Um the first picture looks like he has hair on his chest and then it is gone in every other pic, LAME!.

Jul 31, 2008 at 8:58 am · @Reply ·

F that. This “manorexic” look you talk about is more natural than those “real” men who spend their lives pumping iron and consuming gobs of food just to maintain muscle mass which does nothing but pad bone from bone during sports and coitus. There’s nothing real or even practical about that lifestyle.

Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24 am · @Reply ·

When are people gonna realize some people are naturally thin… and some are naturally thick?

I am not sure where the need to berate someone who doesn’t fit your ideal body image.

Personally, I like both and everything in between.

Jul 31, 2008 at 12:03 pm · @Reply ·

works for me

Jul 31, 2008 at 12:24 pm · @Reply ·

OOOOO…..hum ! maybe more luck Friday

Jul 31, 2008 at 12:49 pm · @Reply ·

To Trenton, starving yourself is more “natural” than being athletic and eating well to look muscular? Sorry, we are not on the same page about this – I like the classical Greek-type look. Go to the Met Museum and look at the statues. they were the ideals – muscular and defined.

You show anybody – str8 man, str8 women, gay man, even lesbian – skinny defined and muscular defined and I’ll guarantee you, any culture, they’ll to the latter.

Jul 31, 2008 at 3:49 pm · @Reply ·

HKG:
I still think you’re regarding this fellow as overly skinny when in fact he looks perfectly heatlthy to me. I should add that A) a certain level of muscularity is perfectly welcome, but it becomes grotesque after a point, and B) such attraction to the warrior physique may be hard-wired into some of us because it suggests strength to protect us (and perhaps even “provide” if a vestige of the old hunter-gatherer mind remains), and while I won’t call it primitive to exhort that sort of physique above all others (for it in our time it also suggests physical discipline, which is an admirable trait)…it is a tad silly, even atavistic, to assume that all people will prefer the warrior physique, is it not?

Jul 31, 2008 at 6:21 pm · @Reply ·

Trenton: Nope, I think the guy starves himself to look like that. And all objects of beauty are “atavistic” on some level. Big tits, big thighs, small waist on woman = good birthin’ babe. I mean, can you give a RATIONAL explanation for why big tits are hot? I can’t.

Jul 31, 2008 at 6:45 pm · @Reply ·

I know full well that in some circles having a domineering physique will increase the odds of promotions, command respect, et al; it’s all well documented. A friend of mine who owns his own business is a fine example; he was young, skinny and thus simply wasn’t taken seriously by some people until he packed on 40 pounds of muscle. Though many people still don’t take him seriously because he can’t hold a conversation about politics or the arts, those who are more easily impressed are as easily controlled. I’m quite proud of him.

I suppose, though, that I’m still talking business and the world of appearances. You may be implying a world of brutality and might-makes-right. Fortunately, I no longer dwell in such an environment and my physical being is neither threatened on a regular basis nor am I judged by the measurement of my biceps on a professional level. I do realize that it’s a luxury to be in such a position…

BUT I feel that we’ve strayed from the original issue. My original point was that any comment on a muscular physique being more “real” than a slender one is spurious, and nothing that you have said negates that point. Unless by “real” you mean: “Capable of living in a substrata of civilization which abides by codes of violence.” Then you may have a point.

But this fellow very well may not starve himself: Avid runners can attest how hard it is to even maintain weight if you run regularly. I know I even just forget or don’t make time to eat. It’s not active starvation in every case.

As for the warrior physique being in fashion, I believe it still is for most and has been since the 1800s, when the “feminized” fop was displaced by the self-made man and the successful soldier as male ideals of the bourgeousie. Soldiers are to this day held up as an epitome of virility, and as commodified to the public mind as they are marginalized by the politicians who use them. I don’t see that changing any time soon, but sexuality always has and always will be a personal aesthetic. That is not my objection; my only objection, as stated above, was the insinuation that a slender frame is inferior, less “real”, which is still ironic to me.

And perhaps I’m just jaded. The point of this feature is, of course, “eye candy” which is more aesthetic than sexual to me as it is merely an image. The reality is far different anyways: Not to be vulgar, but most of these muscular types that I’ve screwed are stiff and unimaginative. Sure, they’re a great lay in a bestial sort of way, but a bore otherwise.

To each his own.

Jul 31, 2008 at 8:26 pm · @Reply ·

Trenton: I know male models. I remember once at David Barton Gym in Miami, one of them arguing for 15 minutes about protein bars with the poor boob behind the counter. I mean, he’d put any gay man to shame. Trust me, they actively starve themselves.

Yeah, I agree that a lot of super-hot guys are super-superficial. They’re still fun, and my state of mind when I’m with them isn’t usually conducive to discussing Proust or black holes. (OK, maybe black holes …)

Jul 31, 2008 at 11:01 pm · @Reply ·