The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
You're fat and ugly unless you buy our stuff
Posts
So calling someone on their retarded and transparent strawman is a "cheap trick" around these parts. I don't know about the people I hang out with but I'm certainly in good company now. And just because someone isn't visibly muscular doesn't make them weak. What the hell do you people mean by weak anyway? Bed ridden geriatric that can't climb a flight a stairs? A person can do 100 pushups in a row or a set of 12 bodywieght chinups and still not be visibly muscular. I guess that means they're weak then aren't they?
No, it doesn't look equally bad.
Like Cat said, for women the attractiveness/musculature graph is linear; the more muscular a woman is, the less attractive she is perceived as.
Whereas for men it's more of a bell curve; if you're skinny as fuck, you won't be very attractive. If you're in the middle somewhere, i.e. decently toned and athletic body, you'll be attractive. If you're a bodybuilder... yeah, not attractive.
In other words, Cat is talking about the double-standards in gender in regards to musculature and its effects on attractiveness.
Well I reread the exact quote, and I'll concede that Cat made a weak strawman of you. Your response was quite brilliant though, a sweeping generalization of an absolute.
What exactly did you think would be the response to saying that "women aren't meant to be muscular"? A pat on the back, a high five for your wonderful insight? For starters you assume women are meant to be something specific. From what authority was it brought down that women were meant to be a certain physique, are any women who do not have that physique being something they "weren't meant to be"? You specifically said muscular, and while being strong and having visible muscles are not exactly the same, having visible musculature is most often a sign of physical strength. Saying that having a sign of physical strength is going against what women are "meant to be" would imply that being physically strong is not what you believe women are "meant to be".
What do I mean by weak? Well thats a hard one to explain. Specifically we are coming from a discussion of double standards amongst men and women, therefore we can safely assume that a person with strength above that of a person who maintains a median healthy lifestyle to be our "strong". We can also assume below the median to be weak. Now if we assign a hundred people of each the majority gender groupings, thats male and female, to cover a hundred distinct positions on that scale, the median would remain at healthy, if however we excluded every condition from the females in which musculature showed the median strength would be decreased to lower than the median strength of men.
To say that women simply should not have over a certain strength for fear of losing status as women, especially since they cannot 'attain' status as men and are therefore considered other or simply less than a woman, is called sexism.
To call another person on a strawman is not a cheap, cheap trick. To call a person out and ridicule them for a facetious debate technique and then close with an openly sexist comment is indeed cheap. Your mileage for that arguement is less than 0, so why are you so retarded?
Reminds me of when I was staying in a town-house in Flagstaff for a few days. I swear to God, every commerical break on every station had a PSA about chewing tobacco. For the love of...who outside of the deep south chews tobacco in this day and age?
Steam: pazython
Arizona ranchers actually. My math professor had interesting stories about students who chewed in class.
Fine. Replace "meant" with "biologically structured toward" and kindly fuck the hell off.
Oh...well...they were still pretty damn annoying.
Steam: pazython
Word replaced.... OK, now you're not an asshole, just wrong.
And yes I went ahead and reread through the thread including jeepguy's post. A simple google search then revealed plenty of non-body building female athletes who had showing muscles. Oddly enough it has something to do with pose and muscle tension and not some grand evolutionary design. Now I saw alot of women whose musculature didn't particularly show even while running races or playing tennis, so you could conceivably argue that it is less common, but that hasn't been your arguement. Your arguement has been that it is either "less womanly" or a predetermined biological norm which can only be broken by abnormal hormone levels.
Telling me to fuck off is not going to endear you to me or make your arguement any more correct. If you want to debate, debate. If you just want to be rude and throw out insults there are plenty of places I'd rather you took it.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If constant exposure to late-night informercials has taught me anything, it's that a) I really want a knife that can cut through a shoe, and b) there are a lot of products out there whose sole purpose is to help women get firm abs, buttocks, and thighs. It's possible that "firmness" is just being used as a euphemism for "skinny", but the models they use suggests that muscle-tone is what they're aiming at. So, I guess what I'm saying is that there's a general expectation for women to be muscular - or at least toned - in different (admittedly useless) areas to men. At any rate, I don't think it's as simple as "more muscles = less attractive".
For example, what was the name of that woman who became an internet-fad for a few weeks? The track-and-field girl from some American university whose photos were everywhere? Anyway, whatever her name is, guys were drooling over her, but if you look at her pictures, she's pretty well-built. From what I can see, there's still a bell-curve relationship between female musculature and attractiveness, it's just skewed to the left.
I don't think it's necessary to analyse it in terms of power-relations. For guys who like lolitas and all that other creepy shit - then sure: there's pretty clearly some weird dominance psychology going on there. But I'd argue that a preference for women who aren't overtly muscular is better explained by evolutionary-psych than oppression. I'm not saying that evolution favours weak women or that it justifies society's view of muscular women - only that males, for evolutionary reasons, tend to find females attractive based on traits that suggest fertility. Muscles don't suggest fertility; if anything, they suggest a potential competitor. In that way, muscles are arguably the exact opposite of what males are predisposed to find appealing.
Now, before anyone decides to strawman me for being a social Darwinist or whatever-the-fuck, I should clarify that I don't think ALL males are predisposed to finding muscular women unattractive, and neither do I believe that culture is incapable of doing anything to counteract (or emphasise) that predisposition. My position is that there are deeper reasons for the stigma attached to muscular women than just "men like women to be weak". It's possible that's a part of it, but I very much doubt it's the primary cause.
Here are three types of women. Which ones do you find attractive, and which do you not? Why?
Thin
Muscular
Fat
Women who lift every other day and have a low body fat % will have to look something like a female bodybuilder almost by definition. Because women don't naturally have low bodyfat %. Perhaps there are a very few out there who just have a quirk of genetics, but otherwise, no.
My point: Looking like a bodybuilder does not happen just because you lift weights, it happens because you want to look like one.
No. I saw these elsewhere the other day and I came in here expecting this to be a totally one sided discussion, but I'm glad there's someone else I can agree with.
yeah, i don't think people realize the incredible amount of stuff big time bodybuilders (men and women) put into their bodies to look like that.
no woman is going to get that freakin huge just by working out all the time. she might get ripped and toned, but a woman's body isn't built to pile on tons and tons of muscle like that naturally (and guys only slightly more so).
and that first picture is a picture of a tranny. nice try though
There are exceptions to every rule. Take this woman for example: Muscular
Is it possible that she got that way without testosterone? Yes, anything is possible. Is it likely though? I would have to personally say no.
Everyone is different, and that's why it is dangerous for their to be one standard that all people are held up to, whether it be physical beauty, mental ability, etc. For example, I personally feel that "No Child Left Behind" is a ridiculous concept. It assumes that all people are created equal and have the exact same potential. That kind of talk may have worked for President Lincoln, but the fact is that some kids are just born dumb as shit. But I digress...
Personally, I don't find showing muscle to be attractive either. I just don't. I don't know if it's because society has conditioned me into thinking that it is a masculine trait, if it is genetic, or what. It just looks wrong to me. I'd choose Little Miss Big Girl over Miss Muscle Mass any day.
There's a difference between having visible muscle and being ripped. (which, frankly, I find creepy-looking on either gender; once you go below 10% body fat as a male you're not considered healthy).
Even when I was at 34% body fat, I could still show off muscle definition, simply because I had enough of it. Having body fat doesn't prevent you from having visible musclature.
The women in that initial link, in many cases, still had plenty of visible body fat, they just also had plenty of muscle under it, so they could just as easily crush as cuddle. The ones who had unhealthily-low body fat tended to look less attractive; but the ones with a bit of fluff on their curves could still rip you arm off for grabbing their hawt asses.
I mean seriously:
Clearly, she is actually a man.
What. What. This is flat out wrong. 2-5% supplies your essential fats. Athletes in peak condition typically have 6-10% in most sports.
Also having a high body fat percentage makes it far harder to show muscle definition. For example it's going to be near impossible for anyone with over 30% to have a six pack that's visible let alone defined.
nope, she's a bodybuilder with hair extensions, bleached teeth, and implants.
here's a woman with little definition but tons of strength. I know I can't put up the numbers she does (300+). Note, she does not look like Chyna.
I guess my point is that women can be very strong without being super defined ala bodybuilders.
I didn't say you should go -over- 10%.
It's a balancing act.
So no, it is not flat-out wrong.
I'm too naked and in need of dry hair to find an actual medical site at the moment, but this says 8-19% for health: http://ask.yahoo.com/20020327.html
http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/bodyfatpercentage.html recommends that below 3% is unhealthy for men.
:rotate:
3%-5% is listed as inadequate.
no shit, but you said under 10% bodyfat for men is unhealthy, which is just flat out wrong. then you provided a link that proved yourself wrong. thanks!
Of course there are woman that can put on muscle to a significant degree, but they're literally one in a million. The rest of women can add a little mass, but not to any significant degree. Slimming down to the point of a six pack and striated muscles doesn't mean a woman has built large muscles, just that she's at a very low body fat percentage. (something also harder for women than men since on average women carry more fat than men do) I've seen dozens of pictures of bodybuilder women (or "Figure competitors" as they like to be called) on T-Nation and they all look the same. Small muscles with single digit body fat. And these are women that can squat double their bodyweight.
edited for clarity
Stop flailing. Admit you made an error and move the fuck on.
ergo, women who are defined must be broken or on drugs. I see. Anyone else want to pop in and subtly call Cass a freak?
Damn, I wish I one of the blogs I used to read was still up. It was written by a woman in her late 50's who'd gone a little gym-nutty. She took none of the crap supplements you see recommended in H/A, and managed to get really quite toned and muscular in a relatively short time. She was only little. Didn't look weird at all, either. Unfortunately she got cancer while uninsured and has pretty much disappeared off the web, although I understand she's in remission now. She was a fantastic model for a strong, muscular femininity that didn't look anything like the freak examples you guys are cherrypicking off google.
Athletes are hot.
My crush is a runner. She was super-defined, last time I checked.
In other news, I'm not saying the way I think things should be. I'm saying the way they are. The majority of women cannot build a muscular physique. Deal with it.
Cat, you have to admit that women who can gain muscle mass as easily as the average man are not average. According to Dictionary.com, freak means "any abnormal phenomenon or product or unusual object; anomaly; aberration." Therefore, the term freak would technically be appropriate, though impolite. A more PC choice would be "unique." However, if we do go with freak, than I'll acknowledge that I'm a freak for being a guy who has almost no muscle. Big deal.
Personally, I thought Stokke was too muscular for my preferences, and I don't think that way because I'm afraid a girl will be stronger than me. That's because I already know most girls are stronger than me! I'm one of those guys in the minority who barely has any muscle mass whatsoever. I just don't find women with visible muscle to be aesthetically pleasing (please note that I'm not saying muscular women are ugly; I'm saying that I personally don't find it pretty).
That's a revolutionary step forward in gender norms and the problem of stereotypically feminine qualities being viewed in negative terms right there.
I found other numbers, actually, but they got -above- 10% which was worrisome.
But yes, I was off by 2%.
--
Your "freak" is based on modern social norms, not biology.
I have more right to call urban people freaks because they are, on average, weaker than we country folk (though, of course, now that urban is the majority of the population, it -suddenly shifted- around by magic), unless you spend hours trying to force yourselves to be otherwise and chug artificial crap. But that would still be stupid because the weakness is a social/cultural thing, not a biological thing.
Nobody should be telling you you have to be attracted to X body type. By the same token you don't get to tell anybody else they shouldn't be attracted to X body type.