The new Double Standard

[xpaperxcutx]

It has recently come to my attention that more women will settle for a guy with a flabby body than men actually settling for a woman with a little flab. Is this the new double standard?

Scientifically, unless a woman is genetically prone to being skinny, her body has the capacity to store more fat thus giving her the infamous apple or pear shape frame. Guys, especially those who work out, has the capacity of reaching single digit body fat percentage, thus giving them the toned look often associated with noticeable ripped abs and biceps.

 

I'm just incredibly curious as to why women are judged more for their bodies than men? I mean, I'm certain society perpetuates this ideal, what with playboy bunnies and glamour models ( especially in the UK) etc, but is this really ideal or are we are just further adding to the poison that unless women are a certain size or shape, they aren't really anything at all?

[somethingsimple]

I do agree with most of the things you are saying. I guess food for thought, why is it that more men will settle with women who are unemployed rather than women settling with unemployed women?

 

Society does play a big role, into what people find attractive. And I think a reason why women will settle for men who are unfit, is that they have other things going for them such as power, employment status, economic status, and to an extent even personality (which is a whole different argument).

 

Historically, women only gained suffrage and equal job opportunities in the past century or so. It's even debatable if everything is on equal terms for men and women on that front. The reason I am stating this, is that I believe in the direction society is going, that more and more men will settle for unfit women who also have things going for them. An example, I can think of the top of my head is Oprah and Jordin Sparks.

 

And if you must know, I am a big proponent for equal gender relations.

[Pyro]

I think you nailed it when you said that society perpetuates the ideal. Sex sells, with a majority of those sales due to women.

 

As long as it continues to sell, society will keep the same beliefs.

[Andy_K]

Men are genetically predisposed to be vastly more attracted to women who show physical signs of high fertility, regardless of all other factors. This is because men who were not have consequently left fewer descendants and had their representation in the gene pool seriously diminished.

 

Those factors include but are not limited to:

Waist-hip ratio (for child bearing ability)

Youthful appearance (higher fertility, more breeding years)

Blonde hair (hair darkens with age, blonde hair therefore signifies youth)

Breast size (if both large and firm again indicates youth)

and so forth.

 

Men are therefore extremely visual and, for the most part, won't choose a flabby partner if they can find a slim alternative.

 

Women on the other hand, are predisposed to be more attracted to men who can (and will) go out and succeed in the world, and provide for them. Hence they're less bothered about a little flab, and more concerned with confidence, honesty, etc in a long term partner. Again, this is because women who weren't were less likely to have their offspring survive and reproduce.

 

Society evolves in decades, attraction takes tens of thousands of years.

 

Women are more forgiving of flab, but this isn't the case because modern society perpetuates it. Modern society perpetuates it because it is already the case. It simply feels more exaggerated due to the massive increase in global communication in more recent history.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Andy_K

[sam light]

Why do people always exclaim that society has done something wrong because most people appreciate those that are attractive. We have attractive, average, and ugly people (that is life), we are not wrong for finding select people to be attractive. Playboy would have failed if it featured pear shaped women. Brad Pitt would be a side character if not for his looks. If society didn't exist, we would still find the same types of people attractive. (people we find wandering around in the woods, no doubt)

 

The politically correct think that society should deny our true natures and claim that average or ugly people are the ideal. I am average or so, C+ or B-, I don't try to say society is evil for finding others more attractive than I.

[EasyHeart]

No one (male or female) should "settle" for anyone. If you don't like someone, then don't date them. There is no requirement that you must always have a date.

 

Society doesn't force anyone to be attracted to anyone else. Advertising amplifies natural tendencies because there are a certain number of people who are going to be persuaded by their passions and instincts rather then their intellects. As others have said, men (esp. the young ones) tend to be visually oriented in their sexual attraction. It's not right or wrong, it just is.

 

The irony of the women's movement's fight for social equality among the sexes is that sexual exploitation of women in media hasn't ended, we've just added the sexual exploitation of men in the media. So I take issue with the OP's general premise, because I think the exact opposite has happened over the past 20-30 years -- there is not much, much more pressure on men to conform with unobtainable physical standards. All men are expected to look like shirtless fitness models, and very few are able to do so.

[Nexus One]

Those factors include but are not limited to:

Waist-hip ratio (for child bearing ability)

Youthful appearance (higher fertility, more breeding years)

Blonde hair (hair darkens with age, blonde hair therefore signifies youth)

Breast size (if both large and firm again indicates youth)

and so forth.

 

I hear men mention the following a lot, waist-hip ratio and breast size, but I wonder if they actually REALLY think they are decisive factors or if they are parroting other guys or the media. The type of girls/women I find attractive none have large breasts though, but perhaps other men's tastes differ from mine: http://tinyurl.com/6jcn3w5

 

Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike medium sized breasts, but only if they fit the woman's silhouette. And very, very few women in my opinion can actually have large breasts as a complementing feature on their silhouette. Smaller breasts fit a slender silhouette better than large breasts do. I never understood the "fun bags attitude" of 'large breasts for the sake of large breasts' of some guys. In my opinion large breasts destroy a woman's silhouette if she's slender.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Nexus One

[irc333]

I do agree with most of the things you are saying. I guess food for thought, why is it that more men will settle with women who are unemployed rather than women settling with unemployed women?

 

 

Right, you never hear about a mid-30's man complaining about dating a hot 35 year old waitress (who is the only waitress of her age at the TGI Fridays, lol) that he's started dating vs a mid 30's woman dating a mid 30's worker at Target or Wal-Mart stock person.

 

Women even accomodate for their appearances for men, why do you think women are the one's wearing make-up and hair product, etc....and focused on their appearance more so than men on their own appearance?

[GoodOnPaper]

I hear men mention the following a lot, waist-hip ratio and breast size, but I wonder if they actually REALLY think they are decisive factors or if they are parroting other guys or the media.

 

No . . . it IS a decisive factor, at least for me. I learned that back in the '90s.

[Emilia]

as some posters mentioned above, you can argue double standards both ways: I asked my male friends whether they would date a woman who lived at home with her parents and by and large they all said yes. A lot of women (including myself) would never date a man who wasn't financially and otherwise independent and haven't moved out of the family house.

 

I think men in general are more flexible when it comes to the financial background of the women they date as opposed to the other way around and really it's much easier to get into shape and go to the gym 2-3x a week than earn enough money to buy a house.

[january2011]

I think it's not new, it's old.

 

As women gain more power in the world, have their own money, assets, etc., men are the ones who will have to prove themselves appearance-wise. The ongoing trends for men's grooming products and interest in fashion/clothing choices seem to support this - the GTL or metrosexual lifestyle and outlook, if you will.

 

With more women rising to positions of power, it will become the norm and guys will expect more from their partners in terms of bringing home the bacon. There may even be a role reversal and we'll see even more house-husbands and guys in part-time roles.

 

At the moment, we can't escape our biological gender differences but we can rise above them somewhat because we have other options to choose from.

 

Disclamer: I also think that location plays a great part in this debate and in some localities traditional gender roles are still very much the norm.

[welikeincrowds]

The type of girls/women I find attractive none have large breasts though, but perhaps other men's tastes differ from mine: http://tinyurl.com/6jcn3w5

 

I'm going to post a picture which compiles the images of some of the most beautiful, physically perfect, universally desired women to ever have lived. You know, just to give a general idea of what my 'type' is.

 

 

N1, have you ever thought about what it is these women have in common?

 

Besides, of course, being heart-stopping bleeding-eyes drop-dead gorgeous?

 

Well, they're famous. They're perfect strangers to us, but we have their photographs, and we can get as many of them as our heart desires. Images of these goddesses are everywhere.

 

And I do mean everywhere. It's not like we even have a choice. Can you remember a day where you didn't see a beautiful woman, either in person or in the media, at some point?

 

I can't.

 

Of course not, because there's a picture of my mom on my desk. OK, but you know what I mean.

 

Look, it's not a good thing. It's a problem. Because you and me, N1, men like us and men everywhere in the Western world, are (willingly, forcibly) stimulated by these perfect faces and ideal bodies every day, like some kind of penis caffeine. And then what? What are the consequences?

 

The consequence is that everyone suffers. Men will say something as ridiculous-sounding as "Natalie Portman and Audrey Hepburn are my type," and women have an impossible competition every day of their lives. And neither party gets to be happy.

 

If anyone wants to be mad at society for something related to dating, I say make it that. Media saturation is a sin for just so many reasons; I'd fill up the entire Personal Rants & Confessions board if I tried to list them all.

[blind_otter]

I have no idea, because I do not tolerate flabbiness in men. I'm always confused when my attractive female friends date guys like this.

 

To me it has nothing to do with physical appearance. I mean, I also don't really like the bubbly, artificiality of gym-built muscles. To me it has to do with health. Physical activity is a necessity, it is what our bodies were built for, and without regular activity, you become mentally and physically unwell.

 

It has nothing to do with the guy, and everything to do with finding a person whose values align with yours. I would just be more frustrated dating a guy who was out of shape and not physically active, because we wouldn't have as much in common...

[GivenUp0083]

I think the double standard exists because of the way men and women are attracted to each other, which is different for each species (and yes, I truly believe men and women are different species, we are different in many many ways).

 

From what I understand, men require a more visual stimulation for attraction to exist. It's why 99% of men are interested in porn, the visual stimulation does a lot for us.

 

Women, from my experience and conversations, are typically more stimulated by emotional feelings. They like how the romantic comedy movies make them feel, they like a good love story, they want to be held and told how much you love them.

 

Now some women are stimulated visually too, but I'd say women are more likely to be "shallow" in areas like a man's profession, how much he makes, his social circles, material objects (nice condo, car, boat).

 

Men just are more dependent on that visual stimulation of an attractive body than women are, women don't care as much about a man's body if he makes her feel special and she's been in love with him for a while.

[mo mo]

Beauty is higher on the "must have" lists for men seeking women. It's been this way for a very long time. I agree that it is a bit of a double standard when you look at it that way, but think about this: a man with a car is seen as much more attractive than a man without right? Men do not really question women that do not have cars, as it is completely irrelevant to them. You could say the same about careers, financial standing, social status, etc.

 

There are many more things that women look for in a guy that they are allowed to be judgmental about than men are.

[fortyninethousand322]

I have no idea, because I do not tolerate flabbiness in men. I'm always confused when my attractive female friends date guys like this.

 

To me it has nothing to do with physical appearance. I mean, I also don't really like the bubbly, artificiality of gym-built muscles. To me it has to do with health. Physical activity is a necessity, it is what our bodies were built for, and without regular activity, you become mentally and physically unwell.

 

It has nothing to do with the guy, and everything to do with finding a person whose values align with yours. I would just be more frustrated dating a guy who was out of shape and not physically active, because we wouldn't have as much in common...

 

Exactly. It's about values and lifestyles. As much as I am attracted to "smart" women, I also could not see myself with someone who had a sedentary lifestyle. I simply like being active.

 

But to the OP's main point about tolerating flabbiness in women vs. men. I have noticed this too. A good friend of mine from high school put on some weight when he got to college but his girlfriend was highly active and thin. She tried her hardest to get him to change his lifestyle, to eat healthier and get active, it never really took though. I don't know, maybe out of shape guys are the new "bad boys" that some of these girls want to change? hahaha.

[Nexus One]

 

N1, have you ever thought about what it is these women have in common?

 

Besides, of course, being heart-stopping bleeding-eyes drop-dead gorgeous?

 

Well, they're famous. They're perfect strangers to us, but we have their photographs, and we can get as many of them as our heart desires. Images of these goddesses are everywhere.

 

And I do mean everywhere. It's not like we even have a choice. Can you remember a day where you didn't see a beautiful woman, either in person or in the media, at some point?

 

I can't.

 

Of course not, because there's a picture of my mom on my desk. OK, but you know what I mean.

 

Look, it's not a good thing. It's a problem. Because you and me, N1, men like us and men everywhere in the Western world, are (willingly, forcibly) stimulated by these perfect faces and ideal bodies every day, like some kind of penis caffeine. And then what? What are the consequences?

 

The consequence is that everyone suffers. Men will say something as ridiculous-sounding as "Natalie Portman and Audrey Hepburn are my type," and women have an impossible competition every day of their lives. And neither party gets to be happy.

 

If anyone wants to be mad at society for something related to dating, I say make it that. Media saturation is a sin for just so many reasons; I'd fill up the entire Personal Rants & Confessions board if I tried to list them all.

 

I actually made that image for another post some time ago, which was about impressive looks and some people posted images of famous people after which I compiled some images of celebrities and joined in.

 

The fact that they're famous has nothing to do with the fact I find them attractive, it has everything to do that when you look for images on Google you need to fill out search keywords. When looking for women that look a certain way it's easier to use their names as a search term than to use descriptive keywords. That's the reason why the image is compiled of famous women, not because I think fame is attractive.

 

But yeah, I can't deny that women like these, in terms of appearance, are my type. Would you rather have had me lie about it? But to be fair, a girl/woman doesn't necessarily have to look like those women for me to fall in love with her, but it certainly helps in the initial attraction. Of course I understand that beauty fades with time and of course I have personality and intelligence high on my list, but we're talking about appearance here and I simply don't sugar coat it.

 

Is it such a crime to want a beautiful girl/woman? I can't help it you know, it's not like I can force it the other way around.

 

Let me tell you something about that image though. Did I wonder if I would make many women feel "less worthy" by presenting it? Yes I wondered about that and there are 2 sides to that. On one side I don't want them to feel bad or unworthy, on the other side I do want to present the truth. And that image tells them several things from at least one guy's perspective.

 

- Beautiful women are often slender.

- While they are slender they are not anorexic skinny. (that has the opposite effect on attractiveness.)

- You don't need large breasts or silicon implants.

- Nice clothes can help in terms of attractiveness.

- Hair and make-up can help, but don't overdo it, it should look natural.

 

Would you rather have me present women a false image or would you rather have me tell the truth so that they can distill the above information from it so they actually can use it as a benchmark if they want to. At least they'll have the non-sugar-coated information of what at least one guy thinks. Does that make me a jerk? I don't know, I'll let everyone make up their own mind regarding that.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Nexus One

[sally4sara]

Men are genetically predisposed to be vastly more attracted to women who show physical signs of high fertility, regardless of all other factors. This is because men who were not have consequently left fewer descendants and had their representation in the gene pool seriously diminished.

 

Those factors include but are not limited to:

Waist-hip ratio (for child bearing ability)

Youthful appearance (higher fertility, more breeding years)

Blonde hair (hair darkens with age, blonde hair therefore signifies youth)

Breast size (if both large and firm again indicates youth)

and so forth.

 

Men are therefore extremely visual and, for the most part, won't choose a flabby partner if they can find a slim alternative.

 

Women on the other hand, are predisposed to be more attracted to men who can (and will) go out and succeed in the world, and provide for them. Hence they're less bothered about a little flab, and more concerned with confidence, honesty, etc in a long term partner. Again, this is because women who weren't were less likely to have their offspring survive and reproduce.

 

Society evolves in decades, attraction takes tens of thousands of years.

 

Women are more forgiving of flab, but this isn't the case because modern society perpetuates it. Modern society perpetuates it because it is already the case. It simply feels more exaggerated due to the massive increase in global communication in more recent history.

 

Why is it every time a guy cites long ago ancestors for reasons of why men do what they do today, they always forget what life was like for the men back then? It was a life that didn't afford people being soft and flabby so flab has never been part of what signaled to women that a man was adequate to provide and protect.

 

The only time in our history being fat began to signify anything good was that the person was rich enough to pay others to do the grunt work while they stuffed their maw. These same people liked that their fat wife showed this luxury life style as well and it was only fashion (tight corsettes and giant swelling skirts) that pushed the wealthy female shape into the hourglass. But they were never the representation of common human life. They were the rarity but important enough to have portraits of themselves made giving us the impression that that was what most people looked like at that time. The more common poor men and women were thin. And the wealthy men could choose mistresses from among the poor while their wife mirrored his life and holdings. He didn't prefer her larger figure but valued that she acted as an image of his lifestyle. Remember Tevia singing if he were a wealthy man his wife would have a proper double chin?

 

But these two time periods are not closely set together in our history. Why on Earth would women be running on a much later and the rarer privilaged mindset of programming while men were still being signaled by an earlier set of concerns? Its like saying women have evolved at a faster rate or men have never evolved at all.

 

I think it is due to what pays better in our economy being paper pushing work over labored work. Guy sits at a desk all day and grows soft. He has become common man and women take what they can get. You still see flabby men having fewer options though.

Men being more visual find many different shapes appealing for variety. While they may still pick the soft swelling body for a wife to have babies with - many forgo her after breeding and turn to the ease of porn star shapes on the internet, go to the titty bar or take on a mistress. Over the years they grow softer and rounder until they are no longer visually pleasing to women and their lack of passionate pursuit of of the wife has her eying more virile looking men. They won't be the fella she married but they are still the fellas she'd prefers to tumble into bed with.

But with the new larger access to porn and titty bars, rail thin women in the limelight, women see their partner eying different shapes and not approaching her as much for the BTDT result. They think those shapes are where its at and feel frustrated. I have turned flabby guys down in the past only to have my female friends tell me being with a guy you out class in looks has the guy remaining passionate for the woman longer and more likely to be understanding if she gains weight. They do not suggest choosing him because their eye prefers his shape but rather because it caters to her own insecurities in the long scope.

[Mrlonelyone]

I have to side with the ladies on this issue.

 

Our society judges the worth of a woman by her appearance to a great degree. A man can look like a unshaven, unshowered, fat, smelly slob....and that's ok. In fact it's considered masculine.

 

A woman on the other hand has not only to keep herself under 140...no matter how tall she is... in order to not be "fat". A woman has to style, shave or pluck every hair on their body. A woman has to wear clothing that...while made of finer materials...is often restrictive. A woman also has to wear clothes for the occasion... you know a work day look and an evening look. A woman has to be conscious of fashion by season as well.

 

It's not really fair that society expects that of basically all women. When only some % of women really enjoy that kind of stuff. It's part of our ideal of a female gender role.

 

It is equally unfair what our society does to that % of biological males who enjoy all of the above. In that case a biological male who cares about such things is in real danger of injury or death at the hands of the ignorant. Trust me I know.

[Engadget]

I love chubby girls personally. Id much rather a bigger girl with curves than a skinny girl.

[welikeincrowds]

Would you rather have had me lie about it?

 

Hey man, I never judged you. I don't think you're a jerk. I have the same taste!

 

The fact that they're famous has nothing to do with the fact I find them attractive, it has everything to do that when you look for images on Google you need to fill out search keywords... not because I think fame is attractive.

Exactly my point. These women are accessible. You could have done the same with random pictures from some Tumblr log of no-name models, but their images are easily accessible, too. Because they're beautiful.

 

Is it such a crime to want a beautiful girl/woman? I can't help it you know, it's not like I can force it the other way around.

If only we could! But we can't, which is why a statement like this:

 

they actually can use it as a benchmark if they want to

Doesn't make sense. That's the benchmark, whether they like it or not.

 

The onus is on all of us, as men, to recognize that the media has taken advantage of us. They know perfect faces please our brains and so they use it, non-stop. Right? Beauty (in a woman) is a thing to obtain just like, whatever, the car she's standing next to, or the makeup in her hand.

 

OK? But what are those things really trying to promise us? Not beauty, really. Happiness.

 

Yet being barraged with beauty doesn't make us happy. It stimulates us, but it's more than likely to make us miserable. We can't all have the **** their selling, we can't all have the model who's selling it. And they're both just things, anyway. Even if we did have them (the **** or the model), there's no promise that they'd make us happy -- that's just what we're being told.

 

So what are we supposed to do?

 

it's not like I can force it the other way around.

Actually, you can.

 

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MEN want Mila Kunis, OK? And girls like her, the top 1% of beauty. Are you or I the top 1% of anything? 99% chance says no.

 

So then you say, well some people like big tits and I don't like that. OK, but we're still choosing among the top 1% of beautiful people. So 500 hundred million men prefer Sofia Vergara. OK.

 

Women don't need you to "tell them the truth" about what men really think is beautiful. They can open a magazine, turn on a tv, go online, and they'll have as much source material as they could ever ask for -- because remember, it's the media who informed you, too, on what you think is beautiful. They gave you Michelle Trachtenberg to look at, so you could say "Oh yeah, that is what I like, isn't it?"

 

Don't believe the hype. Beauty gets framed on a wall and that's about it....

Edited February 23, 2011 by welikeincrowds

[fortyninethousand322]

I have to side with the ladies on this issue.

 

Our society judges the worth of a woman by her appearance to a great degree. A man can look like a unshaven, unshowered, fat, smelly slob....and that's ok. In fact it's considered masculine.

 

A woman on the other hand has not only to keep herself under 140...no matter how tall she is... in order to not be "fat". A woman has to style, shave or pluck every hair on their body. A woman has to wear clothing that...while made of finer materials...is often restrictive. A woman also has to wear clothes for the occasion... you know a work day look and an evening look. A woman has to be conscious of fashion by season as well.

 

It's not really fair that society expects that of basically all women. When only some % of women really enjoy that kind of stuff. It's part of our ideal of a female gender role.

 

It is equally unfair what our society does to that % of biological males who enjoy all of the above. In that case a biological male who cares about such things is in real danger of injury or death at the hands of the ignorant. Trust me I know.

 

Not everyone expects that of women. Maybe "society" (whatever that means) expects that, but I know I certainly don't. The only girl that I can truly say I was "in love" with hardly wore any makeup, only had 4-5 different pairs of jeans (she only wore jeans), and only two pairs of shoes (both from payless and both very well worn) and none of my friends thought she would win a beauty pageant. Yet I was a attracted to her, her looks, her personality, the chemistry she and I had, everything. When you're drawn to someone you're drawn to them nothing you can do about it.

[Pfiend101]

Men can have a little flab. Because we pay a tax that women often do not in relationships and marriage. GENERALLY (yes there are exceptions) the man pays for all the dates and pays most the bills at home. If he wants to have a few beers and a little flab so be it. But unless the chick is paying her share she better be in shape.

[Mrlonelyone]

Not everyone expects that of women. Maybe "society" (whatever that means) expects that, but I know I certainly don't. The only girl that I can truly say I was "in love" with hardly wore any makeup, only had 4-5 different pairs of jeans (she only wore jeans), and only two pairs of shoes (both from payless and both very well worn) and none of my friends thought she would win a beauty pageant. Yet I was a attracted to her, her looks, her personality, the chemistry she and I had, everything. When you're drawn to someone you're drawn to them nothing you can do about it.

I understand what you are saying.

 

However your being in love with that woman does not negate the fact that our society expects women to look, dress, and act in certain ways. If they don't they get censure...in everything from service at a store to employment.

 

She was lucky to find you. However their are plenty of frumpy girls who never get so lucky. Most people are slaves to whatever "society" tells them. Remember 50% of us have an IQ under 100 and think the world is 6000 years old...not real independent thinkers.

[irc333]

I think it is due to what pays better in our economy being paper pushing work over labored work. Guy sits at a desk all day and grows soft. He has become common man and women take what they can get. You still see flabby men having fewer options though.

 

Flabbiness doesn't bother me, I went out with a girl that had great curves, but wasn't a gym rat....she was soft , yes....but my only concern is the large amount of obese women or men these days.

 

The ones that ceased having curves at ALL