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

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have never claimed it was. I've mentioned that I like it. That is all.

Fine, but most don't.
That's my point, you can like x but most humans like y.