Looksmaxxing Forum Logo

Join 75,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

The male body looks much cooler then a woman body

Cortisol

Cortisol

‎
Reputable ★★
Established ★
Joined
Dec 5, 2025
Messages
3,201
Solutions
2
Reputation
8,561
Like its much much much cooler
Take a look
IMG_9788.webp
IMG_9789.webp


Meanwhile

IMG_9790.webp

Bruh
@TonyDr @LaWi @aryy @misclick
 
Register to hide this ad
true beauty is in androgny
 
TonyDr said:
Womens body is more appealing to me, but i'm also heterosexual so

The male body looks good because of the aesthetic muscle mass combined w/ leanness
Click to expand...
I wont f a male too im not gay im just simply saying that a male physique looks much cooler then a woman physique
 
I look like these statues btw but if you gave them a 6.4 incher when semi hard
 
Cause we're meant to do more
 
ltbscorp said:
females are sexy man dont lie u homo
Click to expand...
Yeah they are sexy im not saying that they arent but when you compare them in a structural way males take the win they have wider frames overall bigger bodys more muscle mass more definition etc
 
Cortisol said:
Yeah they are sexy im not saying that they arent but when you compare them in a structural way males take the win they have wider frames overall bigger bodys more muscle mass more definition etc
Click to expand...
why would women need wider and bigger bodies
theyre women their bodies serve a purpose for producing children and feeding children
 
all we love in female bodies are just male features projected to female body like low fat %, long legs etc.
Originally female features are ugly as fuck
 
eternal love said:
all we love in female bodies are just male features projected to female body like low fat %, long legs etc.
Originally female features are ugly as fuck
Click to expand...
This is just a lie, objectively the things most men find attractive about women are uniquely attributes of women like breast, hips, etc. Unless your telling me you want a women who looks like a man. And as for the fat percentage what about that is exclusive to men everyone like somone who is in the healthy range. I also can guarantee you that you would not like a women with a very low fat percentage since that's literally unhealthy and disgusting looking for most women under 15% gets very dangerous.
 
britanniarulesthesea said:
This is just a lie, objectively the things most men find attractive about women are uniquely attributes of women like breast, hips, etc. Unless your telling me you want a women who looks like a man. And as for the fat percentage what about that is exclusive to men everyone like somone who is in the healthy range. I also can guarantee you that you would not like a women with a very low fat percentage since that's literally unhealthy and disgusting looking for most women under 15% gets very dangerous.
Click to expand...
Male forms are, generally speaking, more beautiful than female ones... In particular,
we perceive as beautiful those forms that are "progressive"—forms by which
successful organisms distinguish themselves from those that are backward or conservative. Evolution
has ensured that such forms elicit a heightened degree of attraction
within the population in which they emerged. And, as previously noted,
from an evolutionary standpoint, males are typically more mobile than females, and men are more evolutionarily advanced
than women—evolutionary changes tend to manifest in them first. Thus,
human development—when compared to that of other primates—is characterized by an
ever-widening disparity between the lengths of the lower and upper limbs.
The upper limbs become progressively shorter relative to the lower ones, while the lower ones grow progressively longer.
The lower limbs also elongate relative to the torso. However, due to their
functional characteristics, women are unable to keep pace with
men in this regard. On average, women are characterized by a shorter relative
leg length compared to their torso. Yet, aesthetic criteria for legs
are established based on male proportions—it is a well-known fact that, even among
young women, those considered most beautiful are the ones whose "legs start at their neck."
It is no coincidence that women prefer high-heeled footwear. There is
a theory that ancient sculptors modeled the legs of goddesses not after women
or young girls, but after young men.
This same preference for specific criteria extends to the form of the arms. Female arms
are typically slightly curved outward at the elbows—a trait visible when a woman, standing,
rests her palms face-down upon a table. Male arms, in such situations, remain straight.
The aesthetic canon, however, favors "straight arms" [7, 515–516].
Consequently, it appears that people—even those entirely unaware of
the physiological norms governing the structure of the male and female body—often
unconsciously adopt male physical parameters as their ideal, subsequently projecting them
onto women. This happens even in our time: "It turns out that women whose proportions approach those of men are increasingly considered beauties."
 
eternal love said:
Male forms are, generally speaking, more beautiful than female ones... In particular,
we perceive as beautiful those forms that are "progressive"—forms by which
successful organisms distinguish themselves from those that are backward or conservative. Evolution
has ensured that such forms elicit a heightened degree of attraction
within the population in which they emerged. And, as previously noted,
from an evolutionary standpoint, males are typically more mobile than females, and men are more evolutionarily advanced
than women—evolutionary changes tend to manifest in them first. Thus,
human development—when compared to that of other primates—is characterized by an
ever-widening disparity between the lengths of the lower and upper limbs.
The upper limbs become progressively shorter relative to the lower ones, while the lower ones grow progressively longer.
The lower limbs also elongate relative to the torso. However, due to their
functional characteristics, women are unable to keep pace with
men in this regard. On average, women are characterized by a shorter relative
leg length compared to their torso. Yet, aesthetic criteria for legs
are established based on male proportions—it is a well-known fact that, even among
young women, those considered most beautiful are the ones whose "legs start at their neck."
It is no coincidence that women prefer high-heeled footwear. There is
a theory that ancient sculptors modeled the legs of goddesses not after women
or young girls, but after young men.
This same preference for specific criteria extends to the form of the arms. Female arms
are typically slightly curved outward at the elbows—a trait visible when a woman, standing,
rests her palms face-down upon a table. Male arms, in such situations, remain straight.
The aesthetic canon, however, favors "straight arms" [7, 515–516].
Consequently, it appears that people—even those entirely unaware of
the physiological norms governing the structure of the male and female body—often
unconsciously adopt male physical parameters as their ideal, subsequently projecting them
onto women. This happens even in our time: "It turns out that women whose proportions approach those of men are increasingly considered beauties."
Click to expand...



The argument assumes that men are more evolved and therefore more beautiful, but that isn’t how evolution works. According to Natural Selection, evolution acts on entire populations, not on one sex being more advanced than the other. Men and women develop different traits because they have different biological roles, not because one is ahead. Attraction is also explained by Sexual Selection, which usually favors traits that make males and females look more different, not more similar. Studies consistently show that people tend to prefer sex-typical features, like broader shoulders in men and wider hips relative to the waist in women, which contradicts the idea that male proportions are the universal ideal. Research in Anthropology also shows that beauty standards change a lot across cultures and history, which wouldn’t happen if male anatomy were naturally the standard of beauty. Even the example about high heels doesn’t really support the claim, because heels exaggerate feminine traits like hip movement and leg shape rather than making women look more like men. So the idea that men are inherently more attractive because they are more evolved is not supported by modern biology or anthropology, and is closer to a philosophical opinion than a scientific fact.
 
britanniarulesthesea said:
The argument assumes that men are more evolved and therefore more beautiful, but that isn’t how evolution works. According to Natural Selection, evolution acts on entire populations, not on one sex being more advanced than the other. Men and women develop different traits because they have different biological roles, not because one is ahead. Attraction is also explained by Sexual Selection, which usually favors traits that make males and females look more different, not more similar. Studies consistently show that people tend to prefer sex-typical features, like broader shoulders in men and wider hips relative to the waist in women, which contradicts the idea that male proportions are the universal ideal. Research in Anthropology also shows that beauty standards change a lot across cultures and history, which wouldn’t happen if male anatomy were naturally the standard of beauty. Even the example about high heels doesn’t really support the claim, because heels exaggerate feminine traits like hip movement and leg shape rather than making women look more like men. So the idea that men are inherently more attractive because they are more evolved is not supported by modern biology or anthropology, and is closer to a philosophical opinion than a scientific fact.
Click to expand...
saar men and women are equal
The same shit as saying that chimps aren't less developed than humans
and women wear high heels because it makes them more manly (aka longer legs)
 
Really it's much sexier too, proof being that even after millions of years of males fucking women and children coming out there are STILL gays. It should be evoluntionarily impossible, it has no physical use etc etc
 
idk female seems elegant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top