"you can be attracted to men without masculinity." Do you agree?

jeanjolie

Heard this during a heated Reddit debate from a woman in response to a gay guy who said 'If I wanted femininity/androgyny, I would be with a woman'.

Now granted that most men are masculine and most women are feminine, but why do so many people believe that wanting a biologically female person means you that more masculine/androgynous appearance and behaviour is unattractive and vice versa for men? Why so black and white

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity. Doesn't seem so. People do have every right to date whoever they want to, but I am always get this vibe of sexism when reading comments like such from gay guys as shown above.

Dyr

jeanjolie wrote: »

Heard this during a heated Reddit debate from a woman in response to a gay guy who said 'If I wanted femininity/androgyny, I would be with a woman'.

Now granted that most men are masculine and most women are feminine, but why do so many people believe that wanting a biologically female person means you that more masculine/androgynous appearance and behaviour is unattractive and vice versa for men? Why so black and white

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity. Doesn't seem so. People do have every right to date whoever they want to, but I am always get this vibe of sexism when reading comments like such from gay guys as shown above.

we're deffo becoming tolerant of people who cant string coherent sentences together

Mod-Banned

Armchair Andy

Bambi wrote:

we're deffo becoming tolerant of people who cant string coherent sentences together

True daaat.

LuckyLloyd

Our culture can be as progressive as it likes, but basic characteristics of gender and sexual attraction (and it's a bell curve on both counts obviously) aren't changing any time soon.

ohnonotgmail

Pehaps it's just that people are individuals and are attracted to different things? I wasnt aware that a persons political leanings had a bearing on who they fancied. I quite like a bit of androgyny myself.

greencap

Theres a bit in our brains that sees certain shapes/characteristics and then activates the weiner/flaps accordingly.

In heterosexual males this shape is (.)(.)
Which causes the weiner to activate.

In heterosexual females this shape is €€
Which causes the landing bay doors to open.


Big boobies means lots of milk for my offspring. - male mind.

Big money means lots of food and security for my offspring. (and shoes) - female mind.


When theres both big boobies and big money it means that the baby grows up strong and safe in Blackrock. We call this baby a Tristan or a Sorcha.

If one of the elements is missing the baby risks being a commonplace Dave. Or in the case of both elements being missing, may result in a Jayo.

This is why signs of gender are important to our brain. They tell us who to fck and who not to fck.
Which is why society is obsessed with appearance.
Because we have two basic drives. Survival, and reproduction.

Our brains also cause us to freeze, **** ourselves, or run like a .... really fast person when we see shapes like fangs or tentacles or claws or heights.

Its our instincts.

But yes you can be attracted to more androgynous individuals if you try.
Just like you can remain calm in the face of dangerous shapes, if you try.

ohnonotgmail

greencap wrote: »

Theres a bit in our brains that sees certain shapes/characteristics and then activates the weiner/flaps accordingly.

In heterosexual males this shape is (.)(.)
Which causes the weiner to activate.

In heterosexual females this shape is €€
Which causes the landing bay doors to open.


Big boobies means lots of milk for my offspring. - male mind.

Big money means lots of food and security for my offspring. (and shoes) - female mind.


When theres both big boobies and big money it means that the baby grows up strong and safe in Blackrock. We call this baby a Tristan or a Sorcha.

If one of the elements is missing the baby risks being a commonplace Dave. Or in the case of both elements being missing, may result in a Jayo.

This is why signs of gender are important to our brain. They tell us who to fck and who not to fck.
Which is why society is obsessed with appearance.
Because we have two basic drives. Survival, and reproduction.

Our brains also cause us to freeze, **** ourselves, or run like a .... really fast person when we see shapes like fangs or tentacles or claws or heights.

Its our instincts.

But yes you can be attracted to more androgynous individuals if you try.
Just like you can remain calm in the face of dangerous shapes.

It honestly doesnt take that much effort

greencap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It honestly doesnt take that much effort

John Major.

ohnonotgmail

greencap wrote: »

John Major.

if you think he is androgynous you need to consult a dictionary.

greencap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you think he is androgynous you need to consult a dictionary.

not that he's fully androgynous, but that he's not highly masculine.

George Kostanza. Rosey O'donnell.

Neither with highly indicative traits.

Both not found on bedroom walls.

ohnonotgmail

greencap wrote: »

not that he's fully androgynous, but that he's not highly masculine.

George Kostanza. Rosey O'donnell.

Neither with highly indicative traits.

Both not found on bedroom walls.

none of these people are even slightly androgynous. Tilda Swinton is androgynous. Rosie O'Donnell is not.

con___manx1

Bambi wrote: »

we're deffo becoming tolerant of people who cant string coherent sentences together

I really love posters on boards that correct other peoples mistakes and don't mention anything about the actual post. it would be great if there was more people on boards like you bambi. your my boards hero.

Jobs OXO

jeanjolie wrote: »

Heard this during a heated Reddit debate from a woman in response to a gay guy who said 'If I wanted femininity/androgyny, I would be with a woman'.

Now granted that most men are masculine and most women are feminine, but why do so many people believe that wanting a biologically female person means you that more masculine/androgynous appearance and behaviour is unattractive and vice versa for men? Why so black and white

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity. Doesn't seem so. People do have every right to date whoever they want to, but I am always get this vibe of sexism when reading comments like such from gay guys as shown above.

Wat??? All I know is vageens are designed to be pummelled by sex sticks....

AnGaelach

jeanjolie wrote: »

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity. Doesn't seem so. People do have every right to date whoever they want to, but I am always get this vibe of sexism when reading comments like such from gay guys as shown above.

Because men are supposed to be masculine and women are supposed to be feminine. Human nature has existed long before liberal democracy and will exist long after it.

greencap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

none of these people are even slightly androgynous. Tilda Swinton is androgynous. Rosie O'Donnell is not.

Not androgynous.

Lacking in their relative gender traits.

George lacks upper body muscle.

Rosey lacks a certain format of curves/hip-waist ratio.



Gender traits are the core of attractiveness.

Thereafter all things are possible - kinks, fetishes, associations.

You can find androgeny appealing, as you CAN find scars, big feet or a model ship glued to the head appealing also.

But deep down the primary drivers are for signs which tell our simpleton reptilian brain that hey 'THIS' is a female, or 'THIS' is a male ... now go mate with it.

Thus Jessica Rabbit.

Thus a tall dark handsome prince.

pumpkin4life

greencap wrote: »

not that he's fully androgynous, but that he's not highly masculine.

George Kostanza. Rosey O'donnell.

Neither with highly indicative traits.

Both not found on bedroom walls.

soups05

I would suggest neither sex would find this whiny waste of flesh attractive. Nothing to do with looks, all to do with attitude.

a "lesbian man" lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpM5Wyg1mes&t=308s&ab_channel=Bearing

riffmongous

I would say that our society becoming more liberal doesn't necessarily mean that the types of attraction will or must change but rather that those people who do find them attractive become freer to do so

clairewithani

greencap wrote: »

Not androgynous.

Lacking in their relative gender traits.

George lacks upper body muscle.

Rosey lacks a certain format of curves/hip-waist ratio.



Gender traits are the core of attractiveness.

Thereafter all things are possible - kinks, fetishes, associations.

You can find androgeny appealing, as you CAN find scars, big feet or a model ship glued to the head appealing also.

But deep down the primary drivers are for signs which tell our simpleton reptilian brain that hey 'THIS' is a female, or 'THIS' is a male ... now go mate with it.

Thus Jessica Rabbit.

Thus a tall dark handsome prince.

Jessica Rabbit and tall dark handsome Prince are in fiction

professore

I'm told I should be attracted to pencil thin models, fat chicks and trans men by society. I'm supposed to be attracted to the ball busting Sheryl Sandbergs and Marissa Mayers of this world.

I'm not. I'm attracted to smart feminine caucasian women (tanned is nice) who are good craic, and know their own mind with curves in the right places. This doesn't make me racist or transphobic, I'm quite happy to be friends with anyone, but don't tell me who I should be attracted to.

Definitely wouldn't find a woman attractive who thinks other people can tell her who she should find attractive. Massive turn off.

greencap

clairewithani wrote: »

Jessica Rabbit and tall dark handsome Prince are in fiction

because they're the fictional ideal mate for the average person.


mills and boon; athletic billionaire doctor.

fhm; 20yo double d cup bunny girl with slender waist.

this is what most people overall are attracted to, on average.

because thats what our reptilian brain has learned to take as signs of a good mate, through evolution.

ceadaoin.

jeanjolie wrote: »

Heard this during a heated Reddit debate from a woman in response to a gay guy who said 'If I wanted femininity/androgyny, I would be with a woman'.

Now granted that most men are masculine and most women are feminine, but why do so many people believe that wanting a biologically female person means you that more masculine/androgynous appearance and behaviour is unattractive and vice versa for men? Why so black and white

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity. Doesn't seem so. People do have every right to date whoever they want to, but I am always get this vibe of sexism when reading comments like such from gay guys as shown above.

You said it yourself, people have the right to date whoever they want and to reject potential mates for whatever reason they want. Why would that offend you? Guilting or labelling someone as sexist or (insert here)phobic for having a sexual preference is creepy. why do you care so much?

Outlaw Pete

What is a rampant rabbit but a man without masculinity.

Glenster

greencap wrote: »

because they're the fictional ideal mate for the average person.


mills and boon; athletic billionaire doctor.

fhm; 20yo double d cup bunny girl with slender waist.

this is what most people overall are attracted to, on average.

because thats what our reptilian brain has learned to take as signs of a good mate, through evolution.

Naaah, she sounds like hard work mate.

greencap

Glenster wrote: »

Naaah, she sounds like hard work mate.

for you.






(bane quote complete)

Irish Guitarist

Samaris

You know, skimming over this conversation and all the instructions on who and what traits one should find attractive, it's quite possible to come away with the confused feeling that one is supposed to be sexually attracted to rabbits.

jeanjolie

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because men are supposed to be masculine and women are supposed to be feminine. Human nature has existed long before liberal democracy and will exist long after it.

Are we supposed to be limited by our nature in regards to things we can make progress to change?

It may be that Ireland has more than its fair share of ignorant people. Other Western European countries have more progressive individuals.

I never said that we would get rid of masculinity and femininity, I do understand that there is a biological origin, its just that I believe people are bit quite close minded in regards to individuals who are non gender conforming.

valoren

So if your a straight man but are sleeping with a straight woman, who happens to look like a man, it's a sort of cocknitive dissonance?

Parchment

Prince?!

jeanjolie

jeanjolie wrote: »

I thought that our liberal, progressive western culture was becoming more open minded to people not adhering to masculinity/femininity.

What are the "masculine traits" that I am meant to be adhering to exactly? I have never really been clear on what they even are myself.

Without knowing what the traits are the question in the OP and statements like this -

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because men are supposed to be masculine and women are supposed to be feminine.

- are difficult to find any meaning in.

JaCrispy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It honestly doesnt take that much effort

Depends on both people really, don't you agree?

ohnonotgmail

JaCrispy wrote: »

Depends on both people really, don't you agree?

Well seeing as attraction ALWAYS depends on both parties your post is really just stating the bleeding obvious.

JaCrispy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well seeing as attraction ALWAYS depends on both parties your post is really just stating the bleeding obvious.

Good, just what I suspected. So then your original post was just in reference to yourself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

JaCrispy wrote: »

Good, just what I suspected. So then your original post was just in reference to yourself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution :rolleyes:

Poster on message boards posts personal opinion. what a shocker. you must be new to this.

JaCrispy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Poster on message boards posts personal opinion. what a shocker. you must be new to this.

Not new to this. I see right-on opinions flowing from the same people quite frequently. The same people who have to tell the world their liberal opinions at every opportunity, even when we couldn't give a damn.

ohnonotgmail

JaCrispy wrote: »

Not new to this. I see right-on opinions flowing from the same people quite frequently. The same people who have to tell the world their liberal opinions at every opportunity, even when we couldn't give a damn.

what makes you think anybody gives a damn about your opinion? and who is "we" in this context?

pumpkin4life

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pehaps it's just that people are individuals and are attracted to different things? I wasnt aware that a persons political leanings had a bearing on who they fancied. I quite like a bit of androgyny myself.

Not as much as you think.

Men: feminine, skinny, long haired, young wans, to some extent the right look.

Women: tall/strong, wealthy, the right look, socially dominant, charismatic, slightly older lads.

That's 95% of peoples sexual attraction right there.

People who say otherwise are usually (a) outliers or are (b) rationalizing away their own un-attractiveness imo.

ohnonotgmail

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Not as much as you think.

Men: feminine, skinny, long haired, young wans, to some extent the right look.

Women: tall/strong, wealthy, the right look, socially dominant, charismatic, slightly older lads.

That's 95% of peoples sexual attraction right there.

People who say otherwise are usually (a) outliers or are (b) rationalizing away their own un-attractiveness imo.

and yet people who fit neither of these descriptions manage to successfully procreate. any source for that 95% figure? i reckons its bull****.

seamus

What's funny are the amount of people who swear that attractive "masculine" and "feminine" traits are fixed in time and across generations.

What constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" traits - whether attractive or not - is pretty straightforward;

Masculine - Taller, stronger, broader shoulders, mostly covered with hair, deeper voice, "harsher" facial features, and a penis
Feminine - Shorter, more body fat, wider hips, higher voice, less hair on torso and face, finer hair elsewhere, softer facial features, milk-producing breasts and a vagina.

That's pretty much it. There was a time when the most attractive men had more boyish features, such as less body hair, low body fat with normal muscle tone, and small genitals. There was also a time when fat women with small breasts and huge arses were the main attraction.

Upbringing and social influences play a much bigger part in what is and isn't attractive than we give it credit for. The "Bell curve" and "95%" stuff mentioned above is largely affected by what 95% of the rest of your community prefer. It's not a universal set of criteria which has always existed and will always exist.

conorhal

seamus wrote: »

What's funny are the amount of people who swear that attractive "masculine" and "feminine" traits are fixed in time and across generations.

What constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" traits - whether attractive or not - is pretty straightforward;

Masculine - Taller, stronger, broader shoulders, mostly covered with hair, deeper voice, "harsher" facial features, and a penis
Feminine - Shorter, more body fat, wider hips, higher voice, less hair on torso and face, finer hair elsewhere, softer facial features, milk-producing breasts and a vagina.

That's pretty much it. There was a time when the most attractive men had more boyish features, such as less body hair, low body fat with normal muscle tone, and small genitals. There was also a time when fat women with small breasts and huge arses were the main attraction.

Upbringing and social influences play a much bigger part in what is and isn't attractive than we give it credit for. The "Bell curve" and "95%" stuff mentioned above is largely affected by what 95% of the rest of your community prefer. It's not a universal set of criteria which has always existed and will always exist.

The social manefestion of this expresses itself as hypergamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

It's the phenomena that exists cross culturally and in our animal relatives, coloqually you'd call it 'marrying up'. Women tend to marry men of the same or higher social status, which fits with the biological imperative, mating with the alpha male. It's not as typical for women to marry men of a lower social status as it is for men to do so.

Your Face

Whatever yanks your crank.

greencap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet people who fit neither of these descriptions manage to successfully procreate. any source for that 95% figure? i reckons its bull****.

Look the science is pretty much out on this already. In humans and animals. Health is the basis of attractiveness.

Google most popular male/female pornstars. That's what most people jerk off to most of the time. You'll see they're not so androgynous.
It just so happens that these individuals have highly masculine or feminine traits.

You can still have your individual preferences.
But most of the time its muscles (which coincidently are good for hunting and fighting) and big ol titties (which are good for baby nourishment...hmm another coincidence).

Its in our instincts, and even adapts to our forebearers geographic region.
A certain demographic having preferences for the ample, bulbous butts.
(And not lying about it).

Attractiveness is mate selection. Gender features are 1-5 star reviews. Athletic muscular features, or feminine fertility features are basically 1 type of solid guarantee for your genital gamble.

greencap

conorhal wrote: »

The social manefestion of this expresses itself as hypergamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

It's the phenomena that exists cross culturally and in our animal relatives, coloqually you'd call it 'marrying up'. Women tend to marry men of the same or higher social status, which fits with the biological imperative, mating with the alpha male. It's not as typical for women to marry men of a lower social status as it is for men to do so.

Yeah but my current feelings and social political preferences are more important than your millennium old natural science facts.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

What's funny are the amount of people who swear that attractive "masculine" and "feminine" traits are fixed in time and across generations.

What constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" traits - whether attractive or not - is pretty straightforward;

Masculine - Taller, stronger, broader shoulders, mostly covered with hair, deeper voice, "harsher" facial features, and a penis
Feminine - Shorter, more body fat, wider hips, higher voice, less hair on torso and face, finer hair elsewhere, softer facial features, milk-producing breasts and a vagina.

That's pretty much it. There was a time when the most attractive men had more boyish features, such as less body hair, low body fat with normal muscle tone, and small genitals. There was also a time when fat women with small breasts and huge arses were the main attraction.

Upbringing and social influences play a much bigger part in what is and isn't attractive than we give it credit for. The "Bell curve" and "95%" stuff mentioned above is largely affected by what 95% of the rest of your community prefer. It's not a universal set of criteria which has always existed and will always exist.

you can tend to tie some element back to biological motivation though. weak man with no job and no social status will never be "in" , likewise women that go out of their way to look anti feminine will never rate high in desirability.

conorhal

greencap wrote: »

Yeah but my current feelings and social political preferences are more important than your millennium old natural science facts.

Why does this meme spring to mind...

(Slightly NSFW)

https://thetab.com/uploads/2013/06/oxford2.jpg

ohnonotgmail

greencap wrote: »

Look the science is pretty much out on this already. In humans and animals. Health is the basis of attractiveness.

Google most popular male/female pornstars. That's what most people jerk off to most of the time. You'll see they're not so androgynous.
It just so happens that these individuals have highly masculine or feminine traits.

You can still have your individual preferences.
But most of the time its muscles (which coincidently are good for hunting and fighting) and big ol titties (which are good for baby nourishment...hmm another coincidence).

Its in our instincts, and even adapts to our forebearers geographic region.
A certain demographic having preferences for the ample, bulbous butts.
(And not lying about it).

Attractiveness is mate selection. Gender features are 1-5 star reviews. Athletic muscular features, or feminine fertility features are basically 1 type of solid guarantee for your genital gamble.

where to even start with the wrongness of the part in bold. large breasts do not produce more or better milk than smaller breasts. the preference for large breasts is a relatively recent phenomenon and only in some (but not all) western cultures. Even in western culture the preference for female body types has swung back and forth. In victorian england flat chests for women were in vogue so they strapped them down. In the 1920s and 30 the same applied. Bigger has not always been better.

jobbridge4life

JaCrispy wrote: »

Not new to this. I see right-on opinions flowing from the same people quite frequently. The same people who have to tell the world their liberal opinions at every opportunity, even when we couldn't give a damn.

Cheesus does everything, every possible discussion have to end up with the same old tired lines... :rolleyes:

jeanjolie

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet people who fit neither of these descriptions manage to successfully procreate. any source for that 95% figure? i reckons its bull****.

Although I don't necessarily agree that attraction is biological, I do have to disagree with your premise.

A lot of short 'feminine' men will probably go to have fulfilling relationships, but not before having it 20x more difficult than masculine men (rejection wise).

And the sad fact is, even when a woman likes a feminine man, very few from my experience would find him conventionally attractive in terms of 'instant attraction' compared to a more masculine man. She may settle for his personality and not his looks. In other words, she wouldn't not at all be repulsed by his femininity, but not attracted by it.

Evolution doesn't mean that those who are feminine or masculine (gender conforming wise)will have extreme difficulty in relationships, it just means that in terms of instant attraction from the average individual, in day to day circumstances, they will be put on 'low priority'.

Ush1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

where to even start with the wrongness of the part in bold. large breasts do not produce more or better milk than smaller breasts. the preference for large breasts is a relatively recent phenomenon and only in some (but not all) western cultures. Even in western culture the preference for female body types has swung back and forth. In victorian england flat chests for women were in vogue so they strapped them down. In the 1920s and 30 the same applied. Bigger has not always been better.

Your girl got some flat titties?

greencap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

where to even start with the wrongness of the part in bold. large breasts do not produce more or better milk than smaller breasts. the preference for large breasts is a relatively recent phenomenon and only in some (but not all) western cultures. Even in western culture the preference for female body types has swung back and forth. In victorian england flat chests for women were in vogue so they strapped them down. In the 1920s and 30 the same applied. Bigger has not always been better.

Well fair enough, that was an assumption of the logic going on within the brain.

Look, I've read up on this stuff. And it wasn't from biased or baseless sources. Strong gender features indicate puberty went well, an indicator of an history overall good health.
Go look at the ladies lounge eye candy thread, or the gentlemen's lounge equivalent.
There'll be individual taste variances, sure, but the average will 100% not be androgyny.

A woman CAN find an androgynous man attractive, but overall, most women most of the time will be guided by evolution to go for the athletic hunk.

Why would our species instincts want androgyny, ...that's uncertainty, is it a man or a woman...should I mate with it....or should i fight with it...how do I know which it is.
Our inner chimp would be confused.

I recall an interview with a private investigation firm, they were quite successful, and specialized in partner fidelity.
They'd use a honey trap to establish loyalty levels.
The partner under investigation would be flirted with/approached by one of their models.
Both these 'temptatyion' models were as any half intelligent person would expect.

Her - slender, young, nice rack.
Him - tall, athletic, rich established man vibe.
Neither androgynous.

Because androgyny isn't the instinctive ideal.