Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you consider this body attractive? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you consider this body attractive?
    Yes
    30.55%
    No
    69.45%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that is a highly attractive body to be honest, the shoulders could be improved by being less muscular but the rest i think personally just makes him look well defined!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    No they aren't, he has a square head, cm punk and cody rhodes are considered attractive cena and ryback, are not and they have way more muscles.
    Do I really need to point out the error in that sentence? Cena isn't attractive, not because of his body but because of his face, how is that in any way relevant to the discussion we're having? I haven't at any stage said that an attractive face isn't important



    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    But not today as muscular does equal more attractive as I've already proven, face beats muscles every time. You can have the biggest muscles in the world but a guy with a better face (cody rhodes compared to ryback) is going to win.
    People don't grow out of evolutionary behaviors that quickly, 2000 years is nothing to evolution, and for most of that it was still better to pick a more muscular man. Yes, muscles aren't the be all and end all of attractiveness, no where have I said this, don't put words in my mouth. But take two guys with the same face and the fairly muscular one will beat the fat slob everytime.


    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    You're so slow, how can you still not get this? For you to say women aren't supposed to be muscular is a social/gender construct, as they are not biologically unable to get a muscular build, it is just not found attractive or desired by society, or thought as as womanly. It would be biological if women weren't able to get a muscular build, but they can, therefore it is neither unnatural or not supposed to happen. How many times does this simple concept have to be explained to you?
    Clearly you failed GCSE biology. They are unable biologically to get anywhere near as big a build as a male, not that that is particularly relevant. Show me any women who has naturally got as big as the the OP, who isn't even close to world class natural bodybuilding standards. Humans can also get unbelievably skinny, just because they can doesn't mean they're meant to. I'm going to lay this out simply for you:
    Basic evolutionary behavior is ingrained in all of us.
    Some of this behavior focuses on the selection of mates.
    Women look for men who will be good at protecting them, providing for the offspring etc and social status. Men don't look for these factors.
    The stronger a man is, and this will be determined by fighting strength and muscularity, the more likely he is to be chosen as a mate.
    Therefore, it is more desirable for men to be muscular, women don't need to be.
    Feel free to point out any logical flaw in there, if you can't then you're going to have to accept that I'm right.


    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    Just because the majority of men don't desire it doesn't make it not a gender construct, that notion is ludicrous. The notion that they are not supposed to be muscular is not true, because who is supposing this? Not biology, it is you.
    Well I'm not entirely sure how you expect biology to suppose anything given it's not a real tangible entity... The biology supports my claim, you've offered no evidence or thought process for yours aside from, women can get muscular therefore it's a gender construct that that isn't attractive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryD)
    Do I really need to point out the error in that sentence? Cena isn't attractive, not because of his body but because of his face, how is that in any way relevant to the discussion we're having? I haven't at any stage said that an attractive face isn't important
    How is that an error? My whole point has been the face is more important than muscles. SMH.


    But take two guys with the same face and the fairly muscular one will beat the fat slob everytime.
    But he won't beat someone with a better face,


    Clearly you failed GCSE biology. They are unable biologically to get anywhere near as big a build as a male
    Clearly you failed English, because nowhere did I ever suggest they could.

    Humans can also get unbelievably skinny, just because they can doesn't mean they're meant to.
    Meant to by whom?


    it is more desirable for men to be muscular, women don't need to be.
    You don't decide what women need to be, nor does what you find attractive. Also there is a difference between need and supposed.


    Well I'm not entirely sure how you expect biology to suppose anything given it's not a real tangible entity... The biology supports my claim, you've offered no evidence or thought process for yours aside from, women can get muscular therefore it's a gender construct that that isn't attractive.
    Again, please take reading lessons because the straw man attacks against things I've never said are really pathetic.

    Whether you finding them attractive or not is down to biology is irrelevant. The fact remains your statement saying "they are not supposed to be muscular" is still a social/gender construct, as I've stated if they weren't supposed to be muscular then they couldn't get muscular, but they can. The idea that they are not suppose to be muscular is YOUR idea of what women are suppose to be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    No they aren't, he has a square head, cm punk and cody rhodes are considered attractive cena and ryback, are not and they have way more muscles.



    But not today as muscular does equal more attractive as I've already proven, face beats muscles every time. You can have the biggest muscles in the world but a guy with a better face (cody rhodes compared to ryback) is going to win.



    You're so slow, how can you still not get this? For you to say women aren't supposed to be muscular is a social/gender construct, as they are not biologically unable to get a muscular build, it is just not found attractive or desired by society, or thought as as womanly. It would be biological if women weren't able to get a muscular build, but they can, therefore it is neither unnatural or not supposed to happen. How many times does this simple concept have to be explained to you?

    Just because the majority of men don't desire it doesn't make it not a gender construct, that notion is ludicrous. The notion that they are not supposed to be muscular is not true, because who is supposing this? Not biology, it is you.
    Are you retarded or just a sick troll?

    It is biologically easier for males to gain muscle compared to females due to testosterone and other hormones. How the hell is that not backed up by biology when we've all just stated that? Are you illertarate or something? If its backed up by biology how in hells name can it be a social construct?

    And YES, the notion that women aren't supposed to be muscular is completely true. Because its backed by biology, HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED TO YOU BY ME , HENRY AND OTHERS??!!??

    Those female bodybuilders only become the way they look due to steroids and other drugs. While males dont need drugs like that to achieve the same results ffs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    Are you retarded or just a sick troll?

    It is biologically easier for males to gain muscle compared to females due to testosterone and other hormones. How the hell is that not backed up by biology when we've all just stated that? Are you illertarate or something? If its backed up by biology how in hells name can it be a social construct?
    Are you? I never claimed it wasn't easier for males to get muscles, that has no relevance to what body type women are "supposed" to have.

    How is it not backed up by biology? Because the fact men can gain more muscle than women doesn't mean women are not suppose to have a muscular body, the notion doesn't even make sense.

    How is it backed up by biology? To the contrary women can get a muscular body, which they wouldn't be able to if they weren't "supposed to". This isn't rocket science people, I've basically repeated myself in every post yet you still fail to grasp basic sense.:rolleyes:

    If it wasn't a social construct then why is it biologically possible for a woman to look like this if she is not suppose to?

    http://pluphotoj.files.wordpress.com...a_williams.jpg

    :eek: How does this woman have a muscular body if she is not supposed to? How is this happening? Oh yeah, because the notion isn't true and it is a social construct.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    How is that an error? My whole point has been the face is more important than muscles. SMH.
    It's an error because you're using the fact his face is less attractive to that of another person with a less muscular body in a discussion which is purely about the muscularity of the body and its attractiveness. You're introducing variables which shouldn't be there in an attempt to prove your point. You can feel free to show me anywhere that I disagreed with that or said anything to contrary. No? Didn't think so.
    It's completely irrelevant to the argument which we're having which is about whether the fact that large muscles on a women not being deemed attractive is evolutionary or a gender construct.

    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    But he won't beat someone with a better face,

    Again, irrelevant to a discussion which is not in any way about faces. and in some cases yes.

    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    Clearly you failed English, because nowhere did I ever suggest they could.
    My double A* says different. Then you accept that it is not attractive for women to be that muscular on a biological basis correct? As I have said previously, some muscle is generally deemed attractive, just not to the degree of that of a male.

    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    Meant to by whom?
    Biology, nature whatever you wish to call it.
    This is what I meant
    Name:  losing-weight-starving-africa-weight-fat-thin-skinny-demotivational-poster-1277146267.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  88.6 KB
    Text is unrelated. We can get to the state, doesn't mean we are meant to.

    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    You don't decide what women need to be, nor does what you find attractive. Also there is a difference between need and supposed.
    No, biology decides what we find attractive. On the contrary, what the opposite sex find attractive is of paramount importance to any organism. Basic biology again right there. Yes there is and this is a case of need, as I've already shown you by giving you the traditional roles of the male and female. Not the sexist, "women in kitchen" etc but men as hunters, women as gatherers. Only one of those requires significant muscle strength. It's ingrained in us.


    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    Again, please take reading lessons because the straw man attacks against things I've never said are really pathetic.
    I have seen nothing else in your argument aside from that, not a strawman, just paraphrasing.

    (Original post by Slothsftws)
    Whether you finding them attractive or not is down to biology is irrelevant. The fact remains your statement saying "they are not supposed to be muscular" is still a social/gender construct, as I've stated if they weren't supposed to be muscular then they couldn't get muscular, but they can. The idea that they are not suppose to be muscular is YOUR idea of what women are suppose to be.
    No the idea that muscularity does not equal attractiveness is a result of evolution. No it's entirely relevant, I was speaking in terms of attractiveness. Obviously, if a woman was entering a female bodybuilding contest then she is supposed to be muscular, if she's entering a weight lifting contest then yes, she's supposed to be muscular but I was talking about one of the most basic ideas of what a person should look like, attractiveness. And my idea is derived from instinct from evolution, meaning it's not a gender construct.

    The entire point here is, from an evolutionary stand point more muscular men are likely to be better mates than those who are less muscular. This isn't true for women, which is why muscularity to anything like a comparable degree is not seen as attractive. It not a damn gender construct, it's something we learnt in the stone age and haven't forgotten. No it's not the be all and end all of attractiveness, there are other factors but that's not what we're talking about here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute beast
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    does he even lift?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryD)
    It's an error because you're using the fact his face is less attractive to that of another person with a less muscular body in a discussion which is purely about the muscularity of the body and its attractiveness. You're introducing variables which shouldn't be there in an attempt to prove your point.
    I haven't introduced them, there were and have been my entire point that muscles don't make you more attractive, I'm not beholden to talk about what only you allow me to. :rolleyes:


    It's completely irrelevant to the argument which we're having which is about whether the fact that large muscles on a women not being deemed attractive is evolutionary or a gender construct.
    No they are two different arguments. You talk about me adding variables? LMFAO! You never said large muscles, you said women are not supposed to be muscular. Not as muscular as a man, not large muscles, just muscular which is a social gender construct. If it were biology they wouldn't be able to look like this: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en...9,r:2,s:0,i:90


    and in some cases yes.
    And in most no.

    My double A* says different.
    Well perhaps try and use it and stop reading things that aren't there? :rolleyes:


    Then you accept that it is not attractive for women to be that muscular on a biological basis correct? As I have said previously, some muscle is generally deemed attractive, just not to the degree of that of a male.
    What relevance does that have? Men find women with big breasts attractive on average, does that mean women are supposed to have boob jobs?

    Also you are completely oversimplifying attraction, it also has cultural and psychological factors as well as personal preference.


    Only one of those requires significant muscle strength. It's ingrained in us.
    Obesity and unemployment rates say otherwise. Perhaps because evolutionary theory of the wild doesn't apply to modern society of which we evolved to a point where women can provide for themselves.

    not a strawman, just paraphrasing.
    No you're just making up what I say and then arguing against it.

    women can get muscular therefore it's a gender construct that that isn't attractive.
    I never said it was a gender construct that you don't find it a attractive, I said it is a gender construct that you claimed they are not supposed to be muscular.

    No the idea that muscularity does not equal attractiveness is a result of evolution. No it's entirely relevant, I was speaking in terms of attractiveness. Obviously, if a woman was entering a female bodybuilding contest then she is supposed to be muscular, if she's entering a weight lifting contest then yes, she's supposed to be muscular but I was talking about one of the most basic ideas of what a person should look like, attractiveness. And my idea is derived from instinct from evolution, meaning it's not a gender construct.
    So a woman is not supposed to be muscular because you find her unattractive? But not every woman cares what you think and you don't decide what we are all supposed to do based on that. Again, you need to take English lessons. What you meant was "I don't like women that look like that" which is different from "women aren't supposed to look like that, it is unnatural".

    Your idea isn't derived from anything to do with evolution, and everything to do with the sexist notion that women aren't supposed to do anything other than be attractive for you, there's nothing in biology that stops females from being athletes and having muscular bodies.


    This isn't true for women, which is why muscularity to anything like a comparable degree is not seen as attractive. It not a damn gender construct, it's something we learnt in the stone age and haven't forgotten. No it's not the be all and end all of attractiveness, there are other factors but that's not what we're talking about here.
    It doesn't matter why you find it unattractive, the notion that they are not supposed to be muscular is a gender construct, it has nothing to do with their biology.

    You've tried to make this issue so drawn out in an attempt to distract from the ignorance in your original statement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What's that guy going to do with all that muscle? Doesn't make sense. What is he a slave? Makes bricks to build the pyramids with? Plus it accelerates the aging process and degenerates the body incredibly.

    Attractive - no. I don't find men attractive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hell yes!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    That guy is sexy.

    He should invest in better underwear though.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    Little teenage girls who've barely been exposed to anything but the skinny scrawny guy lol Not saying as a guy that that guy is attractive, he's too low in fat for my liking, but TSR is the last place to ask for WOMEN'S opinions. I learnt that many years ago. The skinny Indy looking dude fits with the demographic here. But good thing this doesn't reflect the general population. I know it doesn't.
    Your view of women on these boards is almost as simplistic, confused and wrong as the teenage attitude that being absolutely ripped is the be and end of all male achievement.

    It's unsurprising that women of pretty much all age groups in general find that kind of musculature unattractive, seeing as humans evolved to find other humans attractive.

    Most men through human history have been anything but precisely cut to that extent.

    What people generally find 'sexy' is a fit and healthy partner. To get to that level of definition, he has effectively wrecked his body.

    It's an achievement to be sure, as any goal requiring time and effort is but, that's all it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It scared me.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I will give him credit, he does have a great body and it must have taken a hell of a lot of time, but if he has only really done this to try and attract girls, then he has just wasted his time.

    Anyone who thinks the majority of girls out there will be attracted to him just because he has *big sexy muscles* must be pretty mad tbh, of course girls want guys who are good looking and have a great body.... but you don't need to look like duke nukem to pick up girls.

    As for me personally, I am average weight and height, and I don't have a toned body or any *big sexy muscles* but in all honesty if a girl would only ever be interested in me because of how muscular I am then I wouldn't want to know them anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)

    What people generally find 'sexy' is a fit and healthy partner. To get to that level of definition, he has effectively wrecked his body.
    How do you rate marathon runners who have low body fat, but also low levels of muscle tissues? Are these folks not fit and healthy either?

    How can lean body tissue be seen as a detriment to health (if you're not taking in steroids to aid the process)?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Your view of women on these boards is almost as simplistic, confused and wrong as the teenage attitude that being absolutely ripped is the be and end of all male achievement.It's unsurprising that women of pretty much all age groups in general find that kind of musculature unattractive, seeing as humans evolved to find other humans attractive.

    Most men through human history have been anything but precisely cut to that extent.

    What people generally find 'sexy' is a fit and healthy partner. To get to that level of definition, he has effectively wrecked his body.

    It's an achievement to be sure, as any goal requiring time and effort is but, that's all it is.

    Typical TSR post. Make something up and add to post, then bash it, then pretend you've argued a point. You are arguing with yourself because I never said that lol

    Joke's on you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    Typical TSR post. Make something up and add to post, then bash it, then pretend you've argued a point. You are arguing with yourself because I never saidthat lol

    Joke's on you.
    I think you'll find what he's done is called inferring. You'll learn it in year 7 history.

    Yeah, but on a serious note, that's not the best justification to use to call someone wrong. Wether you disagree with the inference, on the other hand, is a different matter.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheldor)
    I think you'll find what he's done is called inferring. You'll learn it in year 7 history.

    Yeah, but on a serious note, that's not the best justification to use to call someone wrong. Wether you disagree with the inference, on the other hand, is a different matter.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Inferring = make an ass of yourself. There's a reason people use QUOTES lol Besides, I don't know how you can infer the above from any of my posts? It's random gibberish.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr_connery)
    I saw this question posted on another site and I'm curious to see what people on here think, so I've pasted the original question below.

    "Hi there, I want to sort out the arguments a lot of people seem to have about muscular bodies and female attraction to it. So I thought "Where could I get better answers than here?". I really hope you can help me making a little poll. Do you consider this kind of body attractive?

    http://i.imgur.com/XrD8g.png

    To make it easy to collect the answers please reply with the following form:

    Age:

    Do you like this body?:

    If no, why not?

    What is the dreambody a man could have?(Picture)"
    Not a massive fan of so much muscle. I think a good male physique would look like they play a sport to a high level not go to the gym for vanity's sake. sorry if that sounded harsh. It wasn't meant to.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.