woman = beautiful + strong?

ashers222

Millicent wrote: »

Ah well cheers for that. Wish I'd read that before I went to the bother of typing out a considered response. :pac: You're being a bit unfair to other posters there, too. Just because they don't necessarily agree with you, doesn't make them unreasonable. There were a lot of good posts on this thread.

well I agree, hope no one is offended.

The Pheasant

Millicent wrote: »

Ah well cheers for that. Wish I'd read that before I went to the bother of typing out a considered response. :pac: You're being a bit unfair to other posters there, too. Just because they don't necessarily agree with you, doesn't make them unreasonable. There were a lot of good posts on this thread.

No, because literally every man who has posted on this thread (with the exception of Scuba ste) has stated that they don't find muscular women attractive. We've referred to the fact that if muscular women were found to be attractive by men they'd feature much more frequently in mainstream media - which they don't. Because the simple fact is that the vast majority of men aren't attracted to that kind of thing. I'm sorry but there's no other way to put it...it gets kind of annoying when the guys on this who obviously know what guys like, just keep getting ignored....

Zombienosh

What type of strength are we talking about here, physical? Any type of strength is beautiful. There seems to be some old view of beauty being delicate and in need of protection but true beauty comes from strength.

The Pheasant

Zombienosh wrote: »

What type of strength are we talking about here, physical? Any type of strength is beautiful. There seems to be some old view of beauty being delicate and in need of protection but true beauty comes from strength.

Physical strength as in muscularity

Zombienosh

I think that's beautiful. I know a lot of women assume that working out and lifting weights will leave them bulky and masculine when it really doesn't unless they want to become a bodybuilder and take hormone altering drugs.

ashers222

mad that I feel I have to apologize all the same but I could feel the feminine heart of the ladies lounge burning into my soul for accepting that compliment. (and screamig fcuk off ashers just fcuk offf!)
k, not all muscular women are masculine, not all curvy women are feminine. 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

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

ashers222

Zombienosh wrote: »

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

I think the men here who have admitted to not being attracted to overly muscular women are of the kind who like being the physically stronger member of a partnership, they want to be protective and caring in a physically strong way. I get that, I do. I want to be that too. I know many women want to be with a man who is protective and caring physically so it's not unreasonable to see why those dynamics might come into play here.

Also, we've used examples of different kind of fitness and strength to try and determine what is essentially "masculine" and there is a difference between amfit and toned woman and a woman with a lot of muscle mass (and not surprisingly, boobs!)

Zombienosh

Guess I'm late to the party then.

Millicent

The Pheasant wrote: »

No, because literally every man who has posted on this thread (with the exception of Scuba ste) has stated that they don't find muscular women attractive. We've referred to the fact that if muscular women were found to be attractive by men they'd feature much more frequently in mainstream media - which they don't. Because the simple fact is that the vast majority of men aren't attracted to that kind of thing. I'm sorry but there's no other way to put it...it gets kind of annoying when the guys on this who obviously know what guys like, just keep getting ignored....

Can you not see the chicken/egg argument though? Nothing you've said there refutes my points about how tastes are influenced and certain body types popularised.

Eta: And why speak for all men? I know a fair few lads that like bigger ladies. Will they admit it to their friends? No, because they'd be slagged for it (within their circles of friends.)

ashers222

I think it's just easier if we agree with the women.

why you insist on being validated by men is still beyond me though. Can you not just be beautiful regardless?

Millicent

ashers222 wrote: »

I think it's just easier if we agree with the women.

why you insist on being validated by men is still beyond me though. Can you not just be beautiful regardless?

Um, I think that's what all the women here are arguing for--that beauty doesn't come in one standard package.

The first two sentences there are a bit bloody patronising, by the way. Some of us are very happy in our own skin without the validation of anyone else, thanks very much.

ashers222

Millicent wrote: »

Um, I think that's what all the women here are arguing for--that beauty doesn't come in one standard package.

The first two sentences there are a bit bloody patronising, by the way. Some of us are very happy in our own skin without the validation of anyone else, thanks very much.

I'm not going to argue with you Millicent because tbf I know I'm just the easy target in this thread and contrary to how you feel about being validated, that's what this entire thread is about.


(someone thanked me for my input in this thread and you opposed it, this thread is definitely about validation edit: and who should be receiving it . as far as I can tell as long as it's not me everything is kosher)

ashers222

and if you can show me anywhere in this thread where I stated that women don't come in all shapes and sizes and that men don't equally appreciate different qualities then I will submit. Show me anywhere where I have said that women cannot be strong and beautiful, in fact show me where I have stated that women can't be strong MASCULINE and beautiful and I will concede.

Millicent

ashers222 wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with you Millicent because tbf I know I'm just the easy target in this thread and contrary to how you feel about being validated, that's what this entire thread is about.


(someone thanked me for my input in this thread and you opposed it, this thread is definitely about validation edit: and who should be receiving it . as far as I can tell as long as it's not me everything is kosher)

I didn't oppose your input. I opposed the poster callously dismissing the contributions of other posters who had taken time to engage him in conversation. That wasn't a point about validation; it was a point on being a bit rude to other people who had taken the time out of their day to post. Nothing in my response to that poster had anything to do with you or the quality of your posts. I'm not sure why you're taking it as a personal slight .

Why do you think you're the easy target? I was actually enjoying your perspective in this thread (aside from the validation lark). May not have agreed with all of it but that's no reason to withdraw from debating the subject, is it?

Millicent

ashers222 wrote: »

and if you can show me anywhere in this thread where I :cool:stated that women don't come in all shapes and sizes and that men don't equally appreciate different qualities then I will submit. Show me anywhere where I have said that women cannot be strong and beautiful, in fact show me where I have stated that women can't be strong MASCULINE and beautiful and I will concede.

You said it here. I'm trying to pick on you so sorry if you feel I am. Maybe I just misread the below post?

That said, the validation thing you keep bringing up is still insulting. This is a thread about how different types of female beauty aren't recognised equally in society, not a plea for men to come along and validate women's attractiveness.

ashers222 wrote: »

I don't disagree with you or the idea that muscle bound women are not attractive to men. I'd have a general idea myself tbh, I was just responding to the previous posters request for a larger male audience. I personally don't try to attract male attention and I do consider my physique masculine and I prefer it that way. (in fact I work hard to ensure it is)
Doesn't mean I'm not attractive or "beautiful" though, just not to men. (which is how I like it)

The premise of this thread sets out to determine if strong women are attractive, but the assumption is that it's men who get to define what is or is not. That's a bit erroneous in my opinion but I understand this is the ladies lounge and the vast majority of women here seek male approval wrt their physical attractiveness.
As it happens I realised most difference between the fit and toned and the muscular girls in the pics is that the toned girls also have incredibly fake boobs.

ashers222

You highlighted the post in question, the act alone was an effort to negate the posters position and as he had thanked my input you deliberately or not gave equal representation which interprets my own as supportive of a one dimensional pov, the one you really disagree with, from a male who does not find masculine women attractive. In reality my posts were independent opinions, some of which concurred and some which didn't.

The fact that I agree that women can be masculine and beautiful doesn't appear to be a popular one. Perhaps it offends physically strong feminine women who have mistaken it as representation of themselves.

ashers222

Millicent wrote: »

You said it here. I'm trying to pick on you so sorry if you feel I am. Maybe I just misread the below post?

That said, the validation thing you keep bringing up is still insulting. This is a thread about how different types of female beauty aren't recognised equally in society, not a plea for men to come along and validate women's attractiveness.

The poster who quoted me in the previous post had suggested I was in disagreement with him wrt how the male demographic in TGC would feel if the topic was put to them, I wasn't. (I entirely believe if it were put to them the response would be yes, they don't find it attractive) If you read my other posts you will see my opinion in context.
This thread opened up with a question of validation. It went from can women be beautiful and strong to can women be muscular and attractive to the opposite sex. These are two different things to me.

Galwayguy35

I see Katie Taylor is mentioned but TBH she wouldn't come into my head as someone who was very muscly compared with for example Fatima Whitbread who has as much muscle mass as a well built man.

Most men don't find that kind of a body attractive in women, as men find boobs and hips a turn on on a woman and these disappear as muscle mass grows.

I would imagine a lot of women like reasonably well built guys as well.

blatantrereg

Because high levels of oestrogen are what cause attractive feminine physical traits, whereas high levels of testosterone make you physically strong and aggressive. So it is logical to find it surprising - on the surface they indicate opposite things.

If you look though, it's not actually strange. Katie Taylor doesn't actually have indicators of high oestrogen, and she does have indicators of high testosterone for a woman. She's pretty because of other things, like regular features, good symmetry, as well as things like being well-presented, and having a happy and genuine demeanour.

Net result is that she's pretty - full stop. On the other hand, if she had high oestrogen levels along with these factors, she'd be exceptionally good looking.

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.