Why do many women find 'the male body' ugly?

[Vonny]

But what I found here, mostly, is the writing - the way it's unselfconscious and spontaneous, very smooth - and then it's always changing, so that I'm wondering what is that person? Once in a while it seems like a child, but too intelligent and sophisticated to be a child. Other times I know it's a man. At the same time there's a common thread that runs through it. And then wow, is it smart. It's interesting...

I think also it's a British thing that I'm picking up.

I'm sure I'd have never gotten this affect from anything published and edited and prepared. It's because it's extemporaneous. Is that the right word? It's just coming out.

Vonny... be aware that art is an illusion... and writing... even if it only be on an internet forum... is a form of art. It is dangerous to assume that the fluidity... the mastery of language... the ease and the apparent "naturalism" paint a true portrait of the individual behind the words. Certainly, many of us here are quite likely far less witty and skillful with the spoken word than with the written word. The written word affords one the time to think and make choices. There is the old cliche that one should write as one speaks (or thinks), but do we really want writing laden with "ummms" and "hmmms" and "uhhhhs"? One of the values of literature is that it teaches the individual the power of words... the manner in which words can influence our thinking... or even manipulate us.

I remember immediately being struck by the power of words to manipulate while reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Caesar has been murdered and Brutus comes before the massed crowds to argue his case:

Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

There is an awkwardness to his introduction... and to his use of repetition:

hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear:

believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe:

The words don't flow fluidly... but they do draw attention to what comes across as Brutus pleading that you hear and believe that he is honorable...

And then Mark Antony steps before the crowd... and such a speech:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

How much more poetic that invitation to listen: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen; Lend me your ears..."

And then notice how Shakespeare allows Antony to completely undermine Brutus' pleas that the citizens recognize that he was only acting honorably:

"But Brutus is an honorable man"...

repeated again and again... in a clearly sarcastic tone.

The point? I am merely suggesting that it is always dangerous to confuse the artist with the art... even if the art... in this case... is but a bit of verbal repartee... dialog... or discussion on a literature site. I don't say this to scare you away. I doubt there are any stalkers at Lit Net... and the occasional "trolls" seem few and far between. Like you, I do recognize there are any number of posters who who are quite intelligent and talented with the written word. Some are seemingly fluid and natural. But remember Alexander Pope's lines from his An Essay on Criticism:

True Ease in Writing comes from Art, not Chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.

Fluidity with words and language comes from a degree of experience and effort. I, myself, am first and foremost a visual artist... a painter. Whatever ability I have as a painter was developed primarily as the result of painting. Those who have a skill with the written word have quite likely developed this through the repeated process of reading and writing.

Much as I like British literature and the English sense of humor, I don't think you can wholly attribute whatever mastery with words that you sense here to something British. A good many of the best writers here are not British, but American, Canadian, Australian... or even of a culture where English was not their first language.

Anyway... a belated welcome to LitNet.

I saw someone here who said, "I had gone too long without my Shakespeare, so tonight I read MacBeth and now I'm whole again!" I had the thought that it must be more effective than anti-psychotic medications. I think it's a great thing to be raised on Shakespeare.

That same poster also enjoyed Frankenstein. I've always had a fondness for Frankenstein, but I've never read the book. I think I can grasp that one at this time, and I have a copy of it somewhere.

It's interesting that Frankenstein's monster always comes to my mind now whenever my mother is in the hospital. She does get good care in our hospital - they do sustain her. I'm just glad that my ex-sister-in-law, who is a nurse, is in Oregon, especially if I ever have to go to the hospital.

(just rambling... no reply necessary)

[stlukesguild]

He doestn't strike me as looking particularly intelligent but how about this one?

Now Brian... which one of us is bringing down the aesthetic quality of the discussion this time?

[Emil Miller]

It is one of our favourite subjects here on Litnet.

I love the photo of the lady on the bike (not sure about the chap?) but as a man of experience that G-string she is wearing is not suitable clothing from long distance rides. Paul will back me up on that one.

What makes you think she was going anywhere? She probably got off the machine and got dressed as soon as the photo was taken. Now these are real cyclists.

{edit}

Now Brian... which one of us is bringing down the aesthetic quality of the discussion this time?

Sorry Stlukes, I couldn't find a statue of Greek sculptured Adonis riding a bicycle.

[Paulclem]

It is one of our favourite subjects here on Litnet.

I love the photo of the lady on the bike (not sure about the chap?) but as a man of experience that G-string she is wearing is not suitable clothing from long distance rides. Paul will back me up on that one.

Oh yes... the chafing.

As for the male body, I have heard a strangled turkey referred to as good descriptions of certain parts. I wouldn't like to comment though.

[Emil Miller]

What makes you think she was going anywhere? She probably got off the machine and got dressed as soon as the photo was taken. Now these are real cyclists.

{edit}.

Sorry about that Neely, but my original picture of topless young ladies was too much for the moderators. So I have decided to play it safe instead and show an alternative version of a real female cyclist.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Sorry about that Neely, but my original picture of topless young ladies was too much for the moderators. So I have decided to play it safe instead and show an alternative version of a real female cyclist.

Damn I missed out on that one, but I like this one anyway - nice hat!

[Vonny]

I'm beginning to warm to the Original Post's premise, especially in the light of something like this.

From the female perspective, I will comment that my girl friend is more attractive than this, especially her eyes. She doesn't have the "come-hither" look, but she doesn't need it to out-distance this one, even without a bike.

This girl doesn't look very clean to me. I can be paranoid at times, but she looks as if she could even have a disease.

As I think about it further, she also looks cheap.

She looks like a million others too - very generic.

[stlukesguild]

You speak of "cheap" and "dirty" as if these were negatives.

"Cheap" and "dirty" can be quite attractive at times.

[Vonny]

You speak of "cheap" and "dirty" as if these were negatives.

"Cheap" and "dirty" can be quite attractive at times.

oh my god. I have had some shocks in my life....

The mods may remove these posts, but I really wish they wouldn't because it would deny my experience, and as a person with a form of mental illness I don't need my experience denied. And I would really like to understand, why would you say this to me? Aren't you a school teacher?

I was saying that that was my perspective of that picture. To me it is cheap, dirty, diseased and generic - and not attractive.

Emil calls himself "Retired Degenerate" and Neely says, "What would Woody do?" At least they don't pretend to be something they're not. But you call yourself St Luke. Emil and Neely haven't said anything awful like this directly to me.

[Jack of Hearts]

Vonny... be aware that art is an illusion... and writing... even if it only be on an internet forum... is a form of art. It is dangerous to assume that the fluidity... the mastery of language... the ease and the apparent "naturalism" paint a true portrait of the individual behind the words. Certainly, many of us here are quite likely far less witty and skillful with the spoken word than with the written word. The written word affords one the time to think and make choices. There is the old cliche that one should write as one speaks (or thinks), but do we really want writing laden with "ummms" and "hmmms" and "uhhhhs"? One of the values of literature is that it teaches the individual the power of words... the manner in which words can influence our thinking... or even manipulate us.

I remember immediately being struck by the power of words to manipulate while reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Caesar has been murdered and Brutus comes before the massed crowds to argue his case:

Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

There is an awkwardness to his introduction... and to his use of repetition:

hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear:

believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe:

The words don't flow fluidly... but they do draw attention to what comes across as Brutus pleading that you hear and believe that he is honorable...

And then Mark Antony steps before the crowd... and such a speech:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

How much more poetic that invitation to listen: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen; Lend me your ears..."

And then notice how Shakespeare allows Antony to completely undermine Brutus' pleas that the citizens recognize that he was only acting honorably:

"But Brutus is an honorable man"...

repeated again and again... in a clearly sarcastic tone.

The point? I am merely suggesting that it is always dangerous to confuse the artist with the art... even if the art... in this case... is but a bit of verbal repartee... dialog... or discussion on a literature site. I don't say this to scare you away. I doubt there are any stalkers at Lit Net... and the occasional "trolls" seem few and far between. Like you, I do recognize there are any number of posters who who are quite intelligent and talented with the written word. Some are seemingly fluid and natural. But remember Alexander Pope's lines from his An Essay on Criticism:

True Ease in Writing comes from Art, not Chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.

Fluidity with words and language comes from a degree of experience and effort. I, myself, am first and foremost a visual artist... a painter. Whatever ability I have as a painter was developed primarily as the result of painting. Those who have a skill with the written word have quite likely developed this through the repeated process of reading and writing.

Much as I like British literature and the English sense of humor, I don't think you can wholly attribute whatever mastery with words that you sense here to something British. A good many of the best writers here are not British, but American, Canadian, Australian... or even of a culture where English was not their first language.

Anyway... a belated welcome to LitNet.

Do you know how much crap this reader had to shift through to find this? Pretty sure there was a half naked, obese man riding a small bicycle in there somewhere.

Could read art theory/philosophy all day. Anything to avoid actually making something.





J

EDIT: Seriously, you could barely see the bicycle. C'mon.

[prendrelemick]

The woman on the bike is astonishingly beautiful, her state of undress and her pose is an invitation to look and admire. she puts me in mind of a radio programme I heard a while ago.

it was a discussion on pornography. There were a couple of feminists, a model, and a Bishop. (sounds like a set up line for a joke). It all got very heated, the model insisted she was using her body to exploit men, the feminists kept insisting that pornography was rape, and on and on. Then the Bishop said something I've remembered ever since. He said " To the average male, the naked female body is the most breathtakingly beautiful work of art he has ever seen ."

That I think is the difference that this thread is concerned with, I don't think women have the same kick-in-the-stomach reaction to the male body.

[Arrowni]

This sounds to me as an entirely biological subject. The biological role of male hominids seem to really play the idea of seducing in two different levels from one sex to another, men tend to make up for their uglyness by taking the initiative, amassing power and richness -stability, protection-, and doing a sort of intelectual pornography -trying to show off their skills-. Dog societies are a lot like this too, despite the lack of our knowledge about dog esthetics.

[SleepyWitch]

That I think is the difference that this thread is concerned with, I don't think women have the same kick-in-the-stomach reaction to the male body.

Interesting thought. Do you have any theory as to why that is? Something to do with evolution etc?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Interesting thought. Do you have any theory as to why that is? Something to do with evolution etc?

I would have thought that it would have something to do with the reproductive capacities of men and women. Women have to be much more selective because they can only produce one child per year, whereas men obviously have an unlimited capacity, virtually.

[Arrowni]

I would have thought that it would have something to do with the reproductive capacities of men and women. Women have to be much more selective because they can only produce one child per year, whereas men obviously have an unlimited capacity, virtually.

Do you really thing women are really more selective in such system? I would say their adaptation to be prettier would lean towards they wanting to be selected.