Alfa

Ok then, let's see if I can give good answers to the other questions before I have little nap. I don't think girlfriends expect their boyfriends to look that way. A lot of men seem to think that though. From my time spent in gyms and exercise related forums i've seen that alot. Young guys who think another inch on their upper arms and more well defined abs will help them get women. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Neither do men expect women to look like playboy-models, even though men tend to go a lot more by looks than women do. I'm not saying women are not attracted by looks, but that's not what will catch them. Character is. Maybe that percieved exeption comes from media and it's the picture you get from watching TV, but in reality it doesn't work that way. At most some women would expect you to look healthy, clean, well groomed and decently dressed. More than that could perhaps make things a little easier, but that's it. As far as Hollywood is concerned people like to see good looking people. Movies often show an ideal and romanticized picture. Actors can also have a more wide range of roles if they take good care of their looks. And in movies their looks are further enhanced by professional stylists(alot of the actors probably look pretty normal a sunday afternoon without all the make-up). I don't want to sound cynical here but alot of those ads make money by making you feel inadequate and buying their "fix". I mean, they are practically no better than ads about penis enlargement pills that would make you wish you had 30 inch dick. And the exercise equipment and dietary suplements they sell usually work about as well as those pills. Most of what you'll ever see or hear in those ads is ouright fraud. It's not necessarily impossible to achieve such physiques. It depends more specifically of what sort of ads we're talking about. But there's years of work behind it, and it's certainly not achieved by what they're selling. You'll also need to be born with a good shape on your muscles, to create pleasing lines and symetry, thus a big part of it is genetic. Quite often those who pose for such ads have used steroids and before the ads are shot they have been spray-painted. It's not rational to hold anyone to such standards, and thankfully people don't. Because people rarely understand sexual attraction. But I don't think people neglect other aspects. It's usually more a matter of saying one thing, while it works out very differently in reality. It probably arouses some women. I've met women who like skinny, fat, muscular, tall and short guys. Men with long hair, short hair, no hair... There's only one thing that can be said for sure; most women like men. And for most of those most women, men are not defined by how they look.

But that is personal. And since we both seem to agree that it's good to be healthy and in shape this is not even an issue. For those who prefer a more muscular physique it's simply about choosing the form of exercise that will develop that. What I mean is that it's more about the choice of physical activity than anything else, and since some physical activity is necessary for health... First, I think "going beyond healthy" is a very vague standard. Exercise, in various forms, has alot of health benefits. However, I don't think there's any clear cut line where you no longer see any returns. Going to the extremes, wether it be cardiovascular conditioning or muscular development, can have it's negative effects. I can't say if the good outweighs the bad, but there certainly are some drawbacks. On the other hand, I don't think we're talking extremes here. Regarding why it's considered attractive it's about a concrete physical manifestation of some peoples values. I say some, because obviously not everyone finds it attractive. Personally i'm not sexually attracted to other men but I think a more muscular physique is aestetically pleasing because I love well developed anatomy and it looks strong and masculine. Others may of course find it attractive for other reasons. Are you questioning wether or not anything outside our volitional control could or should be considered attractive? If so, yes(because of what I wrote above, regarding why it's attractive). If not, I don't see your point here. A skyscraper is a greater achievement but value is contextual.

That's not a problem as long as you don't sacrifice more important values to do that. Use for whom and by what standard? What about people who drive cars around racetracks? Surely there's no use to that either as you're not allowed to drive like that on public roads anyway. What's the point in that, and what's up with those sportscars like Ferrari's? What about playing football, baseball or martial arts? Pretty useless too. And chess. I've never understood chess. Sure, it's intellectually demanding, but why not put that effort into something more usefull - like reading a book? It's a ridiculous argument. People do all kinds of stuff for highly personal reasons. Sometimes it's just because it's fun. So when does the muscular development become "a lot", do you have any objective measure, and why is that irrational as opposed to having "a little"? Who says people SHOULD have it? Yeah, well... that's not very surprising. Depends on what you mean by professional lifters of course, but to give a few examples: Professional bodybuilder: http://images.hugi.is/heilsa/148518.jpg Professional powerlifter: http://www.criticalbench.com/images/Chuck-Vogelpohl.jpg Professional strongmen: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/Ryn2...ongman_007.jpg8 Point is that professionals compete to be the best in within their field. That's no longer about getting a little stronger, leaner, more muscular or whatever; it's not about looking good on the beach, for your girlfriend or in a movie. I don't think professional standards is what this thread is about.

Aside from what RationalBiker said(which was a very good answer btw) I see a mind/body-dichotomy here. The body is not just some vessel for carrying around the brain. When you work the body you also work the mind. Sure, sometimes the task is very simple and demands little effort, but other times it's very challenging and demands both high physical and mental effort. Physical and mental well-being also go together. Some form of physical "fitness" is also a necessity for life. If you just sit all day long and eat you're soon going to be sick and eventually die. So every person who want's some quality of life has to atleast do SOMETHING. It can be everything from the simplest things like having a little control over what you eat and going for an occasional walk, or you can decide to put in more effort and be really serious about it. As already pointed out, it's up to your personal values and context. "Fitness" in itself is a very real value. How big of a value is personal and contextual. How to pursue and keep that value is also personal and contextual. There's no general rule that states that a solitary walk twice a week is perfectly rational, while busting your ass off in the gym three times a week is not. The "strong emphasis on physical ability" has, btw, been with us since the ancient greeks. As the old saying goes, "sit mens sana in corpore sano (a healthy mind in a healthy body)". Why? Because people have found tremendous value in it, and still do, be it for purely aesthetic purposes or exercising the abilities for sports. It depends entierly on how serious you are about it. Buying clothes and getting dressed does not reguire much effort at all if you don't care about it. You can walk into any store and ask a sales person to pick something out for you, buy it and then wear it. Of course, you can also buy a gym membership, go there, lift some weights and then put them down again. I think almost any subject can be approached that way, and what you get in return will reflect what you put into it. For exercise you can learn training principles, different programs, physiology, anatomy, nutrition, how to perform different exercises etc. All of this can help you work more intelligently, efficiently and give you better results. Just as you can learn to match different colors, patterns, fabrics, learn construction of clothes, chose different shapes and forms etc. and become a real sartorialist. However, the value of something is not measured by how intellectually complicated it is.

If it's ONLY to attract women it would be outright stupid. That would mean a big comitment and alot of hard work for something that would give very little in return. Not that I think there's anything wrong with wanting to look good, and it's nice if others appreciate it too, but only an idiot would work hard for years if the only thing they got from it was some smiles, giggles, women tossing their hair and an ocassional compliment or squeeze on their arm. And that IS pretty much all you'd get from women unless you look extremely good, and even then they'll quickly loose the interest if you're no more than a handsome face and nice body. There has to be more to it than that for it not to be a complete waste of time. Heck, if it's about the women it's "easy": Step 1. Be awesome. There is no step 2. Seriously, for us guys, looks only go so far. But again, people are not attracted to what they "should" be attracted to. They are attracted to what the ARE attracted to. Besides, there are other aspects to take into account also. Masculine/feminine polarity being the biggest one, in this case the physical contrast. Yes, that's a personal preference. Now for me, exercise doesn't take up so much time that I can't enjoy other things also, and it actually adds to them(I get more calm, relaxed and focused when doing other things). For me strength training has been the best "challenge" i've ever undertaken. I cannot even begin to describe what it has done for me, but then I also started from a very poor physical(and somewhat mental) condition. Which is why I also like arguing passionately for it. However, it's important to understand people have different values and preferences as well as different contexts.

I agree that it's about preferences that are developed volitionally throughout life, and as such there are rational and logical explanations behind them. So far i'm with you. But, attraction does not work by an appeal to reason. This is because it's an emotional response to previously formed value judgements(some of which are probably formed very early in life, therefore deeply rooted and many times universal - i.e a large majority of people will share similar value judgements). This is quite important to understand, because while it's true that in a civilized society there are not many real dangers for a woman to need protection from - and there certainly are better ways to protect your loved ones than to build big muscles and learn how to punch others in the face - it still does not change how someone would feel towards certain physical characteristics. Your example is not an example of appealing to her reason. Here's what I think happened: She saw that you were confident, intelligent, competent and you were coming from a position of some power and authority. These are all very, very attractive things. And when I say she was not attracted because an appeal to reason i'm not suggesting that intelligence is not attractive. On the contrary, I think alot of women will find that to be very attractive. She saw you demonstrate these characteristics and responded accordingly, like an automatic subconcious reaction. Appealing to her reason would have been like walking up to her and say; "Hey baby, obviously i'm a confident, intelligent and attractive male specimen; just look at how I conduct my classes for all the proof you could ever need. So, just give me your number and we'll hook up later. Ok?". That would have been... well, almost as bad as Dimitri the Stud: See the difference here? So when you argue against the whole "protector" thing it's a bit like "women shouldn't be attracted to that, because...". Fact is though, many women are, even if it doesn't rationally make the most sense. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Good examples of that are Dominique and Roark, and John Galt and Dagny. The pectorals work the glenohumeral joint through flexion, extension, adduction/abduction, transverse adduction, transverse flexion and medial rotation. It does quite alot more than just make people look good on the beach. Not that I think there's anything wrong with looking good on the beach though. Building large pectorals, or any other muscle, is no more unnatural than doing crossfit. It's no more unnatural than applying your mind and the use of different tools for some purpose, in this case building larger muscles. I also think the term "bodybuilder" is used very loosely. Anyone who lifts heavy objects with the purpose of building muscle could be regarded as a bodybuilder. That would include crosfiters, Daniel Craig and weekend warriors. Then there are competitive bodybuilders. Some of them are happy amatures, they have more muscle than the avarage man and Mr. Craig, and when they compete they manage to have incredibly low bodyfat. Most of those who don't use drugs and stay lean could blend in in any crowd as long as they keep their shirts on. Then you have drug-assisted and professional bodybuilders. They tend to look like freaks. They have enormous, bloated, muscles and tend to be as wide as they are tall. Those are not the guys you'd see in comercial for the latest ab-macine, showing off their six-pack abs, spray-tans and shiny veneers. Point is, there's a huge difference between "bodybuilders". The great majority of which actually look very normal.

Attraction is not necessarily something logical. Shave your head, get tattoos all over yourself, add a broken nose, a couple of scars and cauliflower ears and go out to a nightclub of your choice. That would probably make most men run from you and women swarm around you. It certainly doesnt make you any more dangerous than before and you won't be a better "protector", but to alot of women you'll seem like dangerous, exciting, badass alpha-male who'll give her multiple screaming orgasms in the sack. Of course, thankfully, women with their values more straight would avoid you, but the fact remains that it's not by appealing to their logic that you will attract the others. Talking about aikodi-skills and how good you are with a gun would not get you anything. And the fact here is that alot of women like to feel safe and protected. One way for that to happen is with a physically big and strong man. It's not a matter of there being something to actually be protected from, or who would win a fight between Arnold and Jackie Chan. It's a feeling of her wanting to physically surrender into his care. I'm not saying it's the only way, or that you somehow need big biceps for her to do that, or that all women react the same... but, it's easy to notice that women in general prefer men who are bigger and taller.

Here's why I want big(er) muscles: * I think it looks good. I love the look of the human anatomy, especially when it's well developed and without too much fat to cover it up. * Exercise is a physical and mental challenge which I love; it demands focus and mental toughness. * I love the feeling of having strength, vitality and good health. * When I get old the more strength and muscle i'm able to build now the longer I can hopefully maintain a good quality of life. As we get older we start to lose muscle mass, bone mass and joint health. Strength training slows the physical decline. * After years of heavy squats, chicks really digg my butt. So, the short answer would be; because it fits my values. SOME women probably find it sexy because it's a manifestations of physical strength and fitness. They may consider that to be more masculine, perhaps they see such men as better "protectors", and they may find it a turn-on to find their own bodies contrasted against a (much) bigger, stronger man. Others may see it as sign of higher social status. Then there are women who don't like it all. People are different, no big surprise there. Personally I think anyone who believes they have to look a certain way to attract women is seriously mistaken. How long you live is determined by alot more than how fit or muscular you are, and going to the extremes may even have a negative effect. However, the quality of life as you get older can be seriously impacted by this. The strength of bones and joints are very much effected by the pressure put on them, and this - as well as maintaining strenght and muscle mass - is a loosing battle as you age. If it's worth years of rigorous exercise is another question of course. For some people, like myself, who likes exercise it's pretty simple. Those who don't... well, noone really cares. If you prefer thin, fat, fit or anything inbetween - big deal... Yes, every man is supposed to look atleast as Daniel Craig. Anything less and you can no longer be called a man. If you have a face like Gregory Peck you may be cut a little slack.

I like those comercials, but my favorite is still this one:

I'm not the biggest football fan, though I enjoy it ocasionally when I watch it with a group of friends and a few beers. I think I might have trouble grasping the whole team thing, because when I watch football I do it because I want to see Zlatan Ibrahimovic win.

I think I have that article somewhere but can't find it. I can post more on it if I get a hold of it. IIRC however this is essentially her argument: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html - a woman president would have no more men to "look up to".

Jurassic Park was great, a hundred years ago when it was made. Avatar would perhaps be a modern day equivalent, and it really shows those hundred years or so of progress. It's incredible what they have accomplished here. I wanted a remote control in the cinema so I could press pause and look at it frame by frame, and I would be willing to pay alot for a really in-depth and technical "making of".

I saw Avatar yesterday and I must say the story was really, really, bad. It was just cliché, unengaging and sometimes so corny that I almost couldn't take it, but then.... ohmyfriggingod the visuals are good! The trailer and screencaps just doesnt make it any justice whatsoever, atleast not when you see the stereoscopic version. This movie is all about the visuals, the script just got pulled out of someones ass as an excuse to make pretty graphics. And it was worth it, because the graphics truly are groudbreaking.

All of the aspects you point out can be achieved with CG. The "flow" you call unrealistic is actually alot more realistic than the motion of puppets/animatronics. The motion is quite often based on motion capture data(when it comes to humans whole scenes can be shot that way). Texturing and rendering can be made photorealistic, and that includes scratches and skin folds. It is, of course, difficult and challenging and it's not like the end result is always perfect, but it's not like it's outside the reach of CG technology(I think it's more a question of time, money and talent, really). If puppets were a better choice they would be used instead. A huge issue though is actually knowing that it's not real. Everyone knows that an alien monster with funny colored skin is CG-animated, which somewhat destroys the illusion right there. Making it a little more dull and gritty could perhaps help sell the illusion, but people are still going to be a little reluctant to buy it because it's so obviously not real. I think it's more an issue of CG getting noticed when it's out of place. It can either be fantastic effects, creatures and landscapes based on fantasy, or simply poorly executed. However, there's also a ton of CG that doesn't even get noticed - from small details to complete landscapes and environments. Perhaps not so much the case in this movie though.

Sounds like a complete contradiction. Or are you trying to say that confidence is a rational character trait while insecurity is irrational? Either way, neither of those are fundamental character traits as they rely on other traits. Confidence is a recognition of ability, which in turn depends on reason and purpose(that's what you use to develop your abilities).

I think bluecherry is reffering to the difference between rationale and rational. edit: I may have read your post too quickly... still though: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationale

Leading a relationship on towards sex is something you can learn alot from. It's not the same thing as socializing or flirting. I don't think the context necessarily has to be about pursuing a serious relationship. I think a serious relationship is a good long-term goal, where there can be other interesting and perfectly valid values along the way. It can be participating in activities, meeting new people, meeting women, and there may be those you find attractive and interesting who you'd want to have sex with - not knowing how serious you'd want to get with them. I think they can all be rational values that are worth experiencing, and at the same time it increases the chances of finding someone special who you'd want to keep. I'm not talking about one-nighters though. I don't think there's any value in pursuing them. Sure, they can happen by accident, but one-nighters by their very definition is sex with someone you don't really care about at all. Otherwise you'd want to see them again. So it's not a valuable pursuit, and with time it can be damaging - when something great like sex gets subconciously asociated with these women. I mean, if sex becomes something you do with loose sluts, how will you then respond to good women? Perhaps the love in itself is different. I can't tell as I cannot look at romantic love separately from sexual attraction. The sexual attraction has to be there, that's why I can't feel romantically for another man - though I can love them very dearly as friends. When you say that romantic love can exist first and then lead to sexual desire, I regard that as a persons character being vital to the sexual attraction.

No, of course they are entierly different things. That's why I think experience is most valuable when it comes from a pursuit of rational values. Sure, though by flirting alone you will not learn the same things. However, i'm not advocating practice per se. I'm advocating "go out there and get what you want", learn from the process and use that knowledge. I suppose though that practice can have it's uses. Like if you have difficulty approaching girls, then go talk to a few hundred at random. Nope, I said sexual attraction - not physical beauty. Sexual attraction is a much wider concept where physical characteristics are only a part of it. What i'm saying is that love without sexual attraction is not romantic love.

Yes, I just wanted to add a little to what you said. If you're just talking sex then I agree it doesn't matter that much. But I don't think "social ability" was initially mentioned only in that context. When you're talking about "if two people love each other", that's quite an enormous qualifier. In reality it's alot more complex, and you have to get there first. It's like, if you want to do the dance of romance it's good to learn the steps. While it certainly helps to be good dancer that part is not necessary, however tripping and falling on your face can make you blow your chances. And just to be clear, i'm not just talking about sex here. This is what I mean by leading things where you want them. Love does not necessarily change anything either. There also has to be sexual attraction. Love without attraction is friendship. That's what the "secret method", which is neither a method nor a secret, is all about - leading things on without killing the attraction. However, you can't look at this from a perspective where n=1. For most guys, myself included, it's a case of falling on their faces over and over again - often not even realizing they've fallen on their faces, or why. Heck, alot of guys are even oblivious about all the invitations to dance that they get. That's why a little experience and social ability can be very valuable. It helps alot in finding someone to fall in love with and the whole happily ever after.

Social ability is essential for connecting and interacting with people, and for getting romantic relationships to work. You don't have to be experienced at sex, but it sure helps to know how to take a relationship in that direction when you want to. Experience is neither a vice nor a virtue. There can be good or bad resons for your experience. I also don't think experience for the sake of experience is a good idea. A better way to approach it is to pursue ones values, and let experience be a by-product of that.

Hehe, sounds like the polar opposite to me. Strangely though i've always liked in-your-face kind of people, especially women. Seems like you just have a more feminine perspective. To clarify my position a little bit though, let me just add that of course i'd also be giving something in the form of pleasure(hopefully ) - it's part of the value obtained(just felt I had to say this, so as not to damage my reputation ). I merely want to contrast this from being a form of "gift", or sacrifice, and instead see it as a form of trade(if I understand you correctly though we're talking about the same thing here). In your case though I think it's better to regard it as "giving ownership" to the values you see in him. And even if he does not live up to them, those values remain. You just retract that "ownership" and give it to someone more deserving, also giving him something the other man could never have. I think this is an important view to hold, because break-ups do happen - for whatever reasons. Even for good rational people. We can make mistakes and our partners can change. This can be more or less painfull, but it's important not to think that we lost parts of ourselves to someone who was undeserving. Where does the reason look thin? You haven't even adressed anything specifically. I don't think any of us are talking about getting some itches scratched. Atleast i'm certainly not. Hell, if it's only about having an itch I couldn't be bothered to find someone to scratch it for me. I don't even like sex when it's done as a mere physical need. I think what makes sex good is the person i'm having it with, and that requires more than just feeling a little frisky. When it comes to self-esteem you better have a damn solid one before thinking about getting any kind of partner, because you can bet it's gonna be put to the test. I also think it's fair to assume most people here know what it's like when you get hurt.

Usually such things are hard to know beforehand. Most people are not very open about their fantasies and fetishes, unless they really trust the other person, and you can bet the weirder they are the less open they're going to be about it. So I guess if there are differences that cannot be worked out... well, that would suck.

I think it depends on what you refer to as casual sex, and the context. If it's something based on real values and not just some form of hedonistic pleasure, then I don't see a problem with it either. The context can also be such as your ideal romantic partner is not available, and you're in a situation where you can't do much about it. In that case I see nothing wrong with having sex with someone you value, regard highly, find attractive and respect - even if you don't intend to start a serious romantic relationship. A more hedonistic approach would on the other hand be more like "it feels good, therefore it is", with no regard to other values than gaining a moment of pleasure. Even if this is done for the right resons there are potential problems though. Things can get complicated and you migh end up ruining something that could have been a good friendship. Also, contraceptives don't always work, and some act irrationally when facing the choice of abortion. This does of course not make the whole concept bad, but they are good reasons for not treating the subject lightly.

I think that sounds very good. I just wan't to clarify, in case you took my post the wrong way, that I just wanted to explain why I hold my approach to it. I wasn't trying to make any assumptions about you(that would have been very rude).

I guess i'm more inclined to trust my first impression of people. I agree of course that it's important not to jump to conclusions and discard that first impression if it proves to be wrong. But I tend to be able to rather quickly form an accurate impression of people(I think it might be something i've learned from being more of a quiet and observing type). Hehe, i'm probably the exact opposite - trustful bordering to the naive. What you mention here sure is a common problem though. Kind of hard to know someone who doesn't know himself. Another problem can also be when the other person makes the wrong assumptions about you. I mean, it's all well and good if i'm getting to know the other person, but it has to go both ways. Sometimes it can be hilariously fun though when it doesn't. For women there's also the risk of getting beaten and raped if they attract the wrong guy. Therefore I think it's also wiser for women to require a higher degree of trust before sleeping with a man. I can't say for sure how I would feel about that situation as it has never happened, but I don't think i'd have any problems with it. My actions would be in response to the values I see. But, I don't act by giving anything away. I don't regard it as a gift or anything like that, it's more like obtaining a value. If it turns out she doesn't actually live up to that, that would be disappointing but i'll just make sure to find someone better next time. Whatever she got from it must be as gratifying as having sex with a person who's thinking of someone else(besides, that someone else would eventually get what she couldn't). Of course, if this literally happens the very next morning then i'd take a serious look at what the hell I was thinking. Because I think that would indicate a very bad judgement.