Men's Group
Related: About this forumOf "tummies", "love-handles" and "manboobs"
Recently there was post showing "unphotoshopped" photos of "real women's" tummies -it celebrated the fact that real women (quote unquote) have flabby, scarried stomaches and that they are beautiful because they are natural.
I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that a similar post showing men's flabby stomaches, love-handles or manboobs would certainly be met with mocking and derision.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think it is significant and sad.
The double standard is vast and deep.
DavidDvorkin
(19,873 posts)That includes the stomachs in the post you referred to.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But let's toss out the word, beautiful, because I agree 100%.
Let's be honest and admit that when women refer to them as beautiful, there are two things going on.
1. They want acceptance and freedom from having to fit in with an image that is pushed by the media and society in general.
2. Women are more used to, and therefore more "hooked on" being called beautiful so maybe they want to retain the label.
Well news flash: men also want acceptance -and here is an even bigger news flash -men also enjoy feeling desirable.
Something that is never discussed in the "battle f the sexes" is the fact that the burden of making most advances is on men. Women may get tired of being "objectified" or "desired", but paradoxically, I think, men suffer from precisely the lack of that.
What are your thoughts on that, David?
DavidDvorkin
(19,873 posts)And just as difficult to cope with, and just as damaging emotionally and psychologically.
However, my annoyance with threads like the one you referred to -- the "beautiful tummies" silliness -- stems from something different.
It's natural for both men and women to want to be attractive. It's also inevitable that, no matter how the standards of beauty change over time and place, only a small minority of people will be meet those standards. That's tough on the majority, but that's the way the human visceral response to other humans works. In recent years, we've seen an effort by many women to redefine "beauty" as something that applies to every woman. Any standard of beauty that applies to a small minority of women (e.g., a flat, toned stomach and a narrow waist) is decried as artificial and in some mysterious way created by media manipulation. This argument is self-serving and self-deceiving nonsense.
saras
(6,670 posts)What I saw was women showing something that women usually conceal because of social judgements that men aren't, in the large majority of our society, subject to.
I've seen more than enough nearly-naked men in public to last me twenty lifetimes. They're all over the place, whenever weather permits, and if there's any judgment based on appearance in local popular culture, it's that a guy that looks too GOOD must be gay. I don't, pretty much ever, see women's bellies in public unless they are in their twenties, conventionally beautiful, and wearing explicitly sexualized clothing.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I have to admit that you make a very good point.
Both men and women are victimized by ideals of perfection that are distributed and pushed by advertisers of product so that they can sell more product.
redqueen
(115,164 posts)is that average men's bodies are shown in the media, and not just as 'before' pictures, or examples of reasons to cheat on your partner.
On the flip side, women's bodies in media are 5x more likely to be presented as the ubiquitous sexualized ideal. I should have said women and girls, though, as this imbalance also applies to preteens.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry.
He loved Big Brother
(1,257 posts)But as a fan of Tenacious D for over a decade, I can safely tell you, a fair number of women go gaga over that man. And why wouldn't they.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I also like Fantastic Planet.
So, cool.
DutchLiberal
(5,744 posts)So the premise is wrong.
And nothing is beautiful "because it's natural". Either something is beautiful or it isn't. It being natural or not has got nothing to do with it.