The Different Kinds of Straight People

[Lost_Wanderer]

I had a tough time deciding whether to put this in Social Justice or Family Life but since it’s partly about physical attraction, I feel like the latter is more appropriate.

From homosexuality to issues of modesty, I don’t understand why a lot of people act like there’s only one heterosexual stereotype. Biggest example I can think of is the male standard for, well, being an attractive male. I hear both feminists and Catholic women complain about everything from Barbie dolls to porn stars being standards for beauty. They shudder at being skinny or feel inferior because they’re not curvaceous enough.

And yet, don’t you think us skinny guys like it when girls go for Mr. MMA? Do you really think people like me enjoy being seen as somehow less because I have less muscle mass or isn’t on the highschool football team? I don’t know about you ladies but I doubt even the girl of my dreams can push me to go Arnie. Some of you shudder at curves, I shudder at bulk.

Besides, if gay football stars exist, why aren’t their more people considering the possibility that Alpha types can exist in not-so-Alpha bodies?

It’s thoughts like these that make me wonder about how people are marginalized for not being ‘man/woman’ enough but aren’t necessarily gay. Luckily, it may not be as bad a homophobic beatings but I don’t want to make this that serious a topic.

I just want to know what gives really. Why does it always have to be one stereotype representing the whole straight/hetero orientation?

 

[Nacho45]

I don’t understand why a lot of people act like there’s only one heterosexual stereotype.

I honestly don’t understand why it would matter one way or the other. I wasn’t aware heterosexuality was a stereotype. Too may people these days seem to spend far too much time and effort pondering on the things that don’t matter while ignoring the things which actually do.

I suppose, now, since people have psychoanalyzed all “alternate” sexualities to the point there is no meaning left in anything written or said on the matter and people can fall in love with their automobile while realizing they are a soccer ball on the inside, it is time to do the same to the intention of God’s design.

Meh…

 

[John_Lazarus]

I honestly don’t understand why it would matter one way or the other. I wasn’t aware heterosexuality was a stereotype. Too may people these days seem to spend far too much time and effort pondering on the things that don’t matter while ignoring the things which actually do.

I suppose, now, since people have psychoanalyzed all “alternate” sexualities to the point there is no meaning left in anything written or said on the matter and people can fall in love with their automobile while realizing they are a soccer ball on the inside, it is time to do the same to the intention of God’s design.

Meh…

Happens more often than you think… :sad_yes:

 

[Cricket2]

While others don’t seem to get your point, or the idea of a stereotypic straight person (guy), I do. As a woman I have been around other women who are checking out the men, and they have a tendency to “ohh and awe” the muscle bound guys, with the tight abs and rear, while almost instantly dismissing the thin or not so muscular type. Of course the “overweight” guys are shrugged off as well. (Another stereo-type problem.)

It just proves to me that people judge way too many things, people, events and situations at a very superficial level. I had two male friends that were very thin and not of the muscle bound type. Both were very nice, moral men, but neither ever had many women going “crazy over them.” One eventually married, the other never has and he has a chronic problem with being discriminated against because others assume he is homosexual. He is not.

I have actually known very few people who can honestly and accurately discern the spiritual state of a person, or have a true sense of who a person really is beneath the outer appearance put forward. It is disturbing in many ways, both from a moral and spiritual standpoint.

 

[pensmama87]

While others don’t seem to get your point, or the idea of a stereotypic straight person (guy), I do. As a woman I have been around other women who are checking out the men, and they have a tendency to “ohh and awe” the muscle bound guys, with the tight abs and rear, while almost instantly dismissing the thin or not so muscular type. Of course the “overweight” guys are shrugged off as well. (Another stereo-type problem.)

It just proves to me that people judge way too many things, people, events and situations at a very superficial level. I had two male friends that were very thin and not of the muscle bound type. Both were very nice, moral men, but neither ever had many women going “crazy over them.” One eventually married, the other never has and he has a chronic problem with being discriminated against because others assume he is homosexual. He is not.

I have actually known very few people who can honestly and accurately discern the spiritual state of a person, or have a true sense of who a person really is beneath the outer appearance put forward. It is disturbing in many ways, both from a moral and spiritual standpoint.

Neither my husband nor I could be described as the physically perfect representative of male or female. But we were able to find each other, get married, and although we have our share of baggage we are very happily married (thank God!) The “perfect” people we knew (the ones who knew and gloated about it)? Still single, and still thinking that the bar and club scene and hook-ups are going to magically work out for them.

Mature people know how to “settle” right - meaning they learn how to discern what’s important and what’s not. I also think media consumption (and pornography, for both men and women) has just made it creepily possible to become so detailed about what a person looks like and instantaneously dismiss them if they’re not the perfect representative of what you’re “into.”

I honestly think most people are attractive, if they take care to clean and groom themselves, and can engage with the general public. A friendly smile goes a long way.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I don’t understand how the title of the thread that refers to straight people relates to the topic of how people define what is physically attractive.

People are attracted to some physical features.
People are different in how they look.
Some people find certain features attractive, while others find other features attractive.

Why is this a problem? And what on earth does this have to do with ‘straight people’ as a category?

 

[Naskor]

I don’t understand how the title of the thread that refers to straight people relates to the topic of how people define what is physically attractive.

People are attracted to some physical features.
People are different in how they look.
Some people find certain features attractive, while others find other features attractive.

Why is this a problem? And what on earth does this have to do with ‘straight people’ as a category?

I think this has to do with the fact in some places skinny or non-muscular men are just assumed to be gay. I know in my Hispanic community it’s very much like OP described.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think this has to do with the fact in some places skinny or non-muscular men are just assumed to be gay. I know in my Hispanic community it’s very much like OP described.

OK, makes more sense now, thanks.

 

[redbetta]

I am thinking this is something more of a primordial holdover than a gay/straight thing. Women might be attracted to muscular men because those were the types throughout the bulk of human history that were the best providers. And I guess this instinct has not changed much even though men do not have to chase down caribou or sack walled cities to be considered successful or good providers anymore. Personally, as a girl I would be intimidated by the football build guys and would be too scared to approach them.

Just my two cents, I am no expert.

 

[RedFox0456]

Genetic predisposition. I think a muscular (but not creepily so) guy makes more sense than the twig female model. Being muscular and fit used to carry with it the biological fact that you could be well protected from danger and that you could be well provided for. A fit man would have made a better hunter, etc. So those traits would have become favorable and it would have become an innate desire to mate with someone who fit such an favorable characteristic. Obviously that isn’t as important today, but you are still fighting thousands of years of biology. And of course, now in society you are contending with another assumption - that a fit person would make a better sex partner. And given how crazy humanity is for sex and pleasure, that assumption carries with it very weighty ramifications for who is seen as desirable. It seems to me that once people stop looking for a fling and start looking for a real relationship, that’s when fitting into a physical stereotype stops mattering so much.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Okay so generally speaking, everyone is taking the default guess that it’s hardwired biology. Not that I disagree but you also brought up history. Macho men may have hunted caribou and laid sieges but what about the people who commanded those legions? I can imagine Greek conquerors like Alexander the Great to be pretty buff. But what about Napoleon? Sun Tzu? Genghis Khan even? They’re not macho icons but I’d sooner fear the likes of them than the guy over there at the dumbbells.

Second point, do we all agree that the reverse is the same with women? That our preferences for your appearace are just as historically hardwired? In a sense, that just makes us all the more alike. This brings my next question: How good is this? How bad is this?

I notice many Catholic women on these boards often sharing the feminist complaint that pop culture objectifies women into sex stereotypes. I never hear it often raised how championing the jock or the action star objectifies men.

Feminist critics are literally vocal about how repulsed they are when it comes to character/costume designs, roles, cliches etc. I for one am repulsed by oversized abs and biceps. Why do I feel like one of the few dudes openly complaining about it?

And as crazy as this may sound, the only real problem I have with this is that the objectification is centered on only one stereotype of straight man/woman. Honestly, if you’re going to do something wrong you might as well be a little fairer about it.

Personally I think today’s pop culture still needs further migration from one stereotype of attractiveness to several ones. I remember as a 90s kid that the idea of boy genius zapping the muscleheads was just a fairly new convention. Fast forward 20 years and it’s still just another underdog story. The appealing portrayal of geniuses, rogues, wisecracks, and even suave schemers is being treated as a novelty instead of an equally established alternative to the jock. Simply put, I can be as deviously charming as Tom Hiddleston yet I still feel like I’m a second-place option to the oh-so-macho blonde hero.

 

[Naskor]

Feminist critics are literally vocal about how repulsed they are when it comes to character/costume designs, roles, cliches etc. I for one am repulsed by oversized abs and biceps. Why do I feel like one of the few dudes openly complaining about it?

I think this has to do men being raised and viewed as action takers and not complainers. Nowadays it seems like if a man brings up any issue or problem he has, he is told to “man up” and “get over it” without any other real conversation or insight.

 

[christofirst]

Doesn’t this all come down to objectification? We are not considering the whole person, just the attributes we find attractive or repulsive. I’m no expert in the laws of attraction (but I know what I like), and stereotypes almost always have some kernel of truth behind them (just as there are always exceptions), but I can at least try to consciously see beyond the surface of people.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Doesn’t this all come down to objectification? We are not considering the whole person, just the attributes we find attractive or repulsive. I’m no expert in the laws of attraction (but I know what I like), and stereotypes almost always have some kernel of truth behind them (just as there are always exceptions), but I can at least try to consciously see beyond the surface of people.

That’s partly the case. But again, if we’re going to do that, why does it have to be limited to just one kind of straight person? Male or female, it’s like there’s still only one standard of desirable. (Boobs for guys, biceps for girls.)

I think it might be easier on both genders to at least have a varied selection on what kind of desirable stereotype they’d rather live up to. I for instance really do not like the Arnie body image. That is just not who I am. I’d sooner be a Jack Sparrow or a Petyr Baelish yet I still feel like I’m losing out to the studs. Pretty sure a lot of girls feel the same way when they prefer a different persona but feel like they’re losing out to a blonde porn star.

I think this has to do men being raised and viewed as action takers and not complainers. Nowadays it seems like if a man brings up any issue or problem he has, he is told to “man up” and “get over it” without any other real conversation or insight.

Ahh, but ironically, complaining or bringing up the issue is a form of taking action right? I think you’ve just indirectly demonstrated why this issue is still a little rooted. Action is good if it’s only limited to flexing, lifting, and pumping iron so to speak. Never mind plotting, wit, and a bit of tactical strategy. Oh no. That’s for supervillains. Who’d wanna marry that?

Does it say something that religion is at least partially responsible for this and that religious critics are often the first to blast the glorification of ‘bad boy’ or ‘anti-hero’ alternatives to the ‘traditional’ male lead?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Does it say something that religion is at least partially responsible for this and that religious critics are often the first to blast the glorification of ‘bad boy’ or ‘anti-hero’ alternatives to the ‘traditional’ male lead?

Religion is concerned with moral questions, not those of aesthetics. Physical appearance is not related to morals, but you seem to yoke it together in the above.

I don’t understand why it is when pop culture stands for stupid things (such as body stereotypes) that religion still gets blamed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Religion is concerned with moral questions, not those of aesthetics. Physical appearance is not related to morals, but you seem to yoke it together in the above.

I don’t understand why it is when pop culture stands for stupid things (such as body stereotypes) that religion still gets blamed

Well don’t look at me. I just stumble on some rather scathing reviews from the religiously affiliated critics. Every time a movie comes out where villainous stereotypes are turned into heroes, those of the Michael O’ Brien variety come in defense of ‘traditional heroes and villains.’ It’s almost like they want us to think that you can’t admire, aspire, or emulate anyone other than Prince Charming.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Well don’t look at me. I just stumble on some rather scathing reviews from the religiously affiliated critics. Every time a movie comes out where villainous stereotypes are turned into heroes, those of the Michael O’ Brien variety come in defense of ‘traditional heroes and villains.’ It’s almost like they want us to think that you can’t admire, aspire, or emulate anyone other than Prince Charming.

Maybe I’m just getting old but I see no reason to emulate anyone or anything from pop culture. It’s just mass entertainment and people make money out of it. I believe real aesthetics is found elsewhere.

Most people (I think) get over these issues and at one point stop caring about what is considered desirable by the mainstream and are just happy to be themselves. It took me forever to get to that point but better late than never

At the same time, I am worried about these issues because I have young kids and I don’t want them to absorb these ridiculous ideas.

 

[Naskor]

Religion is concerned with moral questions, not those of aesthetics. Physical appearance is not related to morals, but you seem to yoke it together in the above.

I don’t understand why it is when pop culture stands for stupid things (such as body stereotypes) that religion still gets blamed

I agree that religion shouldn’t be concern with good looks, but often it is. While I’ve never heard from the pulpit about how hunks and babes are ideal humans it’s still an idea that’s perpetuated as if it where religious doctrine.

For example in my community a certain form of feminism has some women attacking churches and pro-life groups. You can find videos of this on youtube. A lot of these women are stereo typically unfeminine and considered unattractive being, over weight, having short hair, wearing pants and no makeup. These few bad and rare encounters have cause many otherwise holy men into thinking any women with the above traits is a man-hating feminist.

The thinking then becomes" if she’s beautiful, it’s because she is Godly, if she’s ugly it’s because she is angry with God". They spew this thinking using pseudo-theology and people are buying into it as if it was apart of Christianity.

It’s getting bad, but my parish is giving out sermons to try and curb this kind of “Righteous Vanity”.

 

[mommamaree]

Okay so generally speaking, everyone is taking the default guess that it’s hardwired biology. Not that I disagree but you also brought up history. Macho men may have hunted caribou and laid sieges but what about the people who commanded those legions? I can imagine Greek conquerors like Alexander the Great to be pretty buff. But what about Napoleon? Sun Tzu? Genghis Khan even? They’re not macho icons but I’d sooner fear the likes of them than the guy over there at the dumbbells.

Second point, do we all agree that the reverse is the same with women? That our preferences for your appearace are just as historically hardwired? In a sense, that just makes us all the more alike. This brings my next question: How good is this? How bad is this?

I notice many Catholic women on these boards often sharing the feminist complaint that pop culture objectifies women into sex stereotypes. I never hear it often raised how championing the jock or the action star objectifies men.

Feminist critics are literally vocal about how repulsed they are when it comes to character/costume designs, roles, cliches etc. I for one am repulsed by oversized abs and biceps. Why do I feel like one of the few dudes openly complaining about it?

And as crazy as this may sound, the only real problem I have with this is that the objectification is centered on only one stereotype of straight man/woman. Honestly, if you’re going to do something wrong you might as well be a little fairer about it.

Personally I think today’s pop culture still needs further migration from one stereotype of attractiveness to several ones. I remember as a 90s kid that the idea of boy genius zapping the muscleheads was just a fairly new convention. Fast forward 20 years and it’s still just another underdog story. The appealing portrayal of geniuses, rogues, wisecracks, and even suave schemers is being treated as a novelty instead of an equally established alternative to the jock. Simply put, I can be as deviously charming as Tom Hiddleston yet I still feel like I’m a second-place option to the oh-so-macho blonde hero.

The media can shine its spotlight on Chris Hemsworth (Thor) all they want, but there are still gonna be ladies who swoon for Tom Hiddleston (Loki) and bat nary an eyelash at Thor. Just because the media says blond and buff is the standard of male beauty doesn’t mean it is so. I love Hiddleston’s Loki, and find the character and actor fascinating. Don’t think too hard about what the media says is ideal. I assure you that many, many women are MORE attracted to the lean and intelligent sort of chaps.

 

[mommamaree]

That’s partly the case. But again, if we’re going to do that, why does it have to be limited to just one kind of straight person? Male or female, it’s like there’s still only one standard of desirable. (Boobs for guys, biceps for girls.)

I think it might be easier on both genders to at least have a varied selection on what kind of desirable stereotype they’d rather live up to. I for instance really do not like the Arnie body image. That is just not who I am. I’d sooner be a Jack Sparrow or a Petyr Baelish yet I still feel like I’m losing out to the studs. Pretty sure a lot of girls feel the same way when they prefer a different persona but feel like they’re losing out to a blonde porn star.

Ahh, but ironically, complaining or bringing up the issue is a form of taking action right? I think you’ve just indirectly demonstrated why this issue is still a little rooted. Action is good if it’s only limited to flexing, lifting, and pumping iron so to speak. Never mind plotting, wit, and a bit of tactical strategy. Oh no. That’s for supervillains. Who’d wanna marry that?

Does it say something that religion is at least partially responsible for this and that religious critics are often the first to blast the glorification of ‘bad boy’ or ‘anti-hero’ alternatives to the ‘traditional’ male lead?

There are PLENTY of ladies who appreciate intelligence and cunning and wit, and prefer them over muscles and speed.

Religion has nothing to do with popular stereotypes, at least, not authentic religion. Media spotlight is not the same as truth.