading about how masculine you endeavour to be or how little you want men to find you attractive.

Was just contributing my opinion to the thread.

how do you make that out? The thread was going down the route where it became about what men thought was appropriate for a woman to be considered beautiful or attractive. In the middle it became a discussion between a few different men defining what they believe constitutes that. Do you feel this is how the thread should move forward? If that's what this thread is about then grand. (btw I'm not paranoid, I'm just not stupid either and I fail to be motivated into thinking that men get to define what constitutes attractiveness in women)


(the reasons for stating my own phsyical attributes is merely to highlight that fact, and that being a masculine women does not negate my ability to be considered beautiful which is what I thought this thread is about. You might disagree, nontheless it doesn't make your opinion correct, which is the point I'm trying to make. You and a hundred men could come here and make that claim and it still wouldn't be relevant. See?)

ashers222

This is my final post in the thread but I felt it was neccessary to bring it back to the OP, who in my opinion is a strong beautiful woman. I found her questions about stereotypes thought provoking and why I entered this thread in the first place. It was relevent to me. Best of luck op.

lolo62 wrote: »

When Katie Taylor won her medal during the summer I found it interesting (and infuriating) the amount of people who felt the need to point out 'and she's pretty like' as if the two can't go together; being physically strong and attractive

I'm doing a lot of energy work at the moment where it's all about aggression and the 'masculine' part of me
As I do and my body becomes stronger and sturdier I am finding it hard to tolerate anything like the above that suggests women being strong and/or aggressive is unattractive or wrong in any way

anyone else have thoughts on this?

lolo62 wrote: »

Do you mean if a woman has a beautiful face and a strong body that's still a turn off?

If you mean attractive in a woman...I think a woman that's in her power is always very attractive..by that I mean a woman that can be strong and aggressive and soft and feminine as and when she needs to be.

lolo62 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say though that Katie Taylors body resembles what we think of as male because most women don't build that kind of upper body strength...? her body is very much still a womans body..

lolo62 wrote: »

Thanks but you weren't there so if you are going to have to tell me what my experience was in order to input I'm not interested

Some great comments above about strength and how we view it...I don't tune into mainstream media too much,sounds cliched but it's when I hear comments like the ones about Katie Taylor I realise just how much of a hold it has on peoples perception

lolo62 wrote: »

I have found myself being attracted to the masculine energy in some women also even though I'm straight
I put it down to the fact there have been a lot of weak men in my life..
I also think it's a kind of immature attraction based on perceiving strength to be physical only

PS..there have also been a lot of weak women in my life too, not man hating here

lolo62 wrote: »

As I told the poster above that wasn't what was being implied...things always translate differently in text form
you would have to have been there to be able to make the judgement you're making

You might be coming from a good place but it comes across extremely simplistic and patronising
I did, believe it or not, think about it in some depth before starting a discussion, and, having been there, know in what way the comments were being made

lolo62 wrote: »

I do actually find it sexually attractive..

I think you've got a good point there about wanting to emulate also though
I've done a lot of study on the psychology of this and people do actually become attracted to qualities they want themselves (or ones they have repressed)
Men who aren't in their power are intimidated by women who are as well as women who 'look' powerful
Same the other way around

I'm working on all this really hard at the moment and am finding that a person in their power be they man or woman has a healthy access to their masculine and feminine sides

It's a really interesting topic though, trying to figure out how much of a role gender plays in getting the balance right!

Hermione*

Mod Note:

ashers222, dial it back, please, or you'll be taking a week off. Please ensure you have read the charter and acquainted yourself with our rules for posting here.

Everyone, please remember to attack the post and not the poster.

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

Hermione*

Wibbs

Millicent wrote: »

Trace it back through history--even just Playboy's history--and chart how the body shapes have changed though.

Definitions of what's attractive change generation to generation. It's influenced strongly by art and popular culture as well as by symbols of wealth. When the fattest people were the richest, that's what was defined as attractive. Now that the wealthiest celebrities are slimmer, that's what's considered attractive. And then, across other cultures and ethnicities, the definition's different again.

The definition of attractiveness is much more malleable and subject to change than many here are arguing it to be.

Very true. And it can change quite rapidly too. EG the winner of say Miss World in I dunno 1960, wouldn't get past the heats in Miss world 2013. Ditto for Mr Universe or whatever over the same time period. To be fair they're rarified examples and tend towards extremes as people will, but it does illustrate the point and that's only in a couple of generations. Over centuries and cultures the net gets cast even wider. You can see this in art and other representations of the human form, male and female. Often it's men who show the biggest changes. Look at 17th century France. The height of attractive masculinity was a thin framed, sloping shouldered man, wearing lippy and makeup, covered in brocade and lace and flouncing around on high heels topped off with a perfumed wig. Today they'd be taunted with "gay" jibes. A really bad plan considering their penchant for dueling with rapiers.:D

As far as muscular ladies, I can't think of a culture where it is/was an ideal. Maybe the Amazons? While women's overall size can vary in fashion, curves/"softness" were/are in the majority of cases a constant theme(along with hip/waist ratios)*. Maybe because of sexual health selection? IE lack of curves and fat deposits and more muscles signifies different hormonal makeup and less fertility?

Still we're increasingly lucky today because we have so many subcultures and avenues for same so pretty much all "extremes"(some unhealthy of course) are represented. That's unusual in world history, mainly because like minded people were hidden from their fellows.

Personally? I do like muscle definition on women, so long as it's not extreme, just like slimness or curviness. Of course where the line of extreme lays varies with us all and long may that continue.

TL;DR? Whatever floats your boat.


*even there, look at the "flapper" style of the 1920's. Women were aiming for willowy straight up and down with no cleavage. Many bound their boobs to fit the style, yet hark back to their grannies and bustles and corsets were aiming for the complete opposite. It's a fascinating area.

GalwayGuy2

If Scarlett Johansen or someone could lift a Boeing 747 over her head with one hand it would make very little difference to how attractive or sexy men find her.

Eh, it'd probably make her more sexy:P

@Wibbs

Hmm, do you think the ideal type of woman throughout history has been different facets of "womanhood/motherly"? Tbf, the stick ideal you outlined doesn't quite support it, but it could be used as a woman who needed to be "protected".

Kind of interesting comment on the fencing thing. After reading Game of Throne (:P) I wonder could that have been less area to be hit with a rapier?

clairefontaine

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Eh, it'd probably make her more sexy:P

@Wibbs

Hmm, do you think the ideal type of woman throughout history has been different facets of "womanhood/motherly"? Tbf, the stick ideal you outlined doesn't quite support it, but it could be used as a woman who needed to be "protected".

Kind of interesting comment on the fencing thing. After reading Game of Throne (:P) I wonder could that have been less area to be hit with a rapier?

The fashions of the female body changed from the matriarchal look of Queen Victoria to the flappers because of the advent of feminism, which rejected then the matriarchal figure for the more boyish androgynous look of the flapper. You see this androgyny popping in and out throughout the 20th century [Twiggy] and then later in the 1990s.

Now you have the muscle toned lean fatless body because we admire efficiency above everything and that is what the lean muscled fatless body signifies. A puritan work ethic enscripted into the figure. It works had and does not indulge.

However, no matter what you see on the magazines and the catwalks, boobs will always be in fashion in real life.

GalwayGuy2

The fashions of the female body changed from the matriarchal look of Queen Victoria to the flappers because of the advent of feminism, which rejected then the matriarchal figure for the more boyish androgynous look of the flapper. You see this androgyny popping in and out throughout the 20th century [Twiggy] and then later in the 1990s.

I was off the mark completely :S I thought the skinny model was Victorian era, not entirely sure why.

Table Top Joe

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as muscular ladies, I can't think of a culture where it is/was an ideal. Maybe the Amazons? While women's overall size can vary in fashion, curves/"softness" were/are in the majority of cases a constant theme(along with hip/waist ratios)*. Maybe because of sexual health selection? IE lack of curves and fat deposits and more muscles signifies different hormonal makeup and less fertility?



It's a fascinating area.

I think the part highlighted is whats at the heart of the matter here,fashions change but as Galwayguy pointed out arent they all variations on womenhood and femininity?........despite objections here on what men like(from straight women it would seem)it comes down to basic biological hard wiring(for the majority,theres always exceptions)a look on the aforementioned "women who make you drool" thread on TGF will show a wildly varying bunch of hot women.....but theyre all still clearly feminine whether theyre black,Asian,tall or small or whatever,none of them have large jaws or shoulders or anything else that straight males will associate with their own sex

@Claire.....some interesting points raised there but the thing is while certain things have been fashionable,say the stick thin "Twiggy" look,is that still what men find attractive? (im sticking with what straight males think here,being one and all)its a look a lot of woman have aspired to(then and now)but is it what men find attractive?......the heroin addict look was the fashionable thing in the late 90s(ish...if i recall)but how many women looked like that or wanted to?......and how many men found it remotely appealing as fashionable as it was?......an extreme example but it was fashionable to look like you hadnt eaten in a week at one point but that didnt mean a thing to most guys,back in the 90s when a lot of the girls i hung out with were on insane diets to try and look like Kate Moss all the guys were watching Baywatch and drooling over Pamea Anderson and the like(that was never really my taste but faced
with Kate Moss or a blonde with big tits and i know what id go for)

Just throwing it out there


Men in studies after studies have shown they find certain traits appealing but women(and by God does this thread prove it)dont pay a blind bit of notice!:p



Edit:Meant to add.....how much of womens fashion has been dictated by gay men? seems the last people to be consulted on whats sexually attractive in women are hetrosexual men

clairefontaine

Table Top Joe wrote: »

@Claire.....some interesting points raised there but the thing is while certain things have been fashionable,say the stick thin "Twiggy" look,is that still what men find attractive? (im sticking with what straight males think here,being one and all)its a look a lot of woman have aspired to(then and now)but is it what men find attractive?......the heroin addict look was the fashionable thing in the late 90s(ish...if i recall)but how many women looked like that or wanted to?......and how many men found it remotely appealing as fashionable as it was?......an extreme example but it was fashionable to look like you hadnt eaten in a week at one point but that didnt mean a thing to most guys,back in the 90s when a of the girls i hung out with were on insane diets to try and look ike Kate Moss all the guys were watching Baywatch and drooling over Pamea Anderson and the like(that was never really my taste but faced
with Kate Moss or a blonde with big tits and i know what id go for)

Just throwing it out there


Men in studies after studies have shown they find certain traits appealing but women(and by God does this thread prove it)dont pay a blind bit of notice!:p

The fashionable shifts of the female figure are not always what is projected as what men find sexually attractive but what are the cultural projections of that particular period of time.

Take the heroin look. Sure, men probably don't find that attractive, but it signifies values doesn't it? Self destruction, self abnegation, starvation. Were these the values of the time for certain adolescents of the time?

The whole Kate Moss thing was like trying to stay pre pubescent, a denial of womanliness, a fear of womanliness wasn't it? The anti thesis of the siren no?

These things come and go. But that waist hip bust ratio has stood the test of time, even while these other trends male parallel showings.

opinion guy

strobe wrote: »

If Scarlett Johansen or someone could lift a Boeing 747 over her head with one hand it would make very little difference to how attractive or sexy men find her.

If Scarlet Johansen could lift a plane over her head then be very afraid......:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5okhZWGzjI

But seriously....I think this all comes down to definitions of words no ? 'Strong' as given in the thread title could mean different things to different people. Personally I would say athletic is attractive, but muscle bound not so - both could come under the category of 'strong'. I mean how many women would find male athletes attractive versus male body-builders attractive? Of course some prefer one or the other - but then many will also say the muscle bound look is ridiculous. I think the same applies with gender roles reversed. No ?

Table Top Joe

clairefontaine wrote: »

The fashionable shifts of the female figure are not always what is projected as what men find sexually attractive but what are the cultural projections of that particular period of time.

Take the heroin look. Sure, men probably don't find that attractive, but it signifies values doesn't it? Self destruction, self abnegation, starvation. Were these the values of the time for certain adolescents of the time?

The whole Kate Moss thing was like trying to stay pre pubescent, a denial of womanliness, a fear of womanliness wasn't it? The anti thesis of the siren no?

These things come and go. But that waist hip bust ratio has stood the test of time, even while these other trends male parallel showings.

Some real inneresting points *scratches chin* tbh as a guy i just think "she looks like a 12 year old boy wtf?".....youve obviously put a bit more thought into it;).......but i agree with the hip to waist thing,thats what im getting at really.......and i added the gay man thing after you posted but i think its very important too,maybe only in modern times but its certainly a factor imo,i think it would stand to reason gay men wouldnt have a clue whats attractive in a woman

thingamagig

Just
said I'd contribute as I've always been described as a 'strongly-built'
girl. Or a 'fine, healthy girl' as they sometimes call it in the
country. I have strong shoulders and carry weight very, very badly.
Things aren't so bad when I'm not overweight. Ah, in fact, they
drastically improved when I lost weight, but I still have athletic
shoulders. And sometimes people-both sexes- comment negatively on my
build. I would say, for example, that a strong -looking girl would draw a
lot more comment than a finely (lightly!!) built man. It does suck
because a hell of a lot of guys will go for smaller girls irrespective
of their facial features, curvaciousness and all that other
non-superficial stuff. It's like, ok, you're strong, and they can't see
behind that. In the past I 've also been expected to 'tough it out' more
than more delicate looking girls would be. On the plus, I fancy athletic guys,
and they tend to go for athletic girls- I think! And things are changing
in the media. Some models these days are allowed to be strong and sexy.
Crystal Renn was at some point anyhow. Now if I just had her face all
my problems would be gone!!

Seraphina

Lads, all of you saying you don't want a strong muscular woman have clearly never seen what squats do for a ladies ass.

I would consider myself a strong women. I'm a member of a powerlifting club and I train once a week (would train more if I could afford regular gym membership too). I cycle everywhere. I climb. I do push ups and pull ups and other 'manly' exercises. I have what some of the men here would consider to be 'masculine' arms. I can tell you I have *never* had trouble attracting men in any way, and never had anything but compliments on my body.

--Kaiser--

Seraphina wrote: »

Lads, all of you saying you don't want a strong muscular woman have clearly never seen what squats do for a ladies ass.

I would consider myself a strong women. I'm a member of a powerlifting club and I train once a week (would train more if I could afford regular gym membership too). I cycle everywhere. I climb. I do push ups and pull ups and other 'manly' exercises. I have what some of the men here would consider to be 'masculine' arms. I can tell you I have *never* had trouble attracting men in any way, and never had anything but compliments on my body.

As I said earlier, it all boils down to what one considers muscular as opposed to toned and shapely. Squats can make a woman have a great ass, sure. If done to excess though, they can make for serious 'man ass' (and I'm generally fond of a bit of badonkadonk, to use the technical term)

Stench Blossoms

What does a man ass look like?

Stench Blossoms

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

What does a man ass look like?

Hot

:pac:

Twee.

MAC recently released their "Strength" collection, with Jelena Abbou as it's cover girl.

"Flex your femininity with a colour collection that's fearless, elegant and strong. Strike a powerful pose, stand out, redefine the notion of beauty - and do it with strength too irresistible to ignore."

--Kaiser--

I'm not sure what relevance the above has to the discussion. MAC is makeup, therefore marketed towards women, not men. Female models in adverts geared towards women are already (albeit slightly) photoshopped to accentuate their masculine features, because this gets women's attention more

Jerrica

There's a sniff of a movement of redefining beauty, it's pretty awesome. Look how what to for you, not just how attractive you think it'll make you appear to the opposite sex. Self-confidence is probably the most attractive trait of all, gender irrelevant.

I was reminded of this thread when I saw this on facebook. Neysi Barrera, a 14 year old Ecuadorian clean and jerking 116kg (<69kg weight class) in the 2013 Arnolds. She's a pretty damn beautiful strong young woman by any account!

Jerrica

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'm not sure what relevance the above has to the discussion.

The whole premise on the OP was questioning being strong AND attractive so that photo is fairly bang on in terms of relevance.

--Kaiser--

Jerrica wrote: »

The whole premise on the OP was questioning being strong AND attractive so that photo is fairly bang on in terms of relevance.

Why? Because it's using a woman striking a masculine pose to sell different shades of lipstick?

Jerrica

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Why? Because it's using a woman striking a masculine pose to sell different shades of lipstick?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's Jelena Abbou, a very well known figure competitor and bodybuilder and her strength is being conveyed in an ad campaign as a source of beauty. This whole thread is about whether it's possible for a woman to be strong AND considered beautiful, and the photo is an example of an ad campaign from an International Make-Up company who are challenging that very idea. Yes, they are still trying to "sell different shades of lipstick" at the end of the day BUT it's these companies who are also responsible for defining a lot of the public perception of what is and is not beautiful. So if MAC are putting a bodybuilder out there as an example of a beautiful woman then kudos to them.

It's interesting that you use the word "masculine" to describe her pose. It's a standard bicep curl pose, but if you need to gender label it, you work away

Dolbert

Jerrica wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's Jelena Abbou, a very well known figure competitor and bodybuilder and her strength is being conveyed in an ad campaign as a source of beauty. This whole thread is about whether it's possible for a woman to be strong AND considered beautiful, and the photo is an example of an ad campaign from an International Make-Up company who are challenging that very idea. Yes, they are still trying to "sell different shades of lipstick" at the end of the day BUT it's these companies who are also responsible for defining a lot of the public perception of what is and is not beautiful. So if MAC are putting a bodybuilder out there as an example of a beautiful woman then kudos to them.

This. I'm struggling to see how it's irrelevant to be honest. Is it because it doesn't count if the campaign is aimed at women, or...?

--Kaiser--

Jerrica wrote: »

It's interesting that you use the word "masculine" to describe her pose. It's a standard bicep curl pose, but if you need to gender label it, you work away

Someone flexing muscular biceps? Masculine is exactly what I'd call it. I'd like to hear from men who think that this is an attractive photo of a woman. I'm clearly living in a fantasy world where men tend to be attracted to feminine women

Only men do weights I suppose
best shut down the women's sections

--Kaiser--

Dolbert wrote: »

This. I'm struggling to see how it's irrelevant to be honest. Is it because it doesn't count if the campaign is aimed at women, or...?

Seeing as I'm speaking of the attractiveness of a woman purely from a male perspective, an ad campaign aimed at women is pretty irrelevant. A picture of a muscly woman in Cosmo is hardly going to have any effect on male tastes on the subject

Jerrica

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'd like to hear from men who think that this is an attractive photo of a woman.

And therein you've just synopsised what message campaigns like this are trying to combat, this whole notion of "Hold up, we cannot conclusively draw an opinion on what makes a woman beautiful until men have their say on the matter". Horsepoop.

With the greatest respect, who fcuking cares what the majority of men thinks is beautiful or not? Is that the only reason to take pride in your appearance? Why not feel beautiful for you? Once a woman feels that *she* is beautiful a partner who thinks likewise will surely follow soon enough (if that's what she wants).

There's this insidious message out there that in regards to their looks women should all be making their priority looking good to the opposite sex. Why not make yourself look as you want for you? Isn't that enough?

--Kaiser--

Jerrica wrote: »

And therein you've just synopsised what message campaigns like this are trying to combat, this whole notion of "Hold up, we cannot conclusively draw an opinion on what makes a woman beautiful until men have their say on the matter". Horsepoop.

With the greatest respect, who fcuking cares what the majority of men thinks is beautiful or not? Is that the only reason to take pride in your appearance? Why not feel beautiful for you? Once a woman feels that *she* is beautiful a partner who thinks likewise will surely follow soon enough (if that's what she wants).

There's this insidious message out there that in regards to their looks women should all be making their priority looking good to the opposite sex. Why not make yourself look as you want for you? Isn't that enough?

I was of the opinion that most people want to look attractive to the opposite sex. That is, in fact, the whole crux of my argument. Thinking oneself looks beautiful is of scarce relevance to the rest of the world (except, as someone rightly mentioned, in increasing confidence)

Jerrica

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I was of the opinion that most people want to look attractive to the opposite sex.

Ah in fairness I think most people do! But there's a difference between wanting to be attractive and conforming to what the idea of attractiveness is

There's looooads of examples out there of famous people who aren't conventionally attractive but they have this je ne sais quoi that makes them the damned hottest thing on the planet (there's a thread somewhere with pictures!!). That 'unknown' quality is usually confidence. (For me it's Benedict Cumberbunchupmypanties - tall, gangly, a weird pointy beak of a nose and almost-not-there-lips, about as unconventional as bedamned. But oh my Lordy.... the things I would do... :pac:)

And at the end of the day are we trying to be attractive to everyone or just be attractive to the right people?

So, bringing it back on topic, it can make for quite harsh reading when you see guys coming along saying that a beautiful woman like Katie Taylor (ambitious, driven, humble, generous of spirit) is unattractive because she has "man arms". Really? REALLY? Is that the ONE THING that makes her unattractive? And given that KAtie has become a role model to so many, those comments (which, of course, people are entitled to have) can make for a very demotivating read. What's the point in striving for your goals if you'll be seen as no good to the opposite sex?

SO, after all that waffle, THAT is why I like seeing campaigns like the MAC one. It takes the attraction to the opposite sex out of the equation, it's celebrating beauty for beauty's sake. It might not be everyone's beauty taste but it's beauty to be celebrated regardless.

--Kaiser--

Jerrica wrote: »

Ah in fairness I think most people do! But there's a difference between wanting to be attractive and conforming to what the idea of attractiveness is

There's looooads of examples out there of famous people who aren't conventionally attractive but they have this je ne sais quoi that makes them the damned hottest thing on the planet (there's a thread somewhere with pictures!!). That 'unknown' quality is usually confidence. (For me it's Benedict Cumberbunchupmypanties - tall, gangly, a weird pointy beak of a nose and almost-not-there-lips, about as unconventional as bedamned. But oh my Lordy.... the things I would do... :pac:)

And at the end of the day are we trying to be attractive to everyone or just be attractive to the right people?

So, bringing it back on topic, it can make for quite harsh reading when you see guys coming along saying that a beautiful woman like Katie Taylor (ambitious, driven, humble, generous of spirit) is unattractive because she has "man arms". Really? REALLY? Is that the ONE THING that makes her unattractive? And given that KAtie has become a role model to so many, those comments (which, of course, people are entitled to have) can make for a very demotivating read. What's the point in striving for your goals if you'll be seen as no good to the opposite sex?

SO, after all that waffle, THAT is why I like seeing campaigns like the MAC one. It takes the attraction to the opposite sex out of the equation, it's celebrating beauty for beauty's sake. It might not be everyone's beauty taste but it's beauty to be celebrated regardless.

That's fair enough, different strokes for different folks, otherwise some of us (by which I mean me) would never get laid. All I'm saying is that *in general* the muscley type of woman is not sought out by the majority of males. I'm sure most guys could get over Katie's arms by the fact that she is quite pretty (her devout Christianity would put me off)

livinsane

I've read through this whole thread and I'm confused as to what people are actually arguing about.

There were alot of posts early on arguing that certain female athletes were only famous because they were attractive and opposed the trend of men commenting on these athlete's appearance.

Now there seems to be alot of posts that are forcing people to find muscular female bodies attractive.

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who didn't totally respect muscular female bodies for the work and dedication that goes into reaching that level of physique but you'd probably find less people who viewed that same body with sexual attractiveness. But what's the problem in that? It's appreciating someone for the sport/fitness and not for sexual reasons. Plus its a minority of women that strive for a high level of muscular tone.

I think if you push your [male or female] body to such a high muscular level, you are turning it into something that goes beyond a normal body, almost a machine. So unless you are in to objectophilia, you probably wouldn't find it attractive. But you'd respect it and be in awe of it.

Plus as we all know and state, attractiveness is subjective and something that cannot be reasoned alot of the time.

--Kaiser--

livinsane wrote: »

I've read through this whole thread and I'm confused as to what people are actually arguing about.

There were alot of posts early on arguing that certain female athletes were only famous because they were attractive and opposed the trend of men commenting on these athlete's appearance.

Now there seems to be alot of posts that are forcing people to find muscular female bodies attractive.

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who didn't totally respect muscular female bodies for the work and dedication that goes into reaching that level of physique but you'd probably find less people who viewed that same body with sexual attractiveness. But what's the problem in that? It's appreciating someone for the sport/fitness and not for sexual reasons. Plus its a minority of women that strive for a high level of muscular tone.

I think if you push your [male or female] body to such a high muscular level, you are turning it into something that goes beyond a normal body, almost a machine. So unless you are in to objectophilia, you probably wouldn't find it attractive. But you'd respect it and be in awe of it.

Plus as we all know and state, attractiveness is subjective and something that cannot be reasoned alot of the time.

At last, some sense

Seraphina

livinsane wrote: »

Now there seems to be alot of posts that are forcing people to find muscular female bodies attractive.

Plus as we all know and state, attractiveness is subjective and something that cannot be reasoned alot of the time.

I think you'll find it's pretty impossible to force anyone to think anything in particular, especially on the internet.

What people are all arguing about is the very few males (I think there were about 3 or 4 who simply just kept repeating themselves and claimed to speak for the general male population) who are deciding what is and isn't 'too masculine' and what men don't find attractive. It's frankly irritating, because we were talking about 'strong' women, which they have all taken to mean 'women with very prominent muscular definition', which is not what we started talking about at all.

GalwayGuy2

I think you'll find it's pretty impossible to force anyone to think anything in particular, especially on the internet.

What people are all arguing about is the very few males (I think there were about 3 or 4 who simply just kept repeating themselves and claimed to speak for the general male population) who are deciding what is and isn't 'too masculine' and what men don't find attractive. It's frankly irritating, because we were talking about 'strong' women, which they have all taken to mean 'women with very prominent muscular definition', which is not what we started talking about at all.

Are they men:O But anyway, the thread started with Katie Taylor as an example, so of course people would imagine Katie Taylor's muscular definition.

I also find your use of the word strong kind of odd if you want me to be honest. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but you seem to be equating female muscular definition with being a "strong" woman?:S

To get a little bit snarky, you'd swear any man who says he doesn't want to be with a woman that has well built arms to only want a "weak" woman.

Seraphina

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misreading it, but you seem to be equating female muscular definition with being a "strong" woman?:S

Not at all, I was trying to make the point that this is what the guys seem to be assuming. Strong = some kind of hulking bodybuilder type, orange, dehydrated and vascular posing on stage.

Also, I find it odd that there seems to be such an issue with Katie Taylors arms, I've seen loads of women with arms that size! They're not massive by any standards.

GalwayGuy2

Not at all, I was trying to make the point that this is what the guys seem to be assuming. Strong = some kind of hulking bodybuilder type, orange, dehydrated and vascular posing on stage.

Oh sorry. I thought it was a thing you used to see a lot, but is fading quite quickly, about men. As in only imagining a strong man as in physically strong rather than mentally, emotionally, being a stay at home dad, so on so forth.

And tbf, sometimes you do see the above towards women. Admittedly, I could be wrong.

Fukuyama

Well over a dozen pages in and there's still people fighting the corner that says men should find muscular female bodies attractive.

A few people even suggesting that the media has us programmed not to. I'll admit the media has plastered a faux version of attractiveness; something that is just as fake for men. (blond hair, big boobs or stubble and a Calvin Klein body). But there's the fairly well established psychological cues for both sexes such as wide hips for women, strong jawline for men etc...

I think most guys would find an athletic female body attractive. There's female GAA players, footballers etc... who are attractive.

But there's a line where it crosses over from being attractive, to being a 'niche', shall we say. A lot of women say they don't like 'big muscular guys'. So it stands to reason that an even smaller amount of guys would find 'big muscular ladies' attractive.

Huge biceps, popping veins, thick necks are the side effects of pushing your body to the extreme. Something an athlete should be proud of. As for being attractive... :rolleyes:

Tigger99

It's funny to see that untrue assumption that if a woman does weights it's going to bulk her up. I got really into weights a few years ago and never had a better more toned firm body. I love when I'm in the gym and see a woman using heavy weights and not those stupid bloody pink 1kg ones.

To bulk up with weights takes a lot of work and changing your diet and proper dedication.

It's funny how some men in this thread almost take it as a personal affront that women might want to bulk up.

--Kaiser--

Tigger99 wrote: »

It's funny to see that untrue assumption that if a woman does weights it's going to bulk her up. I got really into weights a few years ago and never had a better more toned firm body. I love when I'm in the gym and see a woman using heavy weights and not those stupid bloody pink 1kg ones.

To bulk up with weights takes a lot of work and changing your diet and proper dedication.

It's funny how some men in this thread almost take it as a personal affront that women might want to bulk up.

I don't actually think any one brought up any thing about women doing weights. I think women should do weights, as you said, most women will find it very hard to bulk up to the extent I'm talking about. But anyway, apparently this thread isn't about muscular women