Being muscular = more attraction?

[Marinus]

To all muscular men. Did you get more attention from women when you got in shape? 

Also more specifically men that do pick up. I like to hear how getting in shape changed your dating life.

[Hello from Russia]

Yes, it changed everything

[Identity]

I became more attractive when I dropped the idea that I needed muscles to attract girls. Instead I worked on self-esteem etc.

Lost almost 10kg in muscle, became 10x more attractive ?

[IJB063]

@Identity Your bulletproof Game and charming personality wont make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

[Michael569]

I have recieved a lot of compliments when I was younger (around 16-25) for being well-built. Once girls get slightly older, they are not that attracted to muscle that much any more ,confidence and sense of purpose in life and humour seem to be more interesting to them. 

That being said, if you are muscular, most ladies will react positively to it as long as it is accompanied by other things. 

Also I found that girls who are not very much into fitness, don't care about this where those who exercise more frequently put more attention to it. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Michael569

[max duewel]

I was also pretty muscular in the past and received a few compliments for that.

But since I focus more on my purpose and getting forward in life, I get way more attention from girls.

 

[Identity]

@IJB063 Well, tbh, my comment is slightly misplaced perhaps. I’m still quite a beast now I’m 10kg lighter lol.

When I was really muscular I found it to be polarizing. People made a lot of assumptions about me when entering a room. Also some where intimidated, felt like I had to work harder to build a connection.

Looks in general are a small factor though.

[IJB063]

@Identity

7 minutes ago, Identity said:

Looks in general are a small factor though.

Not so much as you think when it comes to women

I know what they say

"Looks aren't as important when it comes to women"

They are just as important, its just women are generally so vain and superficial in other areas that they'll compromise on looks 

IF you meet other prerequisites  

We are superficial creatures, appearance is everything

8 minutes ago, Identity said:

I’m still quite a beast now I’m 10kg lighter lol.

Good shit mate, losing 10kg and still be a savage is good stuff, keep up the good work

Godspeed

[IJB063]

@Marinus http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/Frederick_Haselton_2007_Muscularity_sexy.pdf

[BETGR164128]

2 hours ago, IJB063 said:

@Identity Your bulletproof Game and charming personality wont make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

It does though. You never fallen for someone average and they just got more incredibly beautiful as you two got deeper into the relationship? 

 

Beauty is not objective at all, it's very personal 

[Preety_India]

Yea muscular men look sexy. 

Skinny and fat guys don't. 

The muscle has to be more around the shoulder, biceps, thigh areas to make it extra sexy. 

I don't think I ever got attracted to a toned torso. That doesn't matter that much. 

It's just that girls have this fantasy of a boy caressing them being protective so strong arms give that feeling. Thin arms with no fat is an immediate turn off, of course personality can always compensate for appearance. But appearance is always a bonus with personality.. 

 

[IJB063]

@BETGR164128

1 hour ago, BETGR164128 said:

Beauty is not objective at all, it's very personal 

Beauty is objective, we recognize patterns in what people do are don't perceive as attractive, what people general find attractive is objectively for example people find faces that are symmetrical more attractive than faces that aren't symmetrical generally, people find people who are fit more attractive generally than people who are morbidly obese, this is objectively true  

People have there own idiosyncrasies in what they find attractive, but this only proves the rule

1 hour ago, BETGR164128 said:

You never fallen for someone average and they just got more incredibly beautiful

I get what you're saying, but your perception doesn't make them objectively more beautiful 

[BETGR164128]

6 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

@BETGR164128

Beauty is objective, we recognize patterns in what people do are don't perceive as attractive, what people general find attractive is objectively for example people find faces that are symmetrical more attractive than faces that aren't symmetrical generally, people find people who are fit more attractive generally than people who are morbidly obese, this is objectively true  

Yeah I've heard this before. But how did we come to the conclusion that beauty is objective just because the samples we studied agreed on what was generally attractive? For me all those results tell us that we are conditioned to percieve some features as attractive and some as unattractive at first glance. 

[IJB063]

2 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

For me all those results tell us that we are conditioned to percieve some features as attractive and some as unattractive at first glance. 

Why would we be arbitrarily conditioned to see certain features as attractive and not others, and by who, biology, our own human nature is what conditions us to find some things attractive and other things not - as I linked to in the study above - here it is

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/Frederick_Haselton_2007_Muscularity_sexy.pdf

We look for fitness indicators, from a biological perspective the entire purpose of sex is to have children and to procreate, this widespread idea of recreational sex only follows really since the sexual revolution and the invention of the birth control pill, what we find attractive is traits that are indicators that we will have fit children who will survive, not what has been conditioned into us by some evil conspiracy of society for no apparent reason, a conspiracy which also happens for some arbitrary reason to share trends in every group of people and culture throughout all of human history, I just wrote a post on this topic "romance" if your interested

7 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

But how did we come to the conclusion that beauty is objective just because the samples we studied agreed on what was generally attractive?

Objective - "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The fact that we agree on generalities means attraction or what is attractive is objective

[BETGR164128]

3 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

Objective - "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The fact that we agree on generalities means attraction or what is attractive is objective

Yes objective in the context of first glances. But absolutely objective? Who knows? 

5 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

We look for fitness indicators, from a biological perspective the entire purpose of sex is to have children and to procreate, this widespread idea of recreational sex only follows really since the sexual revolution and the invention of the birth control pill, what we find attractive is traits that are indicators that we will have fit children who will survive

Isn't this just a hypothesis, and studies are conducted around these hypothesis? For me it's still doesn't tell me anything about what happens after first glances. I think good looks and muscles can get you noticed for sure, but what happens after that can't really be captured by the scientific method because there are too many confounding variables at work. Look at all the failed relationships in Hollywood with what we at first glance percieve as genetically fit people. There is more going on than just surface level physical attraction. 

[IJB063]

1 minute ago, BETGR164128 said:

Yes objective in the context of first glances. But absolutely objective? Who knows? 

Well now we're getting existential, so you,ve taken the point to an extreme

3 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

Isn't this just a hypothesis, and studies are conducted around these hypothesis? For me it's still doesn't tell me anything about what happens after first glances. I think good looks and muscles can get you noticed for sure, but what happens after that can't really be captured by the scientific method because there are too many confounding variables at work. Look at all the failed relationships in Hollywood with what we at first glance percieve as genetically fit people. There is more going on than just surface level physical attraction. 

No its not a hypothesis its a theory, well supported by facts and rudimentary to evolution, no one said there was just surface level physical attraction but it is important for a relationship to actually be physically attracted to the person and this is objective

What are these confounding variables that can't captured by the scientific process

[BETGR164128]

3 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

Well now we're getting existential, so you,ve taken the point to an extreme

Yes, what is objective anyway? 

4 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

No its not a hypothesis its a theory, well supported by facts and rudimentary to evolution, no one said there was just surface level physical attraction but it is important for a relationship to actually be physically attracted to the person and this is objective

I don't agree. Facts can be interpreted to suit biases in order to support theories or hypothesis or whatever. Ultimately these are stories seen through a certain subjective lens, and the data collected is also seen through a subjective lens. It takes a degree of self awareness to be understanding of this.

6 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

What are these confounding variables that can't captured by the scientific process

Just look around, most people are of average looks and they seem to find a way to get together. If there was not physical attraction in the fist place we wouldn't even have a species. 

The Jennifer Aniston's and Brad Pitt's of the world are a minority, and their relationships also fail. If the theory of genetic fitness were solid we would see only the beautiful people mating the beautiful people and those relationships lasting at least as long as it takes for the children to leave home and this would be repeatable. We would also see a decline in the average people because of less mating opportunites.

 

[IJB063]

6 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

Yes, what is objective anyway? 

See, now how are you supposed to argue against the that, nothings objective our words mean nothing and there is no reality, so lets not talk about it when a truths is inconvenient, I don't understand why you're even arguing a point about human nature if you don't believe there is such a thing as human nature in the first place

8 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

I don't agree. Facts can be interpreted to suit biases in order to support theories or hypothesis or whatever. Ultimately these are stories seen through a certain subjective lens, and the data collected is also seen through a subjective lens. It takes a degree of self awareness to be understanding of this.

The scientific process is about being objective, empiricist and self scrutinizing, as is humanly possible, through a skeptical lens facts can't just be interpreted as one wants, as there are objective standards by which we deduce the truth

In a sense everything is seen through our own eyes, we have no other frame of reference (you can't see reality through someone elses eyes) yet in a sense, based upon our nature we piece together reality, and a good way to do is rational thought, not complete relativity, it seems like you're making a solipsistic argument, and one which anything is permissible and there is no truth. Why we've got here over me saying the are good looking people and bad looking people I don't know.

15 minutes ago, BETGR164128 said:

If the theory of genetic fitness were solid we would see only the beautiful people mating the beautiful people and those relationships lasting at least as long as it takes for the children to leave home and this would be repeatable. We would also see a decline in the average people because of less mating opportunites.

? For the most part that is what we see, beautiful people mating with beautiful people, relationships aren't just built around ones physical appearance, I don't know if you've ever been in one, and those that don't fit into this average there are mitigating circumstances in that individuals psyche for instance a good looking woman who stays with a wife beater because she has such a low self esteem.

Why would we see a decline in the average because of less mating opportunities? 

 

[IJB063]

@BETGR164128 Good video by School of Life titled "Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder"

Although the video is on architecture the exact logic does apply to people 

Edited March 2, 2020 by IJB063

[BETGR164128]

3 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

@BETGR164128 Good video by School of Life titled "Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder"

Although the video is on architecture the exact logic does apply to people 

Notice how this guy from the school of life is playing a biased ego game in order to get his viewers to side with him.

 

First off he constructs a straw man by generalizing  and framing all those who are in disagreement of his idea that beauty is objective as people who want to simply close down discussion. 

He then proceeds to tell you how he sees it by dressing it up as objective facts.

 

Typical orange nonsense