woman = beautiful + strong?

Fukuyama

I can't believe some of the responses in this thread.

OP I think you're being politically correct to the point of delusion.

My brother was in Germany and they couldn't make out why the Irish bar was going mental over female boxing.

She got more attention than the males. Front page of most papers.

And yet still there's a sexist angle??

Men (most) are not attracted to females who have physical traits which are hardwired into the brains of both males and females, to be masculine.

Masculine features are a turn off for me.

B0jangles

But they aren't hardwired, they are culturally inculcated.

Saying physical strength = masculine, physical weakness = feminine is a problem.

Pretending that they are hardwired into our evolution is to assume the cultural norms of western society in the last 150 years represent the sum total of human existence.

And wow, she got MORE ATTENTION THAN THE MEN???

Like, that's unbelievable, that a WOMAN in SPORT got more attention than the men she managed to get a gold medal in front of???

What the hell is that about? She should be grateful for any attention she gets, even if it is about what bloody dress she wears and so on and so on....

Table Top Joe

Dean0088 wrote: »

I can't believe some of the responses in this thread.

OP I think you're being politically correct to the point of delusion.

My brother was in Germany and they couldn't make out why the Irish bar was going mental over female boxing.

She got more attention than the males. Front page of most papers.

And yet still there's a sexist angle??

Men (most) are not attracted to females who have physical traits which are hardwired into the brains of both males and females, to be masculine.

Masculine features are a turn off for me.

Think theres a lot of that going round here(and in general on Boards sometimes regarding mens attitude to womens looks)i think theres some confusion over what exactly "strong" means too though,not sure everyone is on the same page,to be honest i think some women cant accept that men are hardwired to appreciate and want certain traits in females,its not nice or fair that guys are so often preoccupied with appearances but thats human nature and thats just how it is

ashers22

Dean0088 wrote: »

I can't believe some of the responses in this thread.

OP I think you're being politically correct to the point of delusion.

My brother was in Germany and they couldn't make out why the Irish bar was going mental over female boxing.

She got more attention than the males. Front page of most papers.

And yet still there's a sexist angle??

Men (most) are not attracted to females who have physical traits which are hardwired into the brains of both males and females, to be masculine.

Masculine features are a turn off for me.

so, you wouldn't consider Katie Taylor attractive?

riveratom

Dean0088 wrote: »

The one on the left doesn't look in any way muscular. She has a toned stomach....

The one on the right is clearly a UFC fighter or something. She's pretty but I don't find her attractive.

I don't think a woman with huge biceps and wide set shoulders to be attractive. But that's just me.

Also, so what if people said Katy Taylor was pretty?? What's the big deal?

Were we not all proud of her when she said she'd pull out of the olympics if they introduced 'skirts' for female boxers?

I think as a nation we were quite proud of her. Her audience would be mostly male, so it obvious her looks will come into question. Just as Ronaldo's looks are brought into question.

What's the issue?

Please tell me you're not saying that either one of those women in the photo has huge biceps or wide set shoulders....

ashers22

riveratom wrote: »

Please tell me you're not saying that either one of those women in the photo has huge biceps or wide set shoulders....

Girl on right is definitely buffer and she does look to have pretty massive upper arm strength, I'd safely say she's just after a bout or an intense workout and looks pumped in the pic. I've no doubt that those arms would appear less "threatening" on a slack day and in a dress :P

riveratom

ashers22 wrote: »

Girl on right is definitely buffer and she does look to have pretty massive upper arm strength, I'd safely say she's just after a bout or an intense workout and looks pumped in the pic. I've no doubt that those arms would appear less "threatening" on a slack day and in a dress :P

Yep girl on right is defo pumped! I do think they would settle down a little alright, on a rest day. Personally the girl on the left has a dream body

I do think a lot of people start shaking the 'manly' card though, if a girl is any way firm and very toned like those girls!

ashers22

Girl on the right is Jamie Eason btw, just in case anyone wants to eh..learn more about her. It appears to be a trend to get well done on the buff machine thesedays, Zuzka Light probably has more female followers than male too. Not sure it's what I would want to look like but it's hard not to admire their dedication all the same. (not crazy about the fake boobies either)

Medu

B0jangles wrote: »

I suppose what I am trying to say is that it seem like it is amost primary requirement for women atheletes to look pretty and everything else is just an extra. Just look at Anna Kournikova:

- from wikipedia: "Her appearance and celebrity status made her one of the best known tennis stars worldwide, despite her never winning a WTA singles title"

Would that happen to a (comparatively) mediocre professional male athelete?

How is it a requirement? Kournikova was a very good young player who happened to be very attractive hence the fame. If she had always been crap she won't have been as famous as she was. Sharapova has been the poster girl for the last 6-7 years even though there are better looking women on tour because she has a good mix of success and looks.

Question. Can you name the american and chinese men who won gold/silver in the men's 10 metre platform in london? Probably not. Can you name the Britain that won bronze? Much more likely.

In sports like rhythmic gymnastics/beach volleyball/ etc you do have some people watching it purely to gawp at the women....boxing wouldn't really be seen as a 'girly' sport so maybe that's where some of the surprise that Katie Taylor is pretty comes from?

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Morag

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Think theres a lot of that going round here(and in general on Boards sometimes regarding mens attitude to womens looks)i think theres some confusion over what exactly "strong" means too though,not sure everyone is on the same page,to be honest i think some women cant accept that men are hardwired to appreciate and want certain traits in females,its not nice or fair that guys are so often preoccupied with appearances but thats human nature and thats just how it is

What some ment like,
cos some prefer red heads, some prefere blondes, some are boob men and some are bum men, some like tall women, some like small women, there is a greater range of what people like, there is no one generic look for women and there is no one generic preference for all men.

B0jangles

Medu wrote: »

How is it a requirement? Kournikova was a very good young player who happened to be very attractive hence the fame. If she had always been crap she won't have been as famous as she was. Sharapova has been the poster girl for the last 6-7 years even though there are better looking women on tour because she has a good mix of success and looks.

My point is that being good-looking is a key component for a female athelete being very well known, this is not a requirement for male atheletes.

Arawn

B0jangles wrote: »

My point is that being good-looking is a key component for a female athelete being very well known, this is not a requirement for male atheletes.

That's because men follow sports a hell of a lot more than women and play it a lot more,KAtie Taylor was virtually unknown by women in this country before the olympic run up. You can guarantee a lot more men knew of her though.

As for anna kornikova, while she was an average singles player I believe her and hingis were ranked number one. Which I see nobody had mentioned.

This will not be popular here but it is the truth, Men are superior athletes thus males athletes get more attention despite looks, added to this the talent pool of male athletes is far above that of females. For every rousey,katie taylor and Kyra gracie there are far more types like cyborg. So when one does rise to the top and is good looking she is an advertisers dream. Just like beckham is and just like ronaldo is.

IF you look at the nfl outside of the qbs which is the position to play most of the players in the league can walk around unknown.


Also I'll say it now, I really don't find Taylor attractive and her bible talk bugs the hell out of me.

B0jangles

Arawn wrote: »

This will not be popular here but it is the truth, Men are superior athletes thus males athletes get more attention despite looks

To be accurate, men are superior atheletes in the kinds of activities which men are best at. When the test is of physical endurance, rather than burst strength; in something like marathon swimming for example, Shelly Taylor-Smith was the world no.1 in 1991 overall - she was the best in the world, male or female.

Arawn

B0jangles wrote: »

To be accurate, men are superior atheletes in the kinds of activities which men are best at. When the test is of physical endurance, rather than burst strength; in something like marathon swimming for example, Shelly Taylor-Smith was the world no.1 in 1991 overall - she was the best in the world, male or female.

The only woman in any athletic sport to do so. If anything that only proves my point. One genetic freak in thousands of competitions before and since

B0jangles

Arawn wrote: »

The only woman in any athletic sport to do so. If anything that only proves my point. One genetic freak in thousands of competitions before and since

Given that funding for women's sport at every level is miniscule compared to men's and that women's involvement in serious sport training is a pretty recent phenomenon, you have to admit it's a remarkable achievement.

Being the best in the world at anything takes natural ability and phenomenal amounts of training by the best coaches. Training costs a lot of money.

Arawn

B0jangles wrote: »

Given that funding for women's sport at every level is miniscule compared to men's and that women's involvement in serious sport training is a pretty recent phenomenon, you have to admit it's a remarkable achievement.

Being the best in the world at anything takes natural ability and phenomenal amounts of training by the best coaches. Training costs a lot of money.

No arguements from me here, I've been involved in sports for 15 years now. And yes there is a serious difference in funding but you will admit it youself the amount of female comptiters to male is miniscule and so the men get more funding. MY own local soccer club had one womens team in 15 years and they lasted two seasons becuase they couldn't get the interest needed.


As for why looks get brought up with female competiters



which one do you think is the marketing dream here? That's why looks get brought up. It happens to both male and females.






I bet you can name the first and not the second. People notice other good looking people. It's human nature

Table Top Joe

Morag wrote: »

What some ment like,
cos some prefer red heads, some prefere blondes, some are boob men and some are bum men, some like tall women, some like small women, there is a greater range of what people like, there is no one generic look for women and there is no one generic preference for all men.

Im not referring to hair colour or whatever,i was referring to things like signs of health etc....basically evolutionary reasons for being attracted to women,obviously we all have our own tastes but if a woman is say 3 stone overweight all the confidence and personality in the world wont matter to guys who have the option of pulling a woman who has the same qualities...but is in good shape and has a nice face

It seems like were arguing here that some women arent more attractive than others,my point is men are programmed to find certain things attractive in women,i know a few guys who go for "larger" women shall we say,with very average(at best) faces,i dont think its a coincidence that these guys havent a hope of pulling a good looking woman(of any hair colour,height etc)


Feels harsh writing that tbh!......but thats life,its like Simon Le Bon from Duran Duran said back in the day when asked why so many rock stars end up with models


"because we can"

Table Top Joe

Arawn wrote: »

People notice other good looking people. It's human nature

Ive waffled on for two posts now,thats what i was getting at in one line:o

B0jangles

Table Top Joe wrote: »

....basically evolutionary reasons for being attracted to women,obviously we all have our own tastes but if a woman is say 3 stone overweight all the confidence and personality in the world wont matter to guys who have the option of pulling a woman who has the same qualities...but is in good shape and has a nice face

Those "basic evolutionary reasons" are remarkably quick to change in line with whatever is fashionable at the time; compare the pin-ups of the '40-'50s with the "waifs" of the '60's



By modern standards, the "ideal" woman in this ad is definitely overweight.

But this is getting a bit off the original topic.

Table Top Joe

I wouldnt consider her overweight though,she probably has the same hip to waist ratio as most other women who have been considered attractive throughtout recorded history

Interesting article on that herehttp://www.squidoo.com/why-waist-to-hip-ratio-is-way-hip


The male equivalent of this thread i think would be some guy posting on the mens forum


"Im skinny,like to cross dress and wear make up.....why dont women like this,its because theyre so close minded isnt it? theyve been brainwashed into liking what they like!"


Oh this thread has gone all over the shop i think,off topic is fine im sure!



Anyway,im sticking with the human nature argument,fashions can change yes but men will always like feminine women,a woman with a masculine body is exactly what were not looking for,the PC in this thread is off the charts

ashers22

Table Top Joe wrote: »

The male equivalent of this thread i think would be some guy posting on the mens forum


"Im skinny,like to cross dress and wear make up.....why dont women like this,its because theyre so close minded isnt it? theyve been brainwashed into liking what they like!"

well


that escalated quickly

Table Top Joe

Yeah ok i was being a bit dramatic:D


Men are never going to find masculinity in womens bodies attractive.......is this not blindingly obvious??


There you go,drama free version

ashers22

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Yeah ok i was being a bit dramatic:D


Men are never going to find masculinity in womens bodies attractive.......is this not blindingly obvious??


There you go,drama free version

but isn't Katie Taylor attractive? Fair enough I'm probably biased but I've heard a lot of women who think she is too. She is a boxer, she is strong, she's not what would be regarded as typically feminine..and yet she is. It's not cross dresser territory to want to be physically strong is it? (now if she was packing her pants or binding her boobs that would be a different story )

shoos

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Yeah ok i was being a bit dramatic:D


Men are never going to find masculinity in womens bodies attractive.......is this not blindingly obvious??


There you go,drama free version

But... but... but...

There are many men who find strength in female bodies attractive. There's loads of men who find strength in females attractive

Perhaps you don't and perhaps your friends don't, which I'm presuming is where you're making these assumptions but... so many men find masculine female bodies the sexiest things ever. You can't claim what all men want. There's no such ideal.

Table Top Joe

ashers22 wrote: »

but isn't Katie Taylor attractive? Fair enough I'm probably biased but I've heard a lot of women who think she is too. She is a boxer, she is strong, she's not what would be regarded as typically feminine..and yet she is. It's not cross dresser territory to want to be physically strong is it? (now if she was packing her pants or binding her boobs that would be a different story )

Shes good looking yeah,dont think she has an overly masculine body though....cant remember,her face is very feminine though

Nothing wrong with wanting to be strong of course,i work out myself and look after myself(TRX later:eek:)and i like a woman who looks after herself but theres being toned,fit strong and all that.....and looking like He-Man


The cross dressing thing is just referencing the fact that women wouldnt want a man who was more girly than them(nothing wrong with cross dressing i hasten to add,just not for me:))

Table Top Joe

shoos wrote: »

But... but... but...

There are many men who find strength in female bodies attractive. There's loads of men who find strength in females attractive

Perhaps you don't and perhaps your friends don't, which I'm presuming is where you're making these assumptions but... so many men find masculine female bodies the sexiest things ever. You can't claim what all men want. There's no such ideal.

Ok....99%! of men wont,maybe 95%.......what kind of strength are we talking about here though? i feel people on this thread all have different ideas of whats being discussed....im not sure myself anymore!


Are we talking athletic?...or the girl on the right a few pages back?

Table Top Joe

Just googled Katie Taylor there....pretty face but theres no way on earth id find her body attractive,shes way to manly for me....those arms!


http://img.rasset.ie/0006cf86-642.jpg

ashers22

Table Top Joe wrote:

Ok....99%! of men wont,maybe 95%.......what kind of strength are we talking about here though? i feel people on this thread all have different ideas of whats being discussed....im not sure myself anymore!

This is the 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?

I think where it gets confusing is where strength, physically at least is considered to be the sole propriety of men.

shoos

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Ok....99%! of men wont,maybe 95%.......what kind of strength are we talking about here though? i feel people on this thread all have different ideas of whats being discussed....im not sure myself anymore!


Are we talking athletic?...or the girl on the right a few pages back?

Take the girl a few pages back. I love your statistics btw, they're brilliant. Really hope you don't see things so black and white day to day!

By your "human nature" logic, then 99% of women must go for really muscular strong men as they're the types to best provide for us way back when or whatever. How do you explain the abundance of women liking really skinny or overweight guys?

Table Top Joe

ashers22 wrote: »

This is the OP





I think where it gets confusing is where strength, physically at least is considered to be the sole propriety of men.

I dont think strength is myself,my friends girlfriend is able to lift him(hes 15 stone!)and shes fairly small(fitness instructer)she looks amazing,strong as a bloody ox...but shes nowhere near as manly as Katie Taylors upper body(seen pics:o)sorry but thats just not going to be attractive for most guys