Philosophy Discussion Forums

This is an issue which has almost full validity. It's one of such importance, that the admittance of it's justification with regard to the art world would require justifying others proceeding upon improper and imprecise natures to be precise with regard bashing the quality of the masculine form.

stormeyy

Stormeyy wrote:This is an issue which has almost full validity. It's one of such importance, that the admittance of it's justification--

"admittance"--by whom?

--with regard to the art world would require justifying others--

Precisely which "others" do you mean? Who has "bashed the quality of the masculine form"? Which "quality of the masculine form" was "bashed"? (And, whose "masculine" form was bashed, for God's sake?)

--proceeding upon improper and imprecise natures to be precise with regard bashing the quality of the masculine form.

stormeyy

Keith Russell wrote:

Stormeyy wrote:This is an issue which has almost full validity. It's one of such importance, that the admittance of it's justification--

"admittance"--by whom?

--with regard to the art world would require justifying others--

Precisely which "others" do you mean? Who has "bashed the quality of the masculine form"? Which "quality of the masculine form" was "bashed"? (And, whose "masculine" form was bashed, for God's sake?)

--proceeding upon improper and imprecise natures to be precise with regard bashing the quality of the masculine form.

stormeyy

For your information.

It's said that schopenhauer had a very firm desire for another male. He eventually became a buddhist philosopher. He gave up hope to attain to the dignity of enlightenment.

After this consideration is met, he stated once in his essay he wrote will and reality that when some person says to themself: "The masculine form is more sexual" he is attaining to questioning of old myths and stuff so just a thought.......

storm

"For your information" can impress others as condescending. However, Keith Russell began in a confrontational manner, which could trigger a condescending tone, don't you think? More is happening here than intellectual discussion of a subject, and awareness is a good thing.

This wikipedia article comes with a picture of the statue of Adonis, and who can forget the statue of David, or the muscular thinking man?

Several things play into sexual attractiveness. The importance of symmetry has been researched, and is artistically important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness


Symmetry

Symmetrical faces and bodies may be signs of good inheritance to women of child-bearing age seeking to create healthy offspring. Some studies suggested that women at peak fertility were more likely to fantasize about men with greater symmetry.[13] Studies suggest women are more attracted to men with symmetrical features, and noticed correlations between symmetry and other variables typically associated with masculinity, such as greater height, broader shoulders, and smaller hip-to-waist ratios.[14] Facial and body symmetry may indicate good health, which is a desirable feature.[14] The symmetrical nature of a male partner may be a variable influencing whether a woman, during sexual intercourse, is able to achieve an orgasm; one study suggested that orgasmic frequency increases from 30% to 75% when their male partners were described as more symmetrical.[15]

I think it also important to say that we expect good looking people to have high intelligence and good character. Whereas, ugliness results in suspect of wrong doing. So when we judge a person's looks, we are assuming more than we should.

athena wrote:"For your information" can impress others as condescending. However, Keith Russell began in a confrontational manner, which could trigger a condescending tone, don't you think? More is happening here than intellectual discussion of a subject, and awareness is a good thing.

This wikipedia article comes with a picture of the statue of Adonis, and who can forget the statue of David, or the muscular thinking man?

Several things play into sexual attractiveness. The importance of symmetry has been researched, and is artistically important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness


Symmetry

Symmetrical faces and bodies may be signs of good inheritance to women of child-bearing age seeking to create healthy offspring. Some studies suggested that women at peak fertility were more likely to fantasize about men with greater symmetry.[13] Studies suggest women are more attracted to men with symmetrical features, and noticed correlations between symmetry and other variables typically associated with masculinity, such as greater height, broader shoulders, and smaller hip-to-waist ratios.[14] Facial and body symmetry may indicate good health, which is a desirable feature.[14] The symmetrical nature of a male partner may be a variable influencing whether a woman, during sexual intercourse, is able to achieve an orgasm; one study suggested that orgasmic frequency increases from 30% to 75% when their male partners were described as more symmetrical.[15]

I think it also important to say that we expect good looking people to have high intelligence and good character. Whereas, ugliness results in suspect of wrong doing. So when we judge a person's looks, we are assuming more than we should.

I'm not assuming the theory of symmetry nor the assumpsion of the quality of beauty in a face, as this appears to be distinct from the origional assersion. It's not a discussion on how "beautiful" nor how "symmetrical" the "shape of the face is"- and as we evolve forward into the human race or rat race known as humanity you will discover that these particular issues are far more important that the previous poster Keith Russel had failed to admit... So.

It's intriguing to be sure, as Schopenhauer expresses a concern for what is naturally true and commonly disregarded, as do most all of the people whom philosohize.

What is so incredibly important here is to keep in mind that that is what the person who was addressing addressed by the way of asserting (schopenhauer) how he felt about the issue of particular look in general- and no symmetrical nor adverse consideration is to take effect in this discussion.

Therefore I would like to repeate the origional assersion in the opening post which was:

I believe that the beauty of a masculine body is that which should not be underlooked. I feel that this is so.

What is your belief?

stormeyy

I have wonderedd about this. I have never been able to draw a man's face or body as well as I can draw a woman.My theory is that a woman is better than a male as an undraped model for artists because a woman's flesh is an interesting mixture of hard and droopy bits so that the texture of it vis a vis gravity is more apparent.The man's body has droopy bits which, except for the genitals,are present only when the man is not entirely healthy.

For this reason angels in art who are supposed to be ethereal are better represented by young and healthy male models whose bodies exhibit the most possible defiance of the law of gravity.I wonder why angels are usually female looking, even while they are not as exuberantly Mediterranean female as post-Renaissance Virgins.