This is VERY random... be warned.

[tea_and_ink]

This morning I found this book about religion, society and political power and all that jazz. And you know what got me thinking? The pictures and the fact that throughout history, the ideal of male beauty has remained pretty much the same, whereas female model differs from time to time, and culture to culture.

 

What was considered beautiful 500 years ago is not the same as what we think it is now, in fact geography also plays a part there, since the ideal of perfection in a female in Asia is not the same one we have here in the west. Why is that? Why is the female model the one that keeps on changing?

A thought occurred to me then –yeah, I can think, big shock there huh?- what if men had stayed the same because that’s what we wanted? It would work as an adaptation mechanism, serving as a mean to reproductive ends. Theory this one that cracks me a little since, well, women are supposed to be the ones that don’t know what they want in this male chauvinist culture of ours. Another detail of that theory is that maybe is has to do with men doing the hard work all the time in every part of the world, and thus evolving into a more or less steady shape, and women, given so many varied social options (yeah I know, mostly crappy and of questionable political importance) didn’t really have a established physical model, because what can be useful for one craft may be a liability for another…

Anyway, point is, putting aside personal preferences and psychological aspects involved in this kind of subjects; my observation comes directly from an esthetical view, which comes hand by hand with social conceptions of a specific period of history. What brought the question was a painting by Michelangelo, next to a statue of Zeus and a picture of some Native American men. They were all sculpted chests, and strong arms, sharp facial features, qualities that couldn’t help the comparison with the fraction of male population we’re exposed to via TV, movies, magazines, etc. Granted not all of them are the same, some are more of this, than that, but most of them are some of those (does that make any sense?).

We clearly follow the Greco-Latin ideal of female beauty, but is the male one that’s got me wondering, I mean, how come that Ramses III, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Leonardo Da Vinci held the same male features as beautiful? Although probably those weren’t the best examples, I meant them as a time line, but possibly a better way to see my point is using different forms of societies, such as Egyptians, Mayas and Barbarians for example, they all had the same picture of a perfect man, spiritual and intellectual aspects notwithstanding. While female models are practically opposite poles when compared (not so much the first as the seconds).

 

Does this post make any sense? Anybody know about some kind of study or something about this subject or anything similar? I’m really curious now. And also? I love my “reproductive ends” theory  ::grins::

 

 

Comments

[dazedizzy.livejournal.com]

It makes perfect sense to me, actually.

The male gender role has changed little over the centuries. As protectors and providers, the male body has to be built for protection. Sculpted chests, muscular arms, and being physically imposing are a result of the physical exertions of being protectors and providers. The only thing I can't explain would be the angular/pointy facial features being considered beautiful. Some people are born with them, and some aren't. However, it could be correlated with being physically fit. There would be less facial fat? I will theorize that in the past, the dynamic probably leaned a little more on the protector end of the spectrum.

However, there have been changes...perhaps, not in what women find attractive, but rather in what women will search for in a spouse. It becomes a matter of provision as opposed to protection, as the world becomes more and more reliant on market forces.

I haven't done any form of study on this, so I have to disclaim by saying that most of these are just assumptions.

However, in Roman times, the later Cesars are often showed as corpulent and greedy, but still had their pick of women. Further down history, the Lords of any fiefdom were often also soldiers and warriors. Many of the Dukes, Earls, and lords in medieval england often started out as warriors, granted political power by a king...etc...

Power is what is attractive to us. Be it in the form physical perfection, material riches, or political clout.

thus, these days a physically perfect male specimen, still won't get his pick of the ladies. But when you have someone who looks like Barak Obama, or Gavin Newsome, then women sigh and drool all over them. Because they're physically good looking, extremely rich, and politically powerful.

Women...on the other hand, have changed their roles throughout time. In some cultures in the past, being plump was a good thing because it meant you were too rich to work. Etc...etc...etc...

And I've rambled on too long.