Why Males Prefer Skinny Look: Fashion or Society?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Azael
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evolving perceptions of male attractiveness, particularly the preference for skinny and somewhat feminine looks in contemporary society compared to traditional ideals of muscularity. Participants explore the implications of these changes in fashion and societal standards, touching on historical and cultural references.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note a shift in male fashion towards a skinny and feminine aesthetic, questioning the reasons behind this trend.
  • Others argue that muscularity has never been universally desired, suggesting that preferences have always varied and that many women have been attracted to different body types.
  • One participant mentions that societal standards may lower over time, leading to changing definitions of attractiveness.
  • Several contributions highlight the historical presence of skinny, feminine male figures in pop culture, suggesting that this trend is not new.
  • Some participants express personal preferences for body types, indicating that attraction is subjective and varies widely among individuals.
  • There are references to cultural icons and how perceptions of attractiveness have shifted over generations, with some arguing that the ideal male physique has become less muscular and more proportional.
  • Discussions also touch on the influence of media and pop culture on body image and attractiveness standards.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on male attractiveness, with no clear consensus. Some agree that preferences have shifted towards slimmer physiques, while others contest this notion and assert that muscularity has always had its appeal. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various cultural and historical examples, indicating that definitions of attractiveness are influenced by societal changes and personal experiences. There are also mentions of the complexity of attraction, including factors beyond physical appearance.

Azael
Messages
257
Reaction score
1
How come that for each year that passes it becomes more and more fashion for males to be skinny and somewhat feminine?

I couldn't stop laughing when I heard girls refer to Tobey Maguire as buff/muscular after he got bit by the spider in spiderman. :smile:

What happaned to the good old days when guys wanted to look like the old greek gods, Arnold, Stallone, Steve Reeves or Lou Ferrigno(ok, this might be pushing it cause he is one uggly bloke), not like Tobey Maguire or (god forbid ) Aston Kutcher:confused:

What can be the casue for strong(physicaly) males not beeing desirable anymore?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I like skinny, whimpy guys, with glasses. I always have. :redface:
 
Who wanted to look like Arnold?

It's never been like that at all. Not that I know of anyways.

Note: They were hardly ever desired. These guys went to far with it.

You got this all wrong.

Who said girls have to like muscular men anyways?

Note: If you thought you were going to get girls by working out, I say that's the funniest thing ever.
 
Because when it's too hard to look like that, it's best to just settle for what takes less work. Kinda like, If you ever read 'america the book' you might remember the picture with the really fat chick and the caption that read "in 50 years, you will want to 'tap' this." we will just keep lowering our standards until fat is hot.
 
1 said:
Because when it's too hard to look like that, it's best to just settle for what takes less work. Kinda like, If you ever read 'america the book' you might remember the picture with the really fat chick and the caption that read "in 50 years, you will want to 'tap' this." we will just keep lowering our standards until fat is hot.

That's false.

Fat will never be hot. It will just be hot relative to others.

In our minds, man will always want a thin female over a fat female.
 
hahah fat will be hot, what an interesting perspective. but in the same vein, in female minds the would have wanted a strong male to protect them instinctively, but now they want skinny indie guys
 
I am zeus.
 
Skinny is not hot, fat is not hot, period.
 
FUNKER said:
hahah fat will be hot, what an interesting perspective. but in the same vein, in female minds the would have wanted a strong male to protect them instinctively, but now they want skinny indie guys

Yes, girls want big, but not TOO big.

You can't make that mistake. There is a limit on this.

Sure, the guys are small compared to what is HUGE, but it's big compared to normal.

I workout and have been built, but I've never been built too large. I've noticed that girls think I have a hot body when I reach about 14.5 inch arms give or take, with my body in proportion of course. It seems that I attract a lot more at this size than any other.

You have to remember, some girls are attracted to the riches too.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
I am zeus.
im zeus' son
 
  • #11
cyrusabdollahi said:
Skinny is not hot,
Unless you're Michael Praed. I have been in love with him since he played Robin Hood in the BBC series. His hips and legs are skinnier than mine.

Now this guy is HOT!

ncrobij1sg.jpg
 
  • #12
My waist is only 32," but that's not "hot."


Evo, a waist is a terrible thing to mind.
 
  • #13
JasonRox said:
Yes, girls want big, but not TOO big.
You can't make that mistake. There is a limit on this.
Sure, the guys are small compared to what is HUGE, but it's big compared to normal.
I workout and have been built, but I've never been built too large. I've noticed that girls think I have a hot body when I reach about 14.5 inch arms give or take, with my body in proportion of course. It seems that I attract a lot more at this size than any other.
You have to remember, some girls are attracted to the riches too.


I think its what I call the proportionality factor.

Someone is a attractive when there in proportion...ok let me explain.

Im attracted (physically) more to women who are proportional.
Disproportionality turns me off. I rather go for a girl with ...how do you say... "lesser curvature" if her body fits her frame, than a girl who can't stand straight up because of all the silicone. Too me, its too out of proportion.

Maybe its the same for these women atracted to smaller guys. Big guys with gigantic muscles are, just...too big.

As usual, I hope I'm making some kinda sense here.
 
  • #14
Azael said:
How come that for each year that passes it becomes more and more fashion for males to be skinny and somewhat feminine?
Everyonce in a while i will be walking down the street and see a guy that is wearing more makeup than most girls do, and that looks like he spends more time on his hair to. Ewwwww...how disturbing.

Oh and Tobey Maguire...another ewwwwww.
 
  • #15
JasonRox said:
Who wanted to look like Arnold?
It's never been like that at all. Not that I know of anyways.
Note: They were hardly ever desired. These guys went to far with it.
You got this all wrong.
Who said girls have to like muscular men anyways?
Note: If you thought you were going to get girls by working out, I say that's the funniest thing ever.
a lot of women liked men who were "buff". They needn't necessarily be Arnold's size just muscular and toned. If you don't believe me go back and look at who were the sex symbols about ten years ago and why. Most (note: not all) were relatively muscular. I think that the thin/compact yet muscular look started to come into fashion with Edward Norton.

Now though with the new trends in pop music the really thin sometimes feminine look popular with indie and emo are becoming more mainstream.



By the way Azael Greek gods generally weren't depicted the way you are describing them. The "beautiful" gods were always depicted as being rather feminine. The gods that were depicted as "manly men" generally were not considered "good looking" per se. Consider that the forger Vulcan/Hephaestus who would most obviously be powerful and muscle bound was depicted as being deformed and ugly.
 
  • #16
I think JasonRox is lonely :redface:
 
  • #17
Evo said:
I like skinny, whimpy guys, with glasses. I always have. :redface:

wimpy? so you don't want him to stand up to you ever? :eek:
 
  • #18
The_Professional said:
wimpy? so you don't want him to stand up to you ever? :eek:
physically, not mentally
 
  • #19
The skinny, feminine thing has been going on forever. Each generation has at least one very popular skinny, feminine guy. David Bowie, Young Frank Sinatra, are a couple that come to mind. This isn't new.

When I was in college most women I asked about it said that Michelangelo's David represented the most muscles they thought looked good on a guy. Beyond that they felt men started to look grotesque.

Pumping Iron, the documentary that made Arnold Schwartzenegger famous, was aired there, and people's reaction to it was pretty much that it was a film about an obnoxious freak, a kind of study in excess.
 
  • #20
JasonRox said:
Who wanted to look like Arnold?
Yeah, seriously - no one except little kids ever wanted to be comic book freaks like Arnold or Lou. I've actually never met a person anywhere - even online - who wanted a "Mr Universe" type body. Toby McQuire in Spiderman had a normal, healthy, muscular physique - almost like a wrestler (I was a wrestler). 20 years ago, the standard for good-looking guys in their 20s was "Top Gun" - for teenage guys, it was still Tom Cruise, a few years earlier, in "Risky Business", but remember, even Ashton Kutcher has put on weight since his start as a high-schooler in a sitcom. And go back further and compare Dustin Hoffman in "The Graduate" to Tom Cruise in "Risky Business" - it is uncanny how much they look alike. So I don't think all that much has changed.

Edward Norton isn't really considered to be in the same class as Tom Cruise and Ashton Kutcher, so I don't think using him as a benchmark applies.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
JasonRox said:
Who wanted to look like Arnold?
It's never been like that at all. Not that I know of anyways.
Note: They were hardly ever desired. These guys went to far with it.
You got this all wrong.
Who said girls have to like muscular men anyways?
Note: If you thought you were going to get girls by working out, I say that's the funniest thing ever.

Well I personaly know plenty of people that would kill to look like Arnold. I know plenty of people growing up to admire the physiques of the 70's and 80's.

uhh who said I was working out to get girls:confused: I workout because I care about what I se in the mirror everyday and beeing strong is a rush. If that happens to be totally opposit to societies ideals I wouldn't care one bit.
 
  • #22
TheStatutoryApe said:
a lot of women liked men who were "buff". They needn't necessarily be Arnold's size just muscular and toned. If you don't believe me go back and look at who were the sex symbols about ten years ago and why. Most (note: not all) were relatively muscular. I think that the thin/compact yet muscular look started to come into fashion with Edward Norton.
Now though with the new trends in pop music the really thin sometimes feminine look popular with indie and emo are becoming more mainstream.

Except among black artists for some reason. Its still fashion to be muscular among black rappers. This might be a semi stupid thing to say. But another thing me and most bodybuilders I know have noticed. A black woman never complains that a guy is to muscular. While white females does it all the time. That is something I have never figured out.

Arnold size is obviously a bit over the top. But like you say modells have always been muscular. Like the cover models on fitness mags.

TheStatutoryApe said:
By the way Azael Greek gods generally weren't depicted the way you are describing them. The "beautiful" gods were always depicted as being rather feminine. The gods that were depicted as "manly men" generally were not considered "good looking" per se. Consider that the forger Vulcan/Hephaestus who would most obviously be powerful and muscle bound was depicted as being deformed and ugly.

Didnt know that. Thanks for clearing that up. But the manly men gods where probably what young kids back then aspired to become. Not the feminine beauty modells??:confused:
 
  • #23
russ_watters said:
Yeah, seriously - no one except little kids ever wanted to be comic book freaks like Arnold or Lou. I've actually never met a person anywhere - even online - who wanted a "Mr Universe" type body. Toby McQuire in Spiderman had a normal, healthy, muscular physique - almost like a wrestler (I was a wrestler).

Well you have meet the first now :biggrin:

Yes healthy and normal is the word. Muscular well I just aint seeing that. Hes level of muscularity can easily be reached with just a few months in the gym. What I am saying is that people seem to think his level of muscularity is "buff". But that's not how anyone I know think of "buff". Buff how I think of it atleast is something that takes years with proper diet and sacrifice to achieve. A body not comonly seen.
A level most people won't reach because they don't have dedication or intereste to reach it. Ll cool j that's about the level for starting to be buff.
I would rather call his physique fit. Like a wrestler like you say or a light weight mma fighter. Just a toned beach body.

I had the same reaction when people where raving on how big brad pit was in fight club.


zoobyshoe said:
Pumping Iron, the documentary that made Arnold Schwartzenegger famous, was aired there, and people's reaction to it was pretty much that it was a film about an obnoxious freak, a kind of study in excess.

sad that the general population look at that movie with that mindset. To me its the ultimate show of dedication. Arnold is to physiques what Einstein is to physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Azael said:
sad that the general population look at that movie with that mindset. To me its the ultimate show of dedication.
But that's what you started this thread about - saying that that used to be a popular goal. It really wasn't.
Arnold is to physiques what Einstein is to physics.
Arnold was dedicated, sure, but he was also on sterroids, as are most Mr. Universe types. Few people achieve that physique - fewer still without drugs. And I question whether such a physique - even without the drugs - is actually healthy. Specifically, Mr. Universe types typically don't have a very high level of cariovascular fitness because it burns energy that otherwise could be used for making muscles. I knew a handful of Navy SEALS (my standard for the top physical condition that is healthy) and they have far less muscle mass than a Mr. Universe type.

It's also important to remember we're talking about something that most people to for health reasons, while Mr. Universe types (and even navy seals) do it because it's their job. Toby McQuire probably did it in 3-6 months, but I'm sure he spent 20 hours a week in the gym.

Again, with the thread title being about what's fashionable, I have never perceived it to be fashionable to be any more built than Tobey McQuire in Spiderman. The one thing that I think has changed is that the Mr. Universe/bodybuilder look has gone from being acceptable to being not acceptable because of its connection with sterroids and the realization that it can be damaging to the body even without sterroids. But I don't think it ever was "fashionable".
 
Last edited:
  • #25
russ_watters said:
But that's what you started this thread about - saying that that used to be a popular goal. It really wasn't.

Well I still think I have a valid point in saying what is considered muscular in this time and age is a lot less than what was considered muscular previously. Look at models today and 20 years ago.

Look at todays celebrities that are considered hot. They are a lot less masculine than what they used to be. Unless I have a totally twisted picture of the 60's-80's. That is quite possible since I was born 84.

russ_watters said:
Arnold was dedicated, sure, but he was also on sterroids, as are most Mr. Universe types. Few people achieve that physique - fewer still without drugs. And I question whether such a physique - even without the drugs - is actually healthy. Specifically, Mr. Universe types typically don't have a very high level of cariovascular fitness because it burns energy that otherwise could be used for making muscles. I knew a handful of Navy SEALS (my standard for the top physical condition that is healthy) and they have far less muscle mass than a Mr. Universe type.
It's also important to remember we're talking about something that most people to for health reasons, while Mr. Universe types (and even navy seals) do it because it's their job. Toby McQuire probably did it in 3-6 months, but I'm sure he spent 20 hours a week in the gym.

Well there is plenty of evidence pointing towards steroids beeing very safe to use. I could expand on this if anyone is interested. There is a wealth of solid info on the various bodybuilding boards on the net.
With that said steroids is far from beeing a bodybuilding specific problem. Its just that it isn't so visualy obvious in martial arts or olympic sports. I don't think any elite atlethe in explosive sports can be competitive without steroids and its seldom I hear of sprinters dropping dead because of doping issues.

I agree fully though that a EXTREMELY muscular body is not healthy. It must put a very heavy strain on the heart to keep blood flowing through obscene ammounts of muscle mass. But I think the avarage bodybuilder is WAY WAY WAY more healthy than the avarage joe. Mostly because bodybuilders pay a lot of attention what they eat . A guy around 6 feet tall that weights around 220 ibs with 8% bodyfat following a healthy diet and working out often is probably a very healthy dude even though he has a abundance of muscle.

Its a old myth that cardiovascular training is a obstacle in gaining muscle. A myth modern powerlifting(or well to be precise old soviet/eastern block strenght science that is starting to get popular in the west) has totally destroyed. Its just that bodybuilding is a sport that is still in the 70's scientificly so some people still think its true. Cardio is very much benificial to muscle gains.
Just about all bodybuilders do a lot of cardio, either to stay in shape or get into shape. Myself 6 months of the year I walk 10 kilometers each day, do high intensity intervall training for 15 minutes on the stairmaster after hitting the weights 3-4 times a week, throw in some skiprope once or twice a week ect.
I could only think that people with the most extreme metabolisms or the very stupid would avoid cardio because it burns kcal. When eating 5-7 times a day its extremely easy to compensate for any negative Calorie balance caused by cardio.

russ_watters said:
Again, with the thread title being about what's fashionable, I have never perceived it to be fashionable to be any more built than Tobey McQuire in Spiderman. The one thing that I think has changed is that the Mr. Universe/bodybuilder look has gone from being acceptable to being not acceptable because of its connection with sterroids and the realization that it can be damaging to the body even without sterroids. But I don't think it ever was "fashionable".

Just think of markus schenkenberg, fabio and other previously famous celebreties. They where FAR more muscular than Tobey.

I should not have mentioned arnold and ferrigno since they where never mainstreem. But I notice more buff physiques in older movies. Today hollywood even tell people like Vin Disel and The rock that they have to slim down if they want to get into movies and hell Vin was just big not huge when he got into acting.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
in the 80's we had carl weathers, stallone, arnold, lou, van damme, dolph lundgrens. Just to mention the ones with respectable physiques on the top of my mind. Also imense amounts of muscular b actors.

Today we have the rock and vin disel and they are far from the stars some of those earlier mentioned was.

If fashion hasnt changed than atleast the level of acceptable muscularity in hollywood movies has.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Just look at guys like My Chemical Romance and Hoobastank then look back about ten years ago and take a look at Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sugaray. Go back another ten years and check out the guys in the majority of the hair bands.
There were notably thinner and more feminine sex symbols back then and today there are some notably larger and more masculine but it seems pretty obvious to me that there has been a shift as Azael indicates.
I used Edward Norton as a bench mark because he started gaining his popularity in the nineties and his scrawniness has always been highlighted as part of his sex apeal. Even in American History X where he was pretty well toned and cut he was still relatively scrawney next to say Tom Cruise in Top Gun who was considered relatively small then.
 
  • #28
Are you kidding, tom cruise had guns in top gun! So did val kilmer. They were all cut. The ice man (chews gum then stops and bites teeth real loud) ...that movie is the best!
 
  • #29
cyrusabdollahi said:
Are you kidding, tom cruise had guns in top gun! So did val kilmer. They were all cut. The ice man (chews gum then stops and bites teeth real loud) ...that movie is the best!
Next to Val Kilmer he was small. Next to Dolph Lungren and most any of the famous guys that Azael mentioned he was definitely small. By todays standards he was pretty big and buff.
 
  • #30
G01 said:
I think its what I call the proportionality factor.
Very true. One cute girl I know is actually overweight by quite a bit, but she still has nice proportionality between the hips and waist. She also has a nice round butt (yes it's fat).
 
Last edited: