-151

you hate how it's hot for guys to have big muscles, but it's weird for girls to have big muscles, amirite?

26%Yeah You Are74%No Way
majesticals avatar
Share
1 26
The voters have decided that majestical is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
This user has deactivated their account.
@1727268

I like this girl.

@1727268

Me too, I am never into the type of men with big muscles. I like my men strong, yes, but that doesn't equal big muscles.

Less work for me to do.

Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have more lean muscle than bulk muscle. As for guys who are naturally more muscular, that can indicate their levels of testosterone and other androgens. Females have a primal attraction to males with more muscle because it indicates that they are more fit to reproduce with.

_Jojo_s avatar _Jojo_ No Way +10Reply
@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Untrue. Gender isn't all socially constructed - we are biologically pressed to be attracted to those things - assuming you're heterosexual.
We may be enlightened, but we're still animals. In fact, the male and female sex drive to being attracted to those things helped us evolve by aiding reproduction.

@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

No, men go after woman who show signs of more estrogen, why would a straight man go after something that looks manly? For example: large breasts and big hips for child bearing. People will go after which ever person that will produce the most successful offspring.

@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Biology does play some part, I will give you that, but people often confuse nature and nurture (I've heard people adamantly defend that women are attracted to pink because "it helped them forage for berries"; there have even been scientific investigations into it despite the fact that we KNOW it's 100% social because until the 1940s, pink was aassociated with masculinity). Large breasts and large hips are mostly just fat placement that has little impact on practicality. There is some biology - namely, helping us to identify them as a "typical" female body - but a good lot of it is social.

At the risk of going into too much detail - small penises were, counter-intuitively, more depicted ancient Greek times (and considering what the Greeks are famous for, that says something :P). That's why statues and drawings of male nudes in Greek artwork and pottery often have very small penises (by today's standards, perhaps slightly unrealistically so). Wouldn't this have defied the logic that bigger is always better with "defining" characteristics such as hips and breasts? Despite the fact that penis size has absolutely no impact on reproduction capabilities.

Chous avatar Chou Yeah You Are +3Reply
@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Also, Chou, we see a similar pattern in animals. Why are female peacocks more attracted to male peacocks with larger, brighter tail feathers? Sure, the tail feathers might not make them a better father, but, to the females in a primal way, it indicates that that male will be a better partner. There was no media or society that made that happen. A better example would actually be bull frogs and their croaks. Studies show that croaks with a certain length or frequency actually belonged to males who were capable of producing more viable offspring. As with everything, nature and nurture, and I guess with humans, we could say both nature, nurture, and society, but there is definitely a strong genetic and scientific aspect to why this is the way things are.

_Jojo_s avatar _Jojo_ No Way +3Reply
@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Of course there are individuals. But to say that gender is 100% socially constructed is ridiculous. There's a reason we have two genders, people.

@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Wouldn't big muscles on a female be indicative of the same thing, even if they have less testosterone to aid with muscle production? By this reasoning, a female's muscle development would have just as much affect on the offspring's (whether they be male or female) muscle development too, as both the male and the female contribute the same amount to a child's genes. A male would have just as much reason to seek out a muscular female as vice versa, if muscular offspring is the desirable outcome.

Also, not saying there isn't some biological reasoning, but it could also be that a lifetime of socialisation kind of affects how genders perceive each other...

Chous avatar Chou Yeah You Are 0Reply
@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Because what we think is "manly" or "girly" is socially constructed. Large breasts have absolutely no advantage over small breasts for child-rearing; they do not "store more" or "allow more ease of access". As long as there is curvature, they do the job pretty much equally. Large breasts are just generally considered the ideal.
Similarly, although wide hips do help with child-birth, they don't really affect the structure of a female that much. A male-bodied person on oestrogen can achieve wide hips to the same degree as a female-bodied person using naturally produced oestrogen. It's fat distribution that forms the "figure" of a woman and a man- the internal structure is marginally affected. The wide hips of a female is not bone structure - it is simply fat laying on the hips instead of stomach.

Chous avatar Chou Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Chou Because what we think is "manly" or "girly" is socially constructed. Large breasts have absolutely no advantage...

Yeah, breast size doesn't necessarily change most when it comes to feeding, but breast size can indicate the amount of estrogen a female was producing during puberty. So large breasts can indicate a healthier reproductive syatem. Studies have shown that for this reason, women with larger breasts and hips find it easier to conceive. It's an indicator of what might be going on with their ovaries, uterus, etc.

_Jojo_s avatar _Jojo_ No Way +2Reply
@_Jojo_ Then you must hate nature. Females naturally can't produce really large muscles. Even female athletes tend to have...

Yeah youre treating an area which is scientific as if it were a sort of philosophy or that every one has equal right to speculate on without at least formal understanding. Please stop.

I actually find it kind of repulsive when a guy has big muscles..

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1727284

Whats wrong with a six pack? Just curious.

@1727284

I don't mind a six pack but giant, bulging muscles isn't attractive.

@1727284

I don't like a 6 pack either, it seems like someone's just showing off.

I don't like huge, bulging muscled. But I'll admit that a bit of muscle on a guy is pretty attractive.

reads above comments
Yay for being skinny enough to be kind of ripped but not the bulgy muscly type!

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.