link | Submitted by HughRistik on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 19:24.
krisa said: You are telling us how girls who don’ fit in your “feminine” shapes are worthless and not worth being loved or to love!? that’s how i get it.
That's not how I'm reading Erik. Though maybe I interpret him differently because I've read most of his writing, and because I am a man and less likely to take it personally since this website is not about the shape of my body.
I interpreted Erik saying in this post that the woman is attractive despite having somewhat masculinized features.
In reading Erik's writings as a whole, the sense I'm getting is this:
The role of masculinization in female attractive is a matter of degree. A bit of masculinization can make a woman actually sexier than otherwise (I don't remember the link, but I'm sure Erik will provide it when he responds). But as you look at women who are more and more masculinized, there are less and less typical straight men who are attracted to them, or the men who are most attracted to them are less likely to be straight.
Erik is not saying that masculinized women "not worth being loved or to love." Rather, he is saying that less typically straight men will be attracted to them. That doesn't mean that there won't still be a decent amount of men who find them attractive, and if a particular masculinized women can find someone in that pool of men, then she has nothing to worry about.
Women with a moderate level of masculinization can still be attractive to many men, even typically straight men... they just won't be able to reach the elite levels of attractiveness to most straight men to justify having them in modeling or in beauty pageants. That is a bar that most women, feminine or not, will not reach, so no woman should feel bad that she can't reach it.
The ultimate judge of your attractiveness is what happens in your interactions with men in the real world. If you have men in your life who are into you, then you have no reason to worry about your looks. There are plenty of women, even with masculinized features, who are plenty attractive enough to find a man that they can be happy with. These women shouldn't feel bad just because, as Erik points out, they aren't at the elite level of attractiveness to most men that they should be doing fashion modeling or beauty pageants.
but attraction and stuff.... you are blowing of self-esteem of skinny and not-so-feminine girls who can’t do anyting about it while are you pumping it up for the big-boobed and wide-hipped girls.
Erik thinks in a way that is rigorous and logical, but don't quite know how to communicate his ideas in a way that is emotionally aware. That is why he was surprised, for instance, when someone like Melisande was hurt when he described her as masculinized, even while acknowledging that she was beautiful (though he seems to be becoming increasingly aware of this issue).
As I've suggested to him, it might help to have a disclaimer towards women reading the website that tells them what his ideas do and don't imply about them, their looks, and their attractiveness towards men. I know he mentions these subjects in a couple places, but I think he needs to put something from a link on the front page, with a blinking red 36pt font. Well, maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get the idea.
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
krisa said:
You are telling us how girls who don’ fit in your “feminine” shapes are worthless and not worth being loved or to love!? that’s how i get it.
That's not how I'm reading Erik. Though maybe I interpret him differently because I've read most of his writing, and because I am a man and less likely to take it personally since this website is not about the shape of my body.
I interpreted Erik saying in this post that the woman is attractive despite having somewhat masculinized features.
In reading Erik's writings as a whole, the sense I'm getting is this:
The role of masculinization in female attractive is a matter of degree. A bit of masculinization can make a woman actually sexier than otherwise (I don't remember the link, but I'm sure Erik will provide it when he responds). But as you look at women who are more and more masculinized, there are less and less typical straight men who are attracted to them, or the men who are most attracted to them are less likely to be straight.
Erik is not saying that masculinized women "not worth being loved or to love." Rather, he is saying that less typically straight men will be attracted to them. That doesn't mean that there won't still be a decent amount of men who find them attractive, and if a particular masculinized women can find someone in that pool of men, then she has nothing to worry about.
Women with a moderate level of masculinization can still be attractive to many men, even typically straight men... they just won't be able to reach the elite levels of attractiveness to most straight men to justify having them in modeling or in beauty pageants. That is a bar that most women, feminine or not, will not reach, so no woman should feel bad that she can't reach it.
The ultimate judge of your attractiveness is what happens in your interactions with men in the real world. If you have men in your life who are into you, then you have no reason to worry about your looks. There are plenty of women, even with masculinized features, who are plenty attractive enough to find a man that they can be happy with. These women shouldn't feel bad just because, as Erik points out, they aren't at the elite level of attractiveness to most men that they should be doing fashion modeling or beauty pageants.
but attraction and stuff.... you are blowing of self-esteem of skinny and not-so-feminine girls who can’t do anyting about it while are you pumping it up for the big-boobed and wide-hipped girls.
Erik thinks in a way that is rigorous and logical, but don't quite know how to communicate his ideas in a way that is emotionally aware. That is why he was surprised, for instance, when someone like Melisande was hurt when he described her as masculinized, even while acknowledging that she was beautiful (though he seems to be becoming increasingly aware of this issue).
As I've suggested to him, it might help to have a disclaimer towards women reading the website that tells them what his ideas do and don't imply about them, their looks, and their attractiveness towards men. I know he mentions these subjects in a couple places, but I think he needs to put something from a link on the front page, with a blinking red 36pt font. Well, maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get the idea.