The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

The changing appeal of men

kallipolis

kallipolis

Know thyself
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
17,230
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Piraeus, Greece
quote
It ushered in the 1960s sexual revolution and gave women control over their own fertility.But the Pill may also have changed women's taste in men, according to a study.Scientists say the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman's interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive. Although the change occurs for just a few days each month, it may have been highly influential since use of the Pill began more than 40 years ago.
article-1218808-06BE0C76000005DC-932_468x286.jpg
Classic men: In the Fifties, more masculine men like Burt Lancaster and Kurt Douglas were considered attractive
unquote

The fifties brought us the likes of Burt Lancaster, and Kirk Douglas as typical examples of the rugged, super masculine male. Today we have the appeal of the boyish Zac Efron and Johnny Depp.

Why did real men disappear from our screens?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-masculine-men--interested-boyish-looks.html
 
Tastes change, and men change... It's a little one-sided to simply say women's tastes change - why not argue that men are now more in touch with their feminine side - the need to maintain rugged outer appearances is no longer absolute and in the face of a shrinking pool of "rugged, super masculine" men, women's tastes have adapted.

I know the article focuses on the pill, but prior to that in the 1930s and 1940s, the screen was full of non-masculine men - Cary Grant, James Stewart, William Powell, Clark Gable all of whom were objects of desire for women and none of whom were really hugely masculine - they were more malleable, and very suave.
 
Err .. men don't take the pill as far as I know .. and as far as I can tell the look of the women also changed over time.
 
The perception of what is attractive in women has changed also. Look at the fuller figure of women like Monroe and the pin up models of the 40s and 50s. It wasn't until the 70s when thin became in for women. In the 20s flat chested women were in and now......
 
I guess from the post made here they we all argree that taste and desire changes as time goes by. I obviously agree and see why we have different taste now then we did before.
 
Don't worry, kallipolis, most Turks over thirty in the Netherlands look exactly like they did in 1969.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 240909 wallraff ANP-1833842.jpg
    240909 wallraff ANP-1833842.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 301
I might've agreed with you, Kallipolis, until you showed that photo.

Burt Lancaster has such poofy hair, and Kurt (Kirk?) Douglas has thin lips and a fine chin.

What I have noticed is that women actively despise hair--anywhere--on a man. And that's not good for us bears. (Or maybe it is, if we can convert them to our side, LOL)
 
^Really? I've noticed the opposite. All of my friends who are women love body hair...
 
kevbo said:
^Really? I've noticed the opposite. All of my friends who are women love body hair...
Click to expand...
Well then we need to get more of those ladies to pump up the popularity of leading men who don't look like Zac Efron or Ryan what's-his-face: slim and hairless.
 
I'll admit that I've always liked "pretty" male types myself. I've never been that moved by the super-rugged sorts. But I do think this emphasis on barely legal, 18 but look 12, hairless, muscle-less, types has gone too far. That David Archuleta thread just needs to die. I know he's of age, but he still looks like he's 14. Let him have what's left of his childhood before before we place him on the pedestal of gay-sex-symbol-dom.
 
Whenever I see "a new study shows" in a tabloid, I know I'm in for a short ride on the bullshitmobile. People who don't understand science writing about scientific studies...or worse, people who don't understand science writing about marketing surveys that purport to be scientific but that any real scientist would laugh at... they just make me mad.

That a woman's sexual attractions might be aligned toward biological imperatives when she's ovulating and aligned toward emotional and cultural imperatives when she's not is so obvious a concept that an undergraduate biology student could figure it out. Just as birthrates rise dramatically right after a war or disaster, just as birthrates plummet during economic disasters...it's anthropology at its most obvious.

But here's a more interesting question (to me): what conditions and mores were in place in the 1950s that engendered an iconization of hypermasculine men and hyperfeminine women in film and advertising? One might think it was because of the end of WWII, but it was quite the opposite after the end of WWI when the popular mode for both male and female were androgyny.

And another thing... there's a physical difference between a grown woman and a teenage girl... yes, they're both fertile, but the girl's biological instincts aren't as developed as the woman's. Grown women still prefer their film stars to be handsome rather than pretty, with a bit of character to their faces, like George Clooney or Nicolas Cage or Sean Connery, or even Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp now that they're grown up; the Zac Efrons and young baby-faced Pitts and Depps of this world are beloved by teenage girls, not by women... perhaps because they don't feel threatened by pretty boys, and can relate to prettiness because prettiness is a cultural imperative in their lives.

Anyway... stupid study by stupid people reported to stupid journalists. Phooey on them.
 
blacksyringe said:
Hmmm...it does seem logical (not the pill aspect - I don't see any scientific evidence in the article) given the timeline provided. I don't take the pill, obviously...and being a male I don't find Zac Efron attractive. But, legions of gay males do...and they are not on the pill. It's an automatically flawed view.
Click to expand...
The article isn't talking about whether men find Zac Efron attractive, they're talking about whether women find him attractive.

And there's no scientific evidence in the article because it's a newspaper. :) However, it does refer to the scientist and her article in a peer-reviewed journal. It also says things like,
Scientists have long known that a woman's taste in men changes over her menstrual cycle
Click to expand...

Here's an article on the same study in New Scientist, which has a little more meat to it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17934-has-the-pill-changed-the-rules-of-sexual-attraction.html
 
Since when has Johnny Depp had "boyish looks"?

I always thought Johnny was manly!

And so desirable... *drools*
 
That article is complete BS. Clearly a journalist is writing this crap and not a sociologist. A sociologist would tell you that we all have different tastes irregardless of what drugs we take. While I will agree that "sexual revolution" opened the doors to people express themselves more free (sexually, including homosexuality), the correlation between the pill and "ruggedness" is just flawed and wrong.

I won't even bother talking about "worshiping celebrities".
 
blacksyringe said:
...that wasn't my point. :p The point is if a majority of gay men find these people attractive as well, it's not the pill that is making these men attractive.
Click to expand...
Could there not be a biological aspect independent of the sociological aspect?

This review article reviewed the biological literature, not sociological literature. They are independent of each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top