what is the ideal male physique ? is it

this:

[www.youtube.com]

this:

[www.google.com]

or this:

[www.google.com]

all 3 have no fat. but each has approximately 2 to 3 times more muscle than the previous one.

now nevermind which one is more natural, or which one is healthier and all that stuff.

the question is ( if you're a man ) which one would you rather look like ?

and if you're a woman - which one would you rather go on a date with ?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2010 05:57AM by neurosport.

hey, wheres the short stocky muscly dudes?lol.... in the end though, the healthier physique would be the one with more strength and tone to their muscle, vs bulk, which is almost useless in comparison...

OK - Matt is attractive to me - bodywise - the others not at all. In fact the third lot I find repulsive.

This is the kind of shape I like [www.google.co.uk]

and [www.google.co.uk]


I have to admit having a weakness for runners though!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2010 09:46AM by flipperjan.

I have to say that as a male coming from a powerlifting background my first reaction is to say that all three are WAY too skinny. My brain is wired to think that I need to have a 50+ inch chest, 18+ inch arms, tree trunk legs, ect...but I am working on that self image issue. In reality Matt is too skinny for my tastes but number 2 is not bad. I would have to say if I could do it I would be happy with #2 or #3 at this point in my life. I am not anywhere close to any of them at this point however...but working on it.

18+ inches? What about the 24" pythons hangin and bangin?

im going to go with number 3 and have thoughts like nubster. For me Matt looks too skinny, the second looks normal and the third looks healthy working out.

#1 with some additional muscles from swimming or something like that.

i like my guys with lean long muscles not bulked up

my choices would be in order 1,2, 3

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Interesting array of options: Matt Monarch, or . . . Michaelangelo's David or the Faranese Hercules! What an unfair fight!

I'm a straight chick. I am surprised when #2, Michaelangelo's David, isn't first choice for people, because he was intended as the male physical "ideal." And I agree, so that's the one I prefer. I think #1, Matt Monarch, looks very lean, but healthy--he's got good muscle tone, so that type is also appealing.

The Faranese Hercules is, well, yet another "ideal." But most men aren't required to strangle a python in infancy and perform other, more ludicrous feats of strength as they age, so it's a bit of a stretch to me to say that that should be the ideal physique for a modern man. I would wonder what the fellow isn't doing[reading, learning a foreign language, training a dog] who has sufficient time to devote to maintaining such a physique.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2010 07:24PM by Tamukha.

I find huge muscles with veins standing out on top of them fairly grotesque.

Don't most women find that huge muscley look replusive? (sorry guys!) I haven't got a single friend who enjoys that look on a man. It screams insecurity to me, or over compensation at the very least. Or enormous vanity, none of which are attractive at all. I saw a guy today with no neck and pipes so big he couldn't put his arms down at his sides. Freaky and gross, the opposite of sexy, ugh.

Strong is good, lean is nice (not skinny, just healthy looking), David is a fine specimen of a man for sure. I sure wouldn't cry if I got to see him naked in the flesh . Well, not sad tears anyhow...

neurosport Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what is the ideal male physique ? is it
>
> this:
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> this:
>
> [www.google.com]%
> 3A1&sa=1&q=michelangelo+david&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&oq=
> &gs_rfai=
>
> or this:
>
> [www.google.com]
> farnese+hercules&gbv=2&aq=0&aqi=g4g-m5&aql=&oq=far
> nese&gs_rfai=
>
> all 3 have no fat. but each has approximately 2
> to 3 times more muscle than the previous one.
>
> now nevermind which one is more natural, or which
> one is healthier and all that stuff.
>
> the question is ( if you're a man ) which one
> would you rather look like ?
>
> and if you're a woman - which one would you rather
> go on a date with ?

The second and third pics looked about the same. Matt Monarch looks like he's lost even more weight since he's been in Vilcabamba. I think his body is good though because he's not trying to be Mr. Muscles and yet he has great definition. I like a runner's body. I am not into "six packs" and "washboard abs" at all. I just don't get that whole deal. But a man who runs and has nice calves is hawt. And if he's athletic but not bulky or anorexic, then all the better. Like John F. Kennedy, Jr. looked. Matt Monarch runs, even in Ecuador with all those mountains. I don't know if he lifts weights but he's getting a little too thin, IMO.

My 62 year old husband is slim, healthy and fit.

To me, he is ideal!


My favorite raw vegan

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am surprised when #2,
> Michaelangelo's David, isn't first choice for
> people, because he was intended as the male
> physical "ideal."

not really. that statue was made in the times when:

[en.wikipedia.org]

was a norm.

David wasn't a "man" but an adolescent boy. His head is disproportionately large to the rest of his body because he is a child.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 12:38AM by neurosport.

I think this would be a modern day equivalent of Michelangelo's David:

[1.bp.blogspot.com]

a "pretty boy" with lip gloss and everything

not "gay" but not manly either.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 12:58AM by neurosport.

neurosport Wrote:
>
> David wasn't a "man" but an adolescent boy. His
> head is disproportionately large to the rest of
> his body because he is a child.

Um, actually his head is large so that he looks in proportion when viewed from the ground (grade school art history class). That statue is very tall, it would look ridiculously pinheaded to everyone who viewed it if it was exactly proportionate. Michaelangelo was a genius.

Funny how all the girls like and think one thing is sexy and all the guys think something totally different. What the ladies like is "gay" apparently. How does that equate, exactly, I wonder...

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> neurosport Wrote:
> >
> > David wasn't a "man" but an adolescent boy. His
> > head is disproportionately large to the rest of
> > his body because he is a child.
>
> Um, actually his head is large so that he looks in
> proportion when viewed from the ground (grade
> school art history class). That statue is very
> tall, it would look ridiculously pinheaded to
> everyone who viewed it if it was exactly
> proportionate.

there is no contradiction there. the statue is tall and David was a boy. it's both.

i am a guy and to me the ideal would be halfway between David and Hercules. Hercules indeed looks like the only thing he is proficient at is wrestling monsters while David looks like he wouldn't do too well in prison.

i would like to have a body of an MMA fighter:

[i.cdn.turner.com]

I am gonna side with the other girls on this one. I pick "David", choice #2. By the way, speaking as a figurative sculptor, coco is right on re: Mich.'s proportional adjustments. You can see this technique in play even more spectacularly if you ever find yourself wandering around the Vatican in Rome. Moses, (in San Pietro, Rome) meant to be viewed from a closer angle in terms of distance, has proportions that are closer to "reality." However, Michelangelo's "Pieta" has widely distorted proportions (the Christ figure is, in relation to his Mother, very small-- almost child-like, yet they look very natural together). That was probably done for symbolic reasons more than anything...

Anyway, back to real male bodies. My second choice would be Matt's: lean, healthy, muscular-- yes! I dislike the bloated muscle thing...

I would be happy with a body like Bear Grylls from the show Man vs. Wild. He is fit but still kinda average looking...not all cut up like he is really trying to have a fantastic body builder type physique. I think that Matt Monarch is unhealthy skinny looking. As far as youtube raw foodies are concerned I don't mind Dan the man the liferegenerator's body. He is really thin but still has some definition. Maybe just a tad bit more meat on his arms would be good but otherwise I would be really happy built like him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 02:45AM by Nubster.

Okay.
[en.wikipedia.org])
Michelangelo’s David...a symbol of both strength and youthful human beauty.
*(not a boy, a young man and a symbol of human beauty. There certainly IS a difference! One can hardly equate overly developed muscles with maturity and sexual orientation. Oh, and hello, check out all the pubes! Fella was a Mister, not a cub scout.)
The proportions are not quite true to the human form; the head and upper body are somewhat larger than the proportions of the lower body. The hands are also larger than would be in regular proportions. While some have suggested that this is of the mannerist style, another explanation is that the statue was originally intended to be placed on a church façade or high pedestal, and that the proportions would appear correct when the statue was viewed from some distance below.

The ideal for me, and the general populace if the stars of popular entertainment are anything to go by, are fortunately not the lipgloss wearing pretty boy linked above nor are they muscle bound weightlifters. It would appear that what men *think* is appealing and what women actually find appealing are two very different things. Then again, those muscley he-men do seem to get dates. But it's nearly always with those plasticy looking chics so there you go.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 03:28AM by coco.

David was the epitome of the warrior. The combination of power and grace was untouchable, more so than Achilles, another great warrior though with a weakness. David had none --


[search.aol.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 03:36AM by loeve.

Ok then the majority ruled David the winner.

that's not how I read it. There was a lot of discussion about David but I think most women seem to really prefer the lean look.

I think that we are so used to seeing overweight people that large has become the norm and when we see a really lean person like Matt we are surprised and think it thin.

When you see a television advert from the fifties showing women you will notice that they are very slim by todays standards but that was the norm then. As you are all too well aware we are an ever 'growing' world. People are beginning to expect bulk in the same way they expect disease when they get old.

When you see clips of bands from the 60's and 70's the guys were all gorgeously slim - all those snaky hips - lovely. It horrifies me to see so many overweight young men. I know that is different from a body builders shape but I still view that with disfavour too. (sorry to you pumped up guys)

Sorry off the topic somewhat - please forgive the ramble - it's one of my 'subjects' that gets me going



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 06:41AM by flipperjan.

yeah its hard to believe how much bigger we've gotten.

i have a glass that we've brought from USSR - i remember drinking from it as a kid. we had many from the same set but now only one is left. it is so small ! it would take about 10 of those glasses to fit one of my smoothies. yet somehow nobody thought it was small back then.

i also remember that 2 eggs was considered a meal. and the eggs were small. when i was eating SAD here in US five jumbo eggs would be an appetizer for me.

back in USSR i remember we would buy about a kilo of meat ( 2.2 lbs ) maybe once or twice a month. when on a SAD bodybuilder diet in US i would go through perhaps 2 pounds per day without any help from my parents.

it's insane. its like i live in a different universe now than only 15 years ago. i remember 80 kg man was considered a behemoth. a few years later when i was 100 kg in US i felt small.

i just wouldnt say Matt looks on the healthy side of lean/muscular more underweight and slightly ill looking. Close to seeing all his ribs which isnt a nice look on woman models/celebs either. Thats not meant as offense to him at all just my opinion.

the liferegenerator raw guy looks good though.

Anyway personally Bruce Lee is the absolute smallest i would ever agree to be:

[stationaryorbit.com]

i mean i don't know how you can be any slimmer than this:

[butthorn.files.wordpress.com]

you can only be weaker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 10:48AM by neurosport.

Your comments about quantities of meat eaten per person etc are interesting and right on the money. In restaurants years ago a 10oz steak was considered big now a 16oz is often on the menu. I'm really glad you don't eat all that meat now. lol.

I think we might be looking at size in a slightly different way


I think the picture of Bruce Lee flexing his muscles is like looking at a freak show but I agree that he looks very slim in his 'dayclothes' (I'm assuming the second guy is him too ?)

Getting back to the gist of the original question - I like very lean but also very fit guys - fit in the sense that they can work physically all day or run 10 miles etc etc. But I don't like enormous bulk be it fat OR vast muscles all over the place. I just find it looks unnatural and extremely repellent. I do agree that guys shouldn't be too thin though.

In the same way that anorexic girls have a mental/emotional problem with their bodies I think that extreme body builders have the same distorted image of what is nice/normal.

neurosport,

David was sculpted in the first few years of the 1500s(your link to the Wiki pederasty page confuses me). Remember that both David and the Hercules were modeled on actual humans that existed in the artists' times, or are composites of several actual humans that acted as live models. These models looked the way they looked presumably because life was more strenuous then--people labored manually, and walked everwhere, and had to wrangle huge farm animals manually and ate fresh food and not to excess. Your earlier life in the USSR may have been closer to that, depending on where you grew up, than the all-mod-cons lives we lead here today--almost no one has to physically work for anything. I recall how strong my grandmothers' arms were, even into old age. It was from kneading rye bread every other day(we're Ukie) and doing laundry by hand with a tub and a washboard. Who lives that kind of daily life here?

IMO, MMA fighers are bulkier but actually less sculpted than David; it's obvious that the physical work they do is abnormal. If you've got the time, strength, stamina, and money to MMA yourself, go ahead. But I didn't think anyone looking at the beauty that is Michaelangelo's David would ever thing him a girly-man! P.S. the guy in the blogspot link is repulsive in that Jersey Shore way. Ewww.

Touring the USSR in '78, I ran into a quite a few soldiers. They were lean and mean and meant business, Vladimir Putin a mature example of that ideal, IMO --


Mikhail Baryshnikov, of the arts --


[search.aol.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 02:36PM by loeve.

bruce lee is another that i think doesnt look that healthy at times, he was a chronic over trainer though.