Women of a Lesser God

As I browse through these forums, I have noticed that a recurrent theme seems to spring up every time women are discussed, as invariably happens during the course of most male conversation. Most guys (saying "all" would be too crass of a generalization) seem to place very heavy emphasis on how their woman looks, thus using today's society accepted definitions of "beautiful" and "attractive", and thereby, "desirable", as a gauge against which all women are calibrated. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I have nothing against a good looking woman - hell, why would I? - but I notice that it seems to be very important for a lot of guys that their woman is "hot", that she sports a singularly attractive ass, that she copulates (may I say "fucks"?) like sex was going out of stock, that she has breasts as prominent and rigid as the peaks of the Himalayas ; in short, that she is the moaning answer to every male's testosterone propelled, pornographically fueled, erotically charged fantasy. While such women do indeed exist - God Bless 'em all - and they flesh out (if you will pardon the pun ) an essential role in a society where sex sells everything from car parts to ice cream, I would like, if I may be allowed, to remark on my own point of view about these things. Remember, it's only my opinion, so feel free to disagree with me, vociferously if necessary. Variety is the spice of life after all.

My principal pet peeve is feeling the need to judge, and therefore, classify, my woman based on norms set up by someone else. I don't feel the need to parade my woman along a catwalk where she has to meet "accepted" beauty requirements in the eyes of the world so that I can feel comfortable with her. I wouldn't mind if my girl didn't have a "hot ass", in fact, I am pretty OK if she had just an ordinary ass (OK, if she had a fat ass, I'd just take her to the gym with me and fix that up). I don't mind if my girl doesn't turn heads wherever she goes. I don't mind if she doesn't have breasts that look like awkwardly hidden satellite dishes (with all due respect to those who do, of course, I mean to slight no one). I wouldn't complain (too much, hehe) if she doesn't bang me every day with the focused relentlessness of an industrial pneumatic drill.

What do I look for in my girl. I prefer to look for things that have substance. As long as she loves me and I love her, I know I have something that's permanent, something that is going to be there forever, something that really counts in the end. A relationship can be tough, the bad moments can be battering, sticking together in rough weather can be as hard as that last, body-shaking, teeth-gritting rep at the end of the workout in the gym. Love, true love, is what gets you through the hard moments that are bound to happen when two people are together. Physical beauty is only skin deep and doesn't last; it's like a firework that goes up in a beautiful flame and then disappears. True love, on the other hand, lasts a lifetime. And beyond. And yes, it would be nice to have both, it's great to have a beautiful woman that loves you with all her body and soul, but, as with almost everything in life, this would probably come down to choices in the end. And if I had to choose, I know what I would pick. I'd go with the real deal. Everytime. Nothing beats laying down on the bed at the end of the day, with the woman you love smiling at you as she lies her head down beside you on the pillow, knowing that tomorrow, come what may, is always a day that you will face together. Nothing in the world is as beautiful as that.

I agree with you... BUT
Why do you think you cant have both?
Physical attraction is how its usually starts. In the animal world it the first stage of courtship, that includes humans.
Have you honestly ever said, Damn she 's ugly, but maybe she a really nice person?
Not that she wouldnt be, but usually it takes an attraction to her to find out. But like you said it all comes down to choices, I choose to have a beautiful woman inside AND out to spend my life with, I've found her, so I know it can be done....

Preach on brother SM!

I think that sm is true in saying that you can have both here. And in fact, I think that it's important IMO to have both. Ok, let me clarify before you all start thinking I'm just some shallow bitch!

Physical attraction, as sm said, creates that DESIRE to want to get to know a person. But more than that, it creates a chemistry between people. And THAT to me, is extremely important. Without that chemistry, a relationship with someone you respect and care about and even love would just be........well.........a friendship.

Now not to imply here that chemistry is only a make-up of physical attraction. No. It's made up of many things and it's different for all people. Intellectual attraction, emotional attraction, and of course physical, and the list goes on. The point is that physical attraction IS a part of it, to whatever degree, for everyone. That's just a fact of human-nature.

But that's just MO and I'm just some crazy Canadian chick

IM^ said:

..........but I notice that it seems to be very important for a lot of guys that their woman is "hot", that she sports a singularly attractive ass, that she copulates (may I say "fucks"?) like sex was going out of stock, that she has breasts as prominent and rigid as the peaks of the Himalayas ; in short, that she is the moaning answer to every male's testosterone propelled, pornographically fueled, erotically charged fantasy.

.........an essential role in a society where sex sells everything from car parts to ice cream........


.............if she doesn't bang me every day with the focused relentlessness of an industrial pneumatic drill...........

Click to expand...

This is off topic a lil, but seriously, ever considered doing writing/poetry of some kind? These are pretty colourful! Reading that was really entertaining! <goes back to read it again >

Hey Sweatmachine, thanks for taking time to comment. Allow me to point out a few things.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I never said that you cannot have both. In fact, in the last part of my post, I said that it would be great to have both (obviously meaning that I acknowledge that it is indeed a possibility) but that it would probably come down to choices in the end. Meaning that for a lot of people, they will have to choose between one or the other. It has been statistically proven by a lot of studies that ravishingly beautiful women often get the pick of choices in life over their plainer counterparts. (Don't scream at me about this, I am just quoting official figures, hehe). So there is bound to be a process of natural selection in this whole affair. This means that those at the top of the food chain get the cream of the pickings, with an inbuilt filtration system governing the natural pairing process. So how many people would tend to be at the top of the food chain and have the luxury of unspoilt choice?

Incidentally, physical attraction has very little to do with courtship in the animal world. Physical beauty is entirely a human phenomenon, based on a solely human ability to isolate certain physical characteristics and classify them as attractive. The first stage of courtship in the animal world is almost invariably chemical, with sex being carried out solely for the purpose of the propagation of the species. Physical size and/or strength might play a role in the elimination of the weaker element where the choice of a mate is involved, but the assessment of physical beauty has no place in the animal world. You might be thinking of mating rituals that involve courtship displays where color plays a part (such as in bird mating, say peacocks for example) but sex will occur between the male and female of these two birds almost without fail, regardless if the peacock in question had a tail like a Rembrandt masterpiece or if it looked like something drawn by a talented 3 year old. Sex in the animal world and sex in the human world are indeed, oceans apart.

Another interesting point you mention. I like the way you said "Damn she 's ugly, but maybe she a really nice person". Such a phrase corroborates exactly what I said in my first post above: we are conditioned to make character assessments based on physical traits, and the terrifying reality of this is that it is a phenomenon that permeates just about every facet of most people's lives. How you look will chart your entire social status, starting from your course through school, the jobs you work, the people you date, and ultimately, the people you marry. The emphasis human culture places on physical beauty is extremely heavy, and it places most of us under very heavy burdens as we try to keep up. (We should know that more than anyone else, as bodybuilders.) Think about this for a moment. It's not all of human culture that share the same criteria about beauty but rather, it's Westernized culture that is subject to this social acclimatization. It has been shown that in many sub-cultures where famine and disease are primary decimating factors, it's usually the fattest, biggest women that are preferred as they have the best chance of surviving childbirth and producing healthy children that live to reproductive age. Interesting contrast eh?

And, in answer to your question, no I have never said "Damn she 's ugly, but maybe she a really nice person". The reason being that I have purposely conditioned myself NOT to use physical beauty as a first appraisal (your statement is a perfect example of this). Rather, I have learnt to start off by thinking most people are interesting and that I can learn something from them - from that point on, it's up to them to prove me wrong. How someone looks doesn't really affect me at all and it never enters my equation of appraisal. Well, OK, if someone looks like Quasimodo after he fell from the Notre Dame rafters, they might make me recoil for a second or two but that's about it.

As a last thing, I would also like to remark on your statement "I've found her, so I know it can be done....". Allow me to disagree with the mechanics of that reasoning. The fact that you have "found her" does not automatically mean "it can be done"; what that really means is that "it can happen". By jumping directly from "I have done it" to "it can be done", you are skimming over a whole slew of events vital to this process that are the true pivotal factors between your point A and B. Let me give you an example that both of us can relate to. Ed Coan breaks weightlifting world records with monotonous regularity. The man is simply built to lift stupendous amounts of weights with disgusting ease. Good, so he can do it and has done it. Does that automatically mean it can be done? Why aren't you or I the Ed Coans of our time? Why isn't everyone here Ed? Simple. Because to do what Ed does, it takes a very specific set of conditions, some of which are beyond our phsyical abilities to modify them. Ed was born to lift, Ronnie was born to be huge. We could do the exact same things Ed does and we will probably never be like Ed. We could eat and juice and train just like Ronnie does - what are the odds that you or I are going to take Ronnie's Sandow from him? See what I mean? Thus, your reasoning was not correct. And these examples I have given you here are even kinder than reality really is. Both Ed Coan and Ronnie Coleman have done what they do best over and over again. Ronnie has won multiple Olympias; Ed just keeps on re-writing the record books. Their results have been reproducible to themselves. However, when you say "I have done it", you have only "done it" once. You have no guarantee in the world that if you were to look for another woman as beautiful and as fine as the one you have now, that you would manage to find one. I am sure that you will agree to that. Thereby, the statement "I've found her, so I know it can be done...." is not applicable even to yourself, let alone to others. And, when you make the further statement "I choose to have a beautiful woman inside AND out to spend my life with" you also forget that SHE chose YOU just as much as you chose her. It's a two way street. If she didn't like you, you could have liked her as much as you wanted to and nothing would have happened. Which further tilts the odds of the reproducibility of this "experiment" proving once again that all generalizations are bad.

Sorry for taking such undue length to explain my concept but I really wanted to get the message across clearly. Also, sweatmachine, my man, the fact remains that, if you or I didn't have our better halves by our side, we would just be two ordinary ugly fuckers with bat ears and potatoes for noses. So, seeing I need a good training partner, towel the bench dry and move over, I DO want to work in with you..

IM^, you've just melted me! You've said everything that I, as a woman, would want to hear.

I think it is important for everyone to look their best and strive to improve themself (both physically and mentally), but there will always be someone else out there who is prettier, sexier, and in better shape (and blessed with those prominent Himalayan breasts!!).

Much appreciated.

Here is a small note for T82. As I have said above, physical attraction creates the desire to get to know a person simply because we have been conditioned to think that way. It's the way we are taught to assess people. You are never taught different, in fact we are bombarded with this message from everywhere you look every single day of our lives. This makes trying to find a different way to reason very difficult and it can be an extremely hard process to UNlearn what is the accepted norm to learning a new way to evaluate people. Most people never even question this as it has become such an ingrained part of our mindsets. Thus, physical attraction IS part of human nature, but only because we have made it that way. To me, everyone is interesting and attractive in some way; it's just up to who I am talking to to prove me wrong.

Hey, glad you found my modest literary endevours entertaining. If you want to see some of my abyssmal attempts at poetry (and artwork), check out the thread The MuscleChemistry Christmas Thread . Do keep in mind that it was composed and written at around 3.30am by a very tired mind.

Hey Pipe_Girl, if melting you is a good thing, I won't complain. Everything I said was the truth according to me. You're very welcome. Just pour yourself into my champagne glass and we will toast the New Year in together. I'm too heavy to be a mountaneer anyways, so I would find the Himalayas rather daunting.

IM^, you are very articulate

my compliments to you and your writing ability

Thanks GetnBigr, , it's just me writing my thoughts out really. I don't think Shakespeare is quaking in his grave as yet. So...would you like to contribute to this thread?

sure, I have both. My wife is an extremely beautiful woman. Why is she with me? I don't know, but she loves me more than anything and that's all that matters to me.

I do agree with you in that we are trained by society to think a certain way when it comes to "what is an attractive woman". Commercials, billboards, magazines, you name it, they all show the same type of women. Small waistline, vuluptuous breasts, shapely backside, and a pretty face. Chemistry between two people can (and does) over power all these preconceived notions we have as human beings. This unexplained chemical phenomenon that occurs when two get together is amazingly powerful. It superceeds physical beauty easily. We have all heard our friends say they feel a certain way about a person, but they just can't explain it. They don't care what their friends or family may think. Chemistry between people (if it is there) is a force to be reconed with.

Hey GetnBigr, thanks for posting your thoughts. It's good to discuss things. Allow me to point something out to you from an analysis of what you have said. You have made the same mistake Sweatmachine did in his earlier post: you have succumbed to your inbuilt preconceptions without even noticing that you have done it - obviously because you, as 90% of all other people, have had no reason to question what are essentially dogmas of Westernized societies. (Not trying to say I am some kind of superman here, far from it - I have just taught myself to question most things that people take foregranted.) Let me illustrate my point with a quick example.

Let us suppose for a second that you have the opportunity to date two women. Both want to go out with you equally badly. One is the answer to all your sexual prayers, blessed with all the condiments that God could bestow upon a woman. The other, unfortunately, was busy engorging herself in the Great Candy Shop up above while God was passing out female blessings, and is thus the equivalent of your nightmare female company given flesh, the kind that makes the evil witch from the Hansel and Gretel story looks like someone's benevolent old Granny. In all honest, given the choice, whom would you go out with if you absolutely had to make the decision? There is only one answer to that question, and no one would contest that. The point is this: such a decision would have been made up your preconcieved notions of attractiveness. You have been given a set of "instructions" at every stage of your life as to what constitutes a beautiful woman and the desirability of such a woman, and you use those to make certain judgments in life, without questioning their viability. (As always, remember I am talking about the general situation here: most people have exactly the same judgment about what is beautiful and what is not and differ only in details but there ARE a few people that fall outside this "norm" and like characteristics that others don't. However, I am not talking about exceptions here.)

Thus, I will counter your statement that "Chemistry between two people can (and does) over power all these preconceived notions we have as human beings." In fact, I will say that chemistry does NOT really overpower our preconcieved notions - chemistry FORMS from our preconcieved notions about what we are taught. Chemistry is what results from our quest to find that which we consider desirable; if a woman displays traits/physical characteristics that we percieve as desirable, we are automatically going to be attracted to her like iron filings to a magnet. The thing is this: if what we percieve as desirable has been ingrained in us from our conditioning and our upbringing; how reliable are our perceptions? See what I mean? You desire what you want and you lust after what you desire but if what you desire is what you have been TAUGHT is desirable, how can you make truly unbiased decisions? Of course, this is a wholly philosophical argument; it's nigh impossible to change the very fabric of our society. Something like that takes a very long time to happen - if it ever does.

Incidentally, above, I have also countered your other statement where you say that chemistry is an unexplained phenomenon - actually, it has been shown in various studies that "chemistry" is indeed our subconscious reaction to various very subtle stimuli based on our perceptions and entrenched notions. Chemistry is not magic; it is, indeed, wholly physiological and...yeah, chemical. Hehehe.

since I am married, I don't think I have to worry about this any more. or at least I hope I don't.

Hehehe, shit noooo man don't give up like that!!! You GOTTA argue with me!!

there is this really HOT girl on campus

she's 5'6", tan, blue eyes, big jubblies, nice butt, and did I mention she was drop dead gorgeous!!!

36-24-36, she absolutely amazing!!!! lmao


how was that?

no, i'm not that young. I'm 31 and still going to school damnit...will it ever end?!!!

That's not arguing with me, that's sidetracking the conversation. And big jubblies just cause problems as you get older. Also, what did you do wrong to be still in school at your advanced age?

well.. Have u seen the movie Van Wilder, about the guy who are 26 or something who still are in college and afraid of moving on??

Ah, that's 26 though. Ole GetnBigr here is practically a geriatric. Hehehe.