woman = beautiful + strong?

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?

coffee_cake

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

coffee_cake

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: