Are Looks All That Important?

[Smiley]

​

Double standards, particularly with looks, is an issue that angers a lot of people. If a woman is rejected by a man because of her looks, the man is labelled as a misogynistic pig for not respecting the way she looks, and “sexually objectifying” women into his own preference. If the tables were turned, however, the man would be told to “harden the f*ck up” because “the woman is allowed to be attracted to whatever she wants”.


I suggest here, as shallow as it sounds, that everyone is entitled to have a “type”. Everyone has the right to be attracted to whatever they’re attracted to without fear of being labelled “sexist”.


A man should not be forced into a romantic or sexual relationship with a woman he does not find physically attractive because society will label him as a “misogynist pig” otherwise.


A man should be entitled to go after a girl he finds physically attractive, and reject a girl he doesn’t, AND be rejected by a girl who doesn’t find him attractive.

​

This works the other way, too. A woman has the right to go after a man she finds physically attractive, and reject someone she doesn’t find attractive, AND be rejected by a man who doesn’t find her attractive.

​

Why? Because physical attraction has some importance in a relationship, or at least in choosing a potential partner. This still applies to people who say that they value someone’s personality over their looks, and I agree with you all. But if you had to choose between two guys who were equally incredibly nice, you would still go for the more physically attractive one, would you not?


The truth is-everyone is beautiful, objectively. What I mean by this is, disregarding subjective opinions, society and the media are slowly (VERY, very slowly) accepting all body types across all genders as beautiful, thus changing and defining the “expected” objective standards of beauty. We have seen a rise in women who are proud of their weight, and we have begun acknowledging that fat-shaming AND skinny-shaming is wrong. I believe there is still a long way to go in accepting all body types for males, as the standard in magazines is still "roided-up", but we are making progress.


However, subjectively we aren't all beautiful. SUBJECTIVELY our looks are rated and ranked in other people’s individual minds. Some guys would not find me as attractive as a small Asian girl with big boobs, for example. Other guys may find me more attractive than that. That doesn’t make the latter guy a better person than the former one, they just have different types.


TL;DR (Main points):
Everyone is entitled to have their own “type”
Being more attracted to one person than another does not make you a terrible person
Looks have some importance in choosing a potential partner, even if personality comes first.


SO: Do you agree with the above main points? Why/Why not?

 

[Six]

you have a tumblr, huh?

On topic, please. Post count section. =]

------

I think it's pretty obvious everyone is/should be entitled to their own preferences. Just because someone is into skinnier girls it doesn't make the skinny girl ugly. Just because someone is into muscular guys doesn't mean the ones without said fitness are horrid.

A preference does not make the other "sort" horrible, and I think a lot of people are misled, thinking that if "this is the standard-average-look" everything that isn't up to those standards must be ugly. Physical attraction is something you should have, I personally feel like, but it shouldn't be the base of your relationship. Looks fade, people get old, people get wise. You'll think twice about that navel piercing once you're getting pregnant, and that tramp stamp doesn't "look as sexy" when you're wrinkled up, should that matter? No. That's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on looks.

Media, eh? Ugh.

 

[AuronX]

I do agree with the OP, even though I wasn't really brought up that way. Not to bash how I was brought up, with a priority on character over appearance. The problem is character/personality can be prioritized so much that if you care about appearance at all you are, like the OP said, labeled a shallow person or even bad in some way. The fact of the matter is, you could put the most attractive woman in the world in front of me, and if we didn't get along, she'd hold 0 attraction to me. But likewise, I might have a hard time seeing myself in a serious relationship with someone I get along with really well but who looks like a failed science experiment. It doesn't mean nobody would, just not me.

I'm a pretty artistic person by nature--the 'intellectual artist' type, I like to say. For me, creativity isn't just about self-expression, it's more about intellectual stimulation and satisfaction with art that I find good. I also find that this carries over into how I view people I would consider potential serious relationships. That 'artistic satisfaction', if you will, is important to me individually. Might not be to anyone else--heck, that might not even make sense to anyone else--but no matter how hard I might try to make it unimportant to me, it's still important to me, and that makes it important. I don't have unrealistic or uncompromising standards, but there are certain appearances that resonate with me and others that don't, and as time has gone on I've come to feel that it really isn't a terrible thing to factor that into my consideration of a person.

I guess what I'm saying is, when it comes to serious relationships, it doesn't matter if something is important to everyone else. If it's really important to you--no matter how silly it might seem--then it's important. I'd always recommend caution and flexibility of course, but all things being within reason, that is how I feel about it.

 

[Ed Elric]

As a society, especially when you're in high school, looks are everything. We are shallow and will only try to attract the best. Now I do believe in the right to reject/accept whatever you're attracted to. However, if you reject said person because you're afraid of what other people think.. that's wrong. We're so pressured to look good in other peoples eyes that we forget our beliefs and values. It's sad, honestly. I know this from first hand... I was the same way. I thought I was a good looking girl and I deserve to have the same... I would say that I'm average. The problem with that was I had potential to find guys that were really nice and would take care of me if they were my boyfriends. I would lead them on seeking attention and dump them off when I found someone better. The worst part is, there's such a thing where you don't think you're attracted to someone, but you are. People's problems are that they set their standard too high.. to the point where they seem stuck-up...etc. Then they're the ones who end up alone because no guy/girl can ever live up to their "list."

I would say there is some double standard, without a doubt in my mind. We girls are fragile and we deserve to be equal and loved no matter what. Girls could be fat lazy slobs... but men?? "OH NO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. EWWW GROSS FIND A JOB AND STOP PLAYING WOW!" Physically, we women are picky... but we expect men to love our curves no matter what and cry on facebook if we are rejected. There's an image men have to live up to: have six pack abs. Women: none. We choose what we want out of our bodies. I feel like if you wanna be fat, be fat. If you wanna lose weight, lose weight.

I dp agree with the main points of the thread, but its not always acceptable because we're a contradictory society. It's all about how well you love yourself, how well you handle pressures, how you grew up. There's always going to be arguments.

 

[greenyxi]

I reckon looks are incredibly important no matter what context we're looking at:

- In a relationship, you're going to go into it based on if you like how they look. If they aren't your ideal of a partner (i.e. if they don't have the hair colour you like, the body type you like etc) you aren't going to go and talk to them and find out what their personality is like.

- In a job interview situation, you're going to be judged on how you're dressed, how professional you look etc. Even if in most cases (such as office jobs), how you look doesn't matter; they can't see you on the other end of the phone.

- When making mates irl, people will come up to you only if you look like you will like the same things as them (if they look like a goth, they're probably going to look for people dressed like goths).

While looks shouldn't matter so much, they usually do. If I spoke crap, ignore moi.

 

[Sheechiibii]

I don't think attraction is something people can control. You can't force yourself to find someone attractive if you just don't react to them that way. To tell someone they are wrong for rejecting someone else purely because of their looks is ridiculous imo and it's one of the many reasons I can't stand feminism. If it's not wrong to reject someone because you're not attracted to their personality, then it's not wrong to reject someone because you're not attracted to their appearance either. Usually the very first thing you notice when meeting someone new is if you intrinsically find them physically attractive, it's something that happens naturally, and if you don't feel that way there's no reason at all why you should feel ashamed or sorry. In order for a relationship to work attraction needs to be felt on both sides, physical attraction and emotional attraction. Without that balance it's going nowhere.

 

[Toshiya]

Usually 'beautiful' people live a life where they have multiple lovers or can't help but be flirty, it just comes with being 'beautiful'.

Like I said, good-looking people face a lot of temptations as good looking people. They're constantly met with compliments, flirting, opportunities of people willing to be their side-lover, etc, ect. We're all humans and the constant possibility would eventually get to people who are lusted after and I think that they'd slip up. So to me, that chance is a deal breaker.

Reading this stereotype disgusted me so much I don't have the energy to argue against it that is ridiculously unfair on anyone attractive. People considered 'uglier' or average still have a chance of cheating. Its the person not how they look that determines that

ANYWAY

I think looks are important. Personally, if I get on really well with someone but I don't find them attractive they'll only ever remain a really good friend for me. As shallow as that sounds, attraction is a massive part of a relationship for me and if there isn't a 'spark' between me and someone (to do with attractiveness) its never gonna work. I would say I have a type, but that doesn't stop me finding people not of that type attractive.
If there's a spark I won't let little things put me off. The guy I'm sort of seeing at the moment hates my tattoos, and he's told me so multiple times, but he puts up with it . Likewise there are some things I don't like, like piercings, but if I was attracted to someone with piercings I wouldn't let it put me off them.

I think there's quite a bad stigma about being 'shallow'. I'd feel horrendous turning someone down on the basis of their looks if they asked me on a date - but I shouldn't. Nobody should feel obliged to be with someone just because they're nice but sometimes it just doesn't work that way

 

[Galadín]

I think looks are important. Personally, if I get on really well with someone but I don't find them attractive they'll only ever remain a really good friend for me. As shallow as that sounds, attraction is a massive part of a relationship for me and if there isn't a 'spark' between me and someone (to do with attractiveness) its never gonna work. I would say I have a type, but that doesn't stop me finding people not of that type attractive.
If there's a spark I won't let little things put me off. The guy I'm sort of seeing at the moment hates my tattoos, and he's told me so multiple times, but he puts up with it . Likewise there are some things I don't like, like piercings, but if I was attracted to someone with piercings I wouldn't let it put me off them.

I think there's quite a bad stigma about being 'shallow'. I'd feel horrendous turning someone down on the basis of their looks if they asked me on a date - but I shouldn't. Nobody should feel obliged to be with someone just because they're nice but sometimes it just doesn't work that way

This is exactly the way I see it, compatibility and attraction are of equal importance. If my guy isn't toned or my idea of Mr.Hunky Chest then pretty much forget it (unless his eyes are totally adorable ). If that makes me shallow then I'll happily dabble in the kiddy pool.

 

[Toshiya]

Try to finish reading what people say.

of course anyone can cheat, but if opportunities are presented to people temptations take over. look at celebrities. they start out clean as a button and then the moment they can get whatever they want, they're doing it. i've seen more than enough examples of how beautiful people are tempted more and end up succumbing to that temptation. it's kinda why celebrities usually settle down with 'nobodies'. once more, 'ugly' folk can and do cheat, but 'beautiful' people do it far more.

I did finish. I just disagree with all of it, not just the line I quoted :dave: but as I said I'm not arguing, I'm not really in the mood for trying to argue with a slightly patronising brick wall
using celebs as a substitute for real people in this argument is quite irrelevant

inb4 'why have you edited your post', I typoed 'slight' instead of slightly so fixed it

 

[ff1-10]

Yes, because you have to be physically and emotionally attracted to someone. But honestly, there were a few guys who are actually handsome of whom I never noticed were until I got to know them. I'm thinking it is probably because they had reserved personalities, so their looks were "quiet", too, lol. But even if someone IS noticeably handsome, I don't think I feel attracted unless their aura reflects out to me the kind of person who I'm looking for. I feel like when you see someone physically, sometimes you can feel or see who they are as a person, too. But at the same time, I've learned that looks can fool you. So you can judge a book by its cover...just make sure to read the pages before you close it and decide whether you like it or not.

 

[Dionysos]

Let's calm it with the attitude in here, people.

It is still possible to discuss topics as humans. It is Christmas and everything.

 

[Dionysos]

There's a difference between expressing a disagreement with an opinion and using gifs to make a mockery of somebody else's opinion. That may not be intended, but it can come across that way.

However, the comment is a general one. Not just for you.

This is a simple enough topic, and it would be nice enough if people could discuss it in a productive way.

If there are any issues about my comment, PM myself or someone else for further discussion, but it wasn't meant to be a major thing. I just don't think it would be healthy for people to lose themselves over this.

Enjoy the topic.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Stray Arrows

I have to say I do agree with Priness on this one. I get where you're coming from, about beautiful people having more teptations, however I don't agree at all that more temptation makes a person more likely to cheat. I think some people are likely to give into temptations, and some are unlikely to give into temptations. Someone who is likely to cheat will only need one opportunity, and someone who is unlikely to cheat might never do so even with many, many temptations. I don't think looks make the slightest difference as to whether or not a person is likely to cheat. That all depends on the type of person they are on the inside, not the outside.

 

[Harlequin]

it doesn't matter how they look because my mind manipulates me into being attracted to them whenever I like who they are.

I don't think I feel attracted unless their aura reflects out to me the kind of person who I'm looking for.

If you go out and ask a bunch of women for their opinions these comments would be a good reflection of how they'd reply. Ask women what they desire in a man and you'll get the same range of answers: confidence, presence, height, demeanour, speech, physique, assertiveness, intelligence and self determination pretty much cover it. They all stem from the same root trait; dominance.

A woman saying looks don't matter is like a man saying a woman's assertiveness doesn't matter. It's not saying much.

I don't think attraction is something people can control. You can't force yourself to find someone attractive if you just don't react to them that way. To tell someone they are wrong for rejecting someone else purely because of their looks is ridiculous imo and it's one of the many reasons I can't stand feminism.

I think this is an important point. The male sexual libido is heavily stigmatised in today's society despite almost everything being laced with sexuality. Music, film, gaming, billboards, etc there's no getting away from it but talk about T&A within earshot of a feminist and get ready to be chastised. It's perfectly normal to have any libido, so long as it's not a straight male's libido.

In any case, people have always had the "right" to be attracted to whomever they please, stigma doesn't exist because of a lack of education it's a variety of things and it's not necessarily a bad thing. If you believe in what you're doing the best way of dealing with stigma is brushing it off. If I'm attracted to someone public opinion isn't going to trump my own opinion.

 

[Toshiya]

I have to say I do agree with Priness on this one. I get where you're coming from, about beautiful people having more teptations, however I don't agree at all that more temptation makes a person more likely to cheat. I think some people are likely to give into temptations, and some are unlikely to give into temptations. Someone who is likely to cheat will only need one opportunity, and someone who is unlikely to cheat might never do so even with many, many temptations. I don't think looks make the slightest difference as to whether or not a person is likely to cheat. That all depends on the type of person they are on the inside, not the outside.

This is exactly what I meant. Of course I understand that people considered attractive or those that are rich have more chances. But whether they take the chances depends on the type of person they are. I'm glad someone else gets my point

Back to the topic at hand. Tom I agree with your points about people finding confidence etc attractive. Looks can only go so far with initial attractiveness, there's got to be something else drawing you in. Confidence also plays a big part during the first interaction you have

 

[Harlequin]

This is exactly what I meant. Of course I understand that people considered attractive or those that are rich have more chances. But whether they take the chances depends on the type of person they are. I'm glad someone else gets my point

Yeah about the beautiful people are more likely to cheat situation... I don't agree with that, in a strange way I think the more options people have the more likely they are to be settled about their situation. If anything it's the reverse, people with less options are likely to find themselves in compromising situations when options suddenly open up to them. "Options" is a bit presumptuous mind it definitely differs from person to person though.

 

[Donald Trump]

​

Double standards, particularly with looks, is an issue that angers a lot of people. If a woman is rejected by a man because of her looks, the man is labelled as a misogynistic pig for not respecting the way she looks, and “sexually objectifying” women into his own preference. If the tables were turned, however, the man would be told to “harden the f*ck up” because “the woman is allowed to be attracted to whatever she wants”.

Ahh, the mighty men's rights activism.
Whilst some of their arguments appear to be persuasive, a second look proves otherwise, all of it is based on supposed personal anecdotes and deeply flawed reasoning.
The screenshots above are supposed to show hashtag double standards hashtag. W
hat it actually shows is females inquiring about the height of males. When supposed equivalent questions are asked in return, the harlots refuse, what scum. However, we must, unlike MRAs, apply a little bit of logic.
Firstly, is there any evidence that this question is being used to weed out potential mates? There is none. But a lack of evidence is, as any religious person will tell you, irrelevant. The MRA would argue that the inference is clear.
They are asking about is height, not weight, not looks, but height. This shows the singular shallowness of the female mind. Even though there are perfectly legitimate reasons to ask someone's height, one example is that females, often when going out, wear heels, and the height of their potential date may have some influence over which set of heals they wear.

Finally, is the above an example of a double standard? Most people consider it a double standard when you apply a different set of behaviour/rules to others than to yourself.
Using that definition, the common definition, it is not a double standard.
It is truly a warped mind that thinks cup size is the same thing as height.

Having dealt with the images, let us now move onto the words.

If a woman is rejected by a man because of her looks, the man is labelled as a misogynistic pig for not respecting the way she looks

This is, completely untrue. But this is the kind that MRAs believe. Ask yourself this, have you ever seen anyone decline some's amorous advances, and declare that their reason for so doing was because they thought the person approaching them was unattractive. No, of course you haven't, because people aren't arseholes in that way. Nor do women call men misogynistic pigs because men do not find them attractive, that is complete bullshit.

and “sexually objectifying” women into his own preference.

This doesn't even make sense but it is the typical way MRAs talk. Femininising the essential ideology of masculity. Dichotomising the universality of male experience. etc etc.

A man should not be forced into a romantic or sexual relationship with a woman he does not find physically attractive because society will label him as a “misogynist pig” otherwise.

Let me translate this for you, dear audience: Feminists are raping men with ugly women. That translation may beggar belief, so here are they key parts; man...forced into...sexual relationship...woman...not...attractive.
The sheer lunacy of this statement requires no further explaining.

A man should be entitled to go after a girl he finds physically attractive, and reject a girl he doesn’t, AND be rejected by a girl who doesn’t find him attractive.

The MRA likes to make it clear that he, and it is always a he, is for equality. Just as long as men are more equal than women.

​

Let me just express my sympathy for Sergio Sanchez, hopefully the doctor who labotomised him is never allowed to work again.

The truth is-everyone is beautiful, objectively. What I mean by this is, disregarding subjective opinions, society and the media are slowly (VERY, very slowly) accepting all body types across all genders as beautiful, thus changing and defining the “expected” objective standards of beauty. We have seen a rise in women who are proud of their weight, and we have begun acknowledging that fat-shaming AND skinny-shaming is wrong. I believe there is still a long way to go in accepting all body types for males, as the standard in magazines is still "roided-up", but we are making progress.

The incorrect use of objective in this paragraph obscures the point, but it's not too bad. However, one wonders how may steroids messrs. Clooney, Pitt, Direction, Bieber have taken.

SO: Do you agree with the above main points? Why/Why not?

Not. Because they are wrong.

 

[Sheechiibii]

The MRA likes to make it clear that he, and it is always a he, is for equality. Just as long as men are more equal than women.

Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with the feminist narrative that women are sexually objectified while men are not, is a man? Are you saying that anybody who agrees with the OPs message must not be for equality, even though everything about the OP was promoting equality?

Your point about MRAs rings extremely true for feminists. Feminists like to make it clear they're for equality. Just as long as women are more equal than men.

 

[Harlequin]

They are asking about is height, not weight, not looks, but height. This shows the singular shallowness of the female mind. Even though there are perfectly legitimate reasons to ask someone's height, one example is that females, often when going out, wear heels, and the height of their potential date may have some influence over which set of heals they wear.

Attraction isn't a legitimate reason?

Saying a woman would ask a man's height to determine whether she can wear 6 inch heels or not is grasping at straws, especially if they're flirting by text.

Ask yourself this, have you ever seen anyone decline some's amorous advances, and declare that their reason for so doing was because they thought the person approaching them was unattractive. No, of course you haven't, because people aren't arseholes in that way.

You see it all the time. Some people get blown out mercilessly. It's mostly females doing it too, if only by virtue of males doing the vast majority of approaching.

I don't care if people have double standards or what people think of mine, I'm still going to go for my type of woman and I'd encourage anyone else to do the same.

 

[Smiley]

Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with the feminist narrative that women are sexually objectified while men are not, is a man? Are you saying that anybody who agrees with the OPs message must not be for equality, even though everything about the OP was promoting equality?

Your point about MRAs rings extremely true for feminists. Feminists like to make it clear they're for equality. Just as long as women are more equal than men.

Thank you. That was, in a nutshell, what I was going to say

The screenshots above are supposed to show hashtag double standards hashtag. W
hat it actually shows is females inquiring about the height of males. When supposed equivalent questions are asked in return, the harlots refuse, what scum. However, we must, unlike MRAs, apply a little bit of logic.
Firstly, is there any evidence that this question is being used to weed out potential mates? There is none. But a lack of evidence is, as any religious person will tell you, irrelevant. The MRA would argue that the inference is clear.
They are asking about is height, not weight, not looks, but height. This shows the singular shallowness of the female mind. Even though there are perfectly legitimate reasons to ask someone's height, one example is that females, often when going out, wear heels, and the height of their potential date may have some influence over which set of heals they wear.

Finally, is the above an example of a double standard? Most people consider it a double standard when you apply a different set of behaviour/rules to others than to yourself.
Using that definition, the common definition, it is not a double standard.
It is truly a warped mind that thinks cup size is the same thing as height.

MRA's don't have logic? That's nice.

Please explain to me how height=/=looks. If height =/= looks, then what does it apply to?
You are right in acknowledging that there is little evidence to suggest this is for weeding out potential mates, as we do not know the context of these messages. this is true. But why would the girl find it so "good" that the guy is taller than average? If we assume that they are weeding out potential mates, then his height is relevant to her preference. So why is it so hard to understand that her weight or cup size would be relevant to his preference? height, weight, cup size, ass size, 6-pack or keg?, penis size, hair colour, eye colour, skin colour...these are ALL looks preferences! Some girls like tall guys, some guys like big boobs. If it is not wrong for the girl to ask for his height, then why is it wrong for the guy to ask the girl for her weight or cup size? How is that equal?

Now, in the off chance that she was just asking out of curiosity, and "ok good" didn't mean anything, and that this was not to weed out a potential mate, then I agree with you. But there is more reason to believe that this was before a date and not a casual discussion between friends.

This is, completely untrue. But this is the kind that MRAs believe. Ask yourself this, have you ever seen anyone decline some's amorous advances, and declare that their reason for so doing was because they thought the person approaching them was unattractive. No, of course you haven't, because people aren't arseholes in that way. Nor do women call men misogynistic pigs because men do not find them attractive, that is complete bullshit.

There could be other reasons, yes, but nobody declares that the reason they rejected someone is because they weren't attractive. People ARE assholes in that way, but they can also see that admitting to rejecting someone because of their looks would make them seem horrible shallow. If a good relationship is comprised of emotional and somewhat physical attractiveness, then someone who is not physically attractive to the person will be rejected.

Maybe women calling men "misogynist pigs" is a bit of an overstatement, I will admit to that and I apologise. However, that doesn't mean that women, after being rejected on a looks basis, don't call the guy an asshole. I've done it, many women have.

Let me translate this for you, dear audience: Feminists are raping men with ugly women. That translation may beggar belief, so here are they key parts; man...forced into...sexual relationship...woman...not...attractive.
The sheer lunacy of this statement requires no further explaining.

Feminism is not forcing men to be in relationships with ugly women. Society is doing that.
Man doesn't find woman attractive, Society says "YOU BASTARD! YOU SHOULD RESPECT ALL WOMEN FOR LOOKING HOW THEY ARE! ALL WOMEN ARE BEAUTIFUL, YOU MISOGYNIST PIG! HOW DARE YOU!"
Woman doesn't find man attractive, Society says "YOU GO GIRL! YOU CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT! HE LOOKS LIKE SUCH A LOSER/DOUCHE/FATTY/INSERT OTHER OFFENSIVE ADJECTIVE TO DESCRIBE MEN HERE! GIRL POWER!"
That is legitimately the society we live in. So men do feel some sort of pressure to date an unattractive woman, or else they're branded an asshole for it.

The MRA likes to make it clear that he, and it is always a he, is for equality. Just as long as men are more equal than women.

Please note that I said the exact same thing for women as well. And don't tell me that this isn't the same attitude for feminists. Feminism is for equality, just as long as women are better than men. You can absolutely apply the same thing. But whether or not feminism is for equality or superiority is a completely different topic.

The incorrect use of objective in this paragraph obscures the point, but it's not too bad. However, one wonders how may steroids messrs. Clooney, Pitt, Direction, Bieber have taken.

Subjective was pertaining to the individual perspectives. Objective applies to the "third party"-being able to see things from an outside point of view and assess without bias. Assessing society's standards of beauty without bias, we have become more accepting of women's body types, yet still have a long way to go for men.

You are absolutely right in that Clooney, Pitt, Direction, and Bieber have probably never taken steroids. But notice how they are all thin and fit. Chris Hemsworth-muscular and fit. The Rock-masculine, muscular, fit. David Beckham-athletic, slim, fit. Roided-up was just an example, but magazines are still full of beautiful men.

Yet women's examples in magazines range from gorgeous people like Beyonce and Angelina Jolie, to Jennifer Lawrence, who embraces how much she loves food.

There is quite a bit to suggest that women are more accepted in the way of different body types and different lifestyles, while men still very much have a masculine image to live up to. I'll leave you with this:



Because Barbie and He-Man are as unrealistic as each other, but no one cares about He-Man, because he's only setting an example for men.

Not. Because they are wrong.

I respect your opinion and thank you for voicing it. Thank you for providing a viewpoint different from mine.