>The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep.
Was Elaine right?
The most beautiful women are not as beautiful as the most beautiful men.
>>36878968
Yeah pretty much.
>>36878983
That post was so gay, I'm not even going to question why you forgot to say "no homo".
>>36878983
Maybe if you're gay.
>>36878968
Jeeps are cool though
>>36878968
Elaine was always right.
>>36878983
pls go
>>36879001
>>36879002
The greeks were right. Your hormones are wrong.
but what if i see beauty in functionality
>>36878983
gayest thing I have heard in months
>>36878983
>but what if i see beauty in functionality
>>36879018
The greeks associated male beauty with femininity, not masculinity.
>>36879018
>I'm a faggot and everyone should be a faggot too.
I admire the male form, but a perfect female is more beautiful than a perfect male.
>>36879049
Beauty != I want to have sex with that
This is not a difficult concept, you pleb fags.
only fags call ppl fags
Wut u afraid of
>>36879075
Dude, you are a raging homosexual. Stop lying to yourself.
>>36879074
>but a perfect female is more beautiful than a perfect male.
Nonsense. Prove it.
>>36879091
Aesthetics and beauty are not a sexual concept.
Stop thinking with your penis. Men have superior forms. Women are squat and flabby. They put 20x more effort into dolling themselves up, with clothes, makeup, hair, eye makeup, bras, ect ect ect.
Stripped bare, men's forms are more beautiful than theirs. Just objective fact. Faces is a tossup, with the top percentile of men being more beautiful than that of women, but with the large majority of women's being more beautiful of that of men.
Well, I guess this isn't that simple a concept, actually. Your loss though. Keep putting women above you. Keep thinking with your smaller heads.
>>36879130
>Stop thinking with your penis.
Are you even a man?
>>36879092
Talking about body or about face?
>>36879130
https://www.instagram.com/fit_thickstagram/
Do you not find these women beautiful.
>>36879140
Being a man does not mean being a mindless, sexually driven animal. That is the opposite of the definition of man.
>>36879165
>spends the whole thread trying to convince people that his opinions are facts
>claims to know how to be a perfect example of a man
Have fun with the rest of your life, friendo, because apparently you've got it all figured out.
>>36879157
See
>>36879165
It's arousing, but that is not beauty. That is a degraded form of beauty, at best.
Here is a picture of a truly beautiful woman.
>>36879165
This is what autists actually believe.
>>36879175
>claims to know how to be a perfect example of a man
I still suggest that it is in your interest to consider my opinions. But yea, I am challenging perspectives that are widely established and accepted.
>>36879184
Maybe.
But only one of you so far has been able to even do so much as verbalize a coherent argument against my detailed opinions. Most of the responses have been
>hurr gay!
>durr pussy!
>hurr autist!
ect
>>36879140
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
>>36879130
Lol faggot.
>>36879206
> Most of the responses have been
>hurr gay!
>durr pussy!
>hurr autist!
All of which are correct, faggot. You are homosexual, autistic and a pussy.
Nah a fit male body is beautiful, and this is coming from a gay chick. Not sexually attracted to guys but find them more aesthetically pleasing.
>>36879285
Bringing art into the argument is pretty retarded, considering that 90% of works in any artistic medium ever conceived in the history of Man are love-themed and dedicated to a woman that the artist wanted to bone.
>>36879377
Nope. Most art back then depicted religious scenes from the bible, classical mythology, or depictions of the court of some Lord.
You're just thinking of those rock love songs by the modern nu-male which doesn't exactly count.
>>36879001
Forgot?
probably
women are judged harshly on their appearance by men, it makes sense that their bodies evolved to be sexy
also, men are judged more by personality plus they have to be more physical so it makes sense that there's more functionality and less aesthetic
or maybe i'm completely wrong.
>>36879092
lol look how short his arms are
>>36879432
Christ this post is dumb
>>36879130
you're posting about how beautiful men are and posting pics of pretty boys. dude what's wrong with you.
this is is the same as people who admire traps. yes you can manoeuvre around and say intellectual shit about things, but at the end of the day you're still being gay as fuck
>>36879440
hey i don't know shit about any of this, just bored as fuck
>>36879445
Wow two really dumb posts in a row
Time to hit the hay
>>36879448
FUN FACT: women are more visual oriented than men in terms of sexual attraction
>a work of art
or a piece of pornography.
>>36878968
The perception of the human form varies between periods of human history. During the Renaissance the male body was considered to be beautiful and the female body was sort of considered to be a misshapen offshoot of the superior male form. The idea of the male body being utilitarian and the female body being "artful" is a relatively recent one.
>>36879206
Pic related so based.
>man seeks spiritual, mental and physical improvement
>dolled up whore seeks to wreck it for him
Male/female dynamics summed up in one pic.
>>36879130
Its OK if you're gay bro
>>36879001
>forgot
>>36879176
2/10 compared to this
>>36878968
>Jeep
>Extremely useful vehicle
>Can go almost anywhere
>Physically strong and powerful
>Can carry a family
>Reliable and dependable
>Work of art
>Sits in one place
>Only purpose is to get attention from crowds of mildly disinterested 'admirers'
>Top layer is just all paint
>Has to be taken down a few days per month for maintenance
Sounds about right
The male body could be both beautiful and powerful at the same time. Women can only ever look pretty, and only for a short period of time (teens/early 20s).
>>36879130
>Bras
You do have a point there, actually.
Saggy tits are one of the main reasons women don't like to be seen naked.
>>36879422
>>36879285
It wasn't socially acceptable for women to learn these things. The opinion in that post is a very old one and backwards. It assumes women have no talent for something and so that person would refuse to allow women to waste a mans/painters time in order to learn the skills. So the woman never gets good at it because she is not allowed the same opportunities. It's a classic self fulfilling prophecy.
>>36879857
In Schopenhauer's time it was socially acceptable for women to learn to paint - he makes the point that although they paint much more than men they produce no masterpieces.
>it's an old opinion
age of an opinion doesn't matter.
>>36879636
But why should either be considered beautiful or artful? I don't think either is particularly beautiful. Attractive, sure, but not beautiful.
>>36879881
age of opinion absolutely matters. If it didn't, you would, as an adult, be accountable for your numerous opinions held as a child.
>>36879912
Schopenhauer's opinion isn't necessarily immature solely because he lived a long time ago, though - so it isn't like comparing a child and an adult.
>>36879881
Art is very relative and art produced by women in Schopenhauer's time wasn't taken seriously because it was produced by women. A masterpiece is very rarely defined by skill alone.
t. art salesman
>>36878983
Fag
>>36879130
Eh desu I see your point. Maybe it's because I'm always on this closet homosexuals anonymous forum and spend time trying to improve a male form (mine) but yeah I've thought about how weird women's bodies look when they aren't posing or anything before but I'm still attracted to the female form sexually. Maybe that's b/c the majority of women are skinnyfat/chubby. Girls who lift don'el illicit the same response, their form is fine
>>36879285
Hooh boy. First off your points aren't undefended so so making them sound so fucking autistic. You're on the fitness forum of a Chinese cartoon message board. Second, women aren't entirely hideous. You're using some pretty biased word choice to describe them. Here watch this: "compared to those wide shouldered, barrel chested, haired brutes is there anyway that one could call the delicate, graceful, soft beautiful sort anything but the fair sex?" See I even made it sound autistic as well. Point being is that there are qualities of beautiful men and women that are mutually exclusive and to compare on those grounds is ridiculous. Apples and pears are pretty much the same thing but if I thought all pears should be red and apple shaped and refused to accept anything else that'd be pretty fucking retarded wouldn't it? Also you lose points for the ridiculous "all men are tortured scholars/athletes/artists and all women are dumb sluts lol" stereotype.
>>36879075
That guy might as well be a chick. Seriously, cover his body and just look at his face. 6/10 female right there.
>>36878968
>not building your own reliable yet beautiful car and laughing at all the guys and bitches who just rode their VW Golf until i almost breaks apart 50 years later
>>36879074
You sound like a fuccboi
>>36880242
This
>>36880301
I'd be pretty happy with any car that lasts for 50 years without breaking down
>>36879092
>perfect male form
>roids
Try again
>>36879002
>>36879001
Fucking straights polluting my fit
Kill yourselves
No, not at all, the male body is both more utilitarian AND more aesthetic, and strength is beautiful, no homo but that greek-god feel you get from working out for 3 years is way more beautiful and aesthetic than a female that is simply not fat and has good genetics, besides, females have slimy holes and useless fat everywhere
not saying females aren't beautiful but in my opinion males are just more so, again, not gay
>>36879714
This anon gets it
Literal work of art
>>36879004
Needs more rivets
>>36879714
Fucking told'em
>>36882294
>tfw want to think that i look like pic related(the big guy)
>tfw look just like david, down to the penor
Oh well, some day i may
>>36878968
>believing anything that rat faced jewess said
Pls go
>>36878968
I would say females are more like Jeeps.
J.E.E.P.
JUST EXPECT EVERY PROBLEM
JUST EMPTY EVERY POCKET
kek
>>36878983
I'm straight, never been turned on by a dude but I agree with you. When you see a top tier truly beautiful woman you want to fuck them, when you see a top tier man all you can is just admire them. Men are just built better than women and being a top tier man isn't something you can just be born into, it's something that is earned (as well as having amazing genes) and to me that makes them more beautiful.
>>36879092
>perfect male
>posts a 5 foot 4 manlet
>>36878983
>Trust me I'm a hetrosexual guyus
>"female body is a work of art"
>is ruining it by slutting around and drinking alcohol
No wonder women are shitty artists. They are the artists of their own body and they can't even create a decent form with it.
>>36882920
fuck lol
>>36878968
Anti male propaganda
>>36878983
This post got some hate, but he's right. A perfectly sculpted male body is more aesthetically pleasing than any nude female body. I honestly don't even think it's gay to believe that. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a guy has to work for his body. The proper eating, getting the right supplements, the work in the gym, all shows a kind of dedication and willpower that a chick doesn't have to show to look hot. Knowing how hard he worked adds to the appeal. No homo.
1. beauty is objective, and attractiveness like many things is regulated through economic rules ( i.e. supply/demand of attractive people )
2. i'd say it's the other way around, a women's body is just for utility, it's there to trap a man and to make a baby in its prime years and that's pretty much it (when talking about the body i will also include the brain) while men are the ones who go out of their way to explore, invoate, reason, think critically and use their "jeep" bodies to do shit.
sure there are woman-like men, but that's why they are called pussies and why they are made fun of, socially excluded and that why they don't attract women, because they are not truly functioning men.
>Was Elaine right?
No you stupid blue pill faggot. This is a prime example of Cultural Marxism.
>>36878983
U rite.
When you see a perfect male you know it's genetics and hard work.
When you see a perfect woman you know it's genetics and skipping McDonalds to go for jog occasionally.
>>36879066
no they didnt you fucking idiot
>>36882963
>When you see a top tier truly beautiful woman you want to fuck them, when you see a top tier man all you can is just admire them
That might be because we're straight
Do any of you /fit/ gays feel this way?
>>36878968
Of course. Just consider what it means for something to be art today:
1. It expresses it's feelings
And that's it.
Now consider what it means to be utilitarian today:
1. It is useful (that is, provides clear economic benefit) in many different situations
2. It has been proven and tested in real life situations
3. Everything that doesn't provide usefulness has been eliminated
Sure some art is beautiful, sure, but let's face it, most art only has value because hype and they're nice to have. By contrast, everything utilitarian is essential to survival, and we will often kill (or be killed) to have it.
Elaine (really Seinfeld or Larry David) was absolutely right.
>>36879030
You must think cross fit is beautiful then
>>36879130
>beauty
>objective
Ok then.
>>36883393
In regards to 3, what about nipples then?
>>36879075
who is this dude? he looks like a fag
>>36879857
If women always had the talent, why didnt they invent the forms or perform on par with men from the beginning?
>>36883437
>beauty
>not objective
gee I wonder who could be behind this post
>>36883780
Everyone is beautiful anon :^)
>>36879157
No. And I love fit grills and thick ones. Almost every single one of these "women" has big fake bolt on tits and fake asses.
>>36879176
Those women aren't beautiful but neither is this one. Absolutely nothing special about this.
>>36879452
Really? London here, not my experience. Aesthetics and sexual attraction are two different things to me. Source on your claim?
>>36879422
That's a pretty unfair comparison, the european art was painted with soft and easy to use brushes on a canvas, while the asian art was first carved into a piece of wood and then printed and colored
>>36883913
Oops, somehow quoted the wrong post. Meant to ask the person who claims that women are more visually inclined in regards to sexual attraction.
>>36883010
This post perfectly explains why all humans are bisexual.
My sincerest apologies if you live in the bible belt.
>>36878983
This
>>36879001
>forgot
>>36883440
Sorry to break this to you over the 4chans, but we all started out as females in the womb, and that's why we have them. I guess Elaine was being idealistic; only the perfect man is perfectly utilitarian, the rest of us sad sacks will forever carry around that mark of once having been an useless female.
>>36880242
Except that you're not Schopenhauer and your words are literal trash compared to his.
I feel like Elaine worked well as a character because she was attractive, but not too attractive
If she had bigger tits, she'd have been too hot to be funny
>>36883965
>All humans are bisexual
Not true at all. I can see the aesthetics in a male body, but I don't sexualize it. A nice male body is like art, you appreciate the work, the details, the skill.
>>36883229
Jesus she's perfect.
>>36883929
Japan had brushes too, and they also had paper. They choose to do it retarded.
>The male body is a work of art. The female body is utilitarian. It's for making babies. It's like an oven.
>>36883229
i admire and look up to masculine/dominant men and want to fuck feminine/submissive men
>>36884097
I appreciate the mental hoops you have to jump through to convince yourself you're any different than the average female who holds the same appreciation for the peak of their own kind yet is labeled bisexual or lesbian
>TUMBLR TUMBLR TUMBLR LEAVE REEEE
>>36884031
>there's a qualification requirement to having opinions
"Philosopher" might as well mean professional twat. Thinking real good and having opinions about some shit isn't difficult. All people are capable of their own philosophy and anyone who says otherwise is a misguided elitist
>>36886019
>the philosopher is stupid because he doesn't agree with me
>>36886041
I never said he was stupid. I implied it was stupid to hold the opinions of a philosopher above that of anyone just because of their title. Literally anyone can muse about shit and form opinions about it if they want
>>36886082
>literally anyone can be a philosopher
>HURR LOOK I'M THINKING, I'M A PHILOSOPHER
>>>/his/
>>36884172
PSA: most of the meme "Japanese art" shit that gets thrown around on 4chan consists of ukiyo-e woodblock prints, which were considered relatively vulgar and unpopular for their time.
It's only recently that people even started to care about preserving them, but even given their status as art for the masses, the technical aspects of their mass production is pretty interesting.
>>36886146
Uncultured, not unpopular.
>>36886119
Keep going on believing you need a degree to validate opinions. All I was saying is the argument "his opinion is more right than yours because he's a philosopher" it elitist and inherently flawed.
>>36879662
You just blew my fucking mind.
>captcha: select all images of the street sign
>its a mailbox
>select no picures because its not a fucking street sign
>please select more matching pictures
>how do you cure autism
>>36886176
>sophisticated satire intimidates me
>>36886205
>I'm n-not retarded, it was s-satire the whole time!
>>36879499
No they're not. Women jack off to romance novels, not porn. They care about the story more than the sex.
>>36886229
>still tries to justify his retarded opinions
>thinks he has the life experience and wisdom to dismiss Schopie's worldview
Topcuck
>>36886199
r/4chan may be more your speed, family.
>>36878983
This. The male form is both beautiful and practical. That bitch is basically just saying women are only good as decoration, which may be true but men can offer both. Just further proof how men are better in every way.
>>36879165
>the definition of man.
Behold! Plato's man!
>>36883855
I just couldn't find a nice picture of a pretty girl in my PC
Well that settles it. I'm going to buy a fedora for my "after pic". Why? Because I'm genuinely curious how I will look in one, and because fuck the rules.
>>36886293
Fedoras are fine if you wear them with the correct outfit and aren't ugly.
>>36879857
>It wasn't socially acceptable for women to learn these things
You can't generalise about these things. Some times and places it was more acceptable arguably than now, and times where it was less so doesn't mean there wasn't great art produced, so like Gentileschi or Shelley produced masterpieces of painting and literature tho at the time women couldn't possibly do those things.
Most of the problems really come in curation, so all you need is one period of sexism and all the previous age ' s female artists are lost to a basement or something and forgotten about.
>>36886247
Holy shit how is this so hard to comprehend. I'm NOT saying his worldview is necessarily right or wrong. I'm saying that the argument "he's more right than you, he's a philosopher so you can't argue with him" is inherently flawed. At the end of the day philosophy, regardless of how complex and deep it is, is an opinion. Literally any person is capable of having an opinion. Your standing as a philosopher does not render your opinion absolute fact. Honestly is English your second language or are you just retarded? Even school children can understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
>>36886378
>philosophy, regardless of how complex and deep it is, is an opinion
We gots one o dem scholars or some shit right here
>>36886378
>At the end of the day philosophy, regardless of how complex and deep it is, is an opinion.
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and start reading some analytics, boyo.
>>36886322
t. beta male
>>36886432
Do you have a source for that claim?
>>36886413
If you link me anything that shows a "philosophy" that is a statement of facts only I'll retract my argument
â–²
â–² â–²
>>36886466
>who is Russell
>who is Godel
>>36886466
Tractatus Logico-Philosopicus?
>>36886515
I found a mathematician and logician. What philosophies, and mind you not theories, of theirs are based in facts? Honest question
>>36878983
This is gayest shit I've seen all week.
>>36886568
You really want to go down the road of Godel and Russel not being philosophers?
>>36878983
/fit/, the post
>>36886546
That seems like an attempt to analyse sentience and our worldview with a mathematical lense. Am I wrong? That was what I could guess in my brief look over I did of the Wikipedia page. If so that seems interesting but I'm hesitant to say that it's factual and still not philosophical, but again I'm dispositioned to be wrong here
>>36886591
I'm just telling you what Google told me when I looked them up. But I want an idea of their work so, again, which of their philosophies are you talking about? And again honest question
>>36878983
Am I ban?
>>36886635
>logician isn't a philosopher
>Godel isn't also a logician
>>36886656
Yeah Godel came up as a logician as well. And logic doesn't really have an agreed upon scope so if you count logic as philosophy that's fine. What are Godel's main philosophies?
>come in thread expecting people to post hot chicks
>find bunch of fedoras and shirtless men
god you guys are a bunch of faggots
>>36886625
I think you're trying very hard to categorise everything as mathematics. Whitehead and Russell ' s Principia is more mathematical, and this use of sets stranded both Philosophy and Mathematics at the time. In many respects Wittgenstein ' s TLP is an attempt to show Russell the futility of a project like the Principia. You can also view it as a reversal and argument against Descartes' solipsism in his Meditations (which btw also fulfills the series of facts criteria p much), and a look at how logic and logical thought has certain kinds of limits.
Also at this point the theory of sets in mathematics was very new and not particularly rigorous, at the time it very much was a philosophical venture. Which is why Russell kept coming up with paradoxes and shit. The birth of mathematical sets proper is probably a little after Godel's papers on incompleteness with Zermello Frenkl and all that.
>>36886726
Holy moly.
>>36886176
Anon, I get you, and I think you're right.
>>36886763
>use of sets stranded
Straddled, not stranded. Work out any other predictive text shit if you can.
>>36878968
>>36878983
it's true though
(no homo)
>>36886763
My question would be where do we draw the line? There's so much blur in discussing the world using a scientific (factual and observation based), logical, and/or philosophical sense that is there any real way to draw line in the sand? Hell the definitions of those three things are even vague in themselves at times, especially for philosophy. I will admit that I have been arguing based on a personal view of a sharp devide between the musings of philosophy and the theories of something like mathematics but as you said yourself, at the time of the work something like sets, which are a pretty well established part of mathematics these days, didn't have a clear categorization. Is the way we view it now necessarily correct just because it's changed to be viewed not factually? It's vague shit like this that's makes me say that a philosophy must be an opinion because it's honestly too complicated for consensus
>>36878983
first post best post
>>36886726
Gross
>>36886920
>My question would be where do we draw the line?
You don't have to draw a line. If you live in an English speaking country with the ol Analytical/Continental philosophy business, it may not even be quite right saying there is a divide. Analytical philosophy may well look to you to be mathematical in nature in its attempt to be super rigorous.
>>36887232
>You don't have to draw a line
Guess it depends to what you ascribe to. But that begs the question:
>>36884031
>your words are literal trash compared to his
Are my words literal trash because I'm not a philosopher? After all it's my original point of argument. If analytical philosophy is strict and rigorous do I really have no ground to stand on? My response is not necessarily since it all depends on your perspective and view of philosophy, though if one puts merit in a philosopher as an authority over what they write about I can see why one would say that though I'd encourage people give themselves the agency of having faith in their own world views
(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)
good luck finding your replies faggots
>>36878983
Nigga, you gay
>>36887479
good luck finding this reply
![jean-jacques-pradier-1790-1852-the-three-graces-1338742886_b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XFzKUs8.jpg "jean-jacques-pradier-1790-1852-the-three-graces-1338742886_b[1].jpg")
Women are infinitely more aesthetic because they are the creators and nurturers of life, and they achieve this all with their bodies alone. Their beauty, like all beauty, is inherent. It is not dependent on external factors.
Men's beauty is dependent on external force. It is the result of usually conscious effort applied to a desired end. Large muscles in themselves are not beautiful but rely on their association with power demonstrated externally. For this reason men can never be as aesthetic as women.
Weak men can be beautiful.
Muscular women are an abomination.
>>36878968
women's aesthetics fade rather quickly. Men's can last a long time.
Also, men's aesthetics are earned. Women are born with it.
>>36879714
Underrated post.
Capped.
>>36878968
Elaine is 100% right. Women will always look at men more for purpose and ability.
Men will always look at women for the beauty of their bodies.
>>36879714
epic sexism meme!
*tips fedora*
*inhales vape pen*
*masturbates to anime*
*cries loudly*
>>36886726
looks like Mila Kunis' downy sister
woodbury/10 tho
>>36887872
>N-nature makes them beautiful automatically!
Nope, get out fatass.
>>36879714
Destroyed
>>36888365
Why arent we "looking" at people for how they make us feel and basing our dating decisions on this??? I don't understand being attracted to someone for aesthetic or rational reasons alone
>>36882294
I never understood why lacoon is depicted as so much bigger than his 2 sons, specially since they all appear to be adults.
>>36886485
Under rated post
>>36888333
>Capping without the main post
I'm glad we know that you will be posting this in threads with literally 0 context. You are the reason 9/11 happened.
>>36879001
HETERO PLS GO
>>36879130
Aesthetics is not a sexual concept when applied to an object. When applied to the sexes, its... sexual
>>36888365
>men will always look at woman for the beauty of their bodies
Nope, men are better looking than women.
>>36889567
visual hierarchy, tallest figures are more important
