Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

Aren't we always talking about cultivation effects and videogames, well...Movies and tv and al that can do it too. The bombardment of media has made body hair unnatractive here. It looks so not normal it looks weird and therefore unnatractive, I can quote close family friends both male and female that think body hair is gross and that I should get wax or laser treatment or shit like that.

edited 28th Apr '15 8:24:02 AM by vandro

Well it would look funny in an non-ultra HD video game. Men don't even have underarm hair in a vast majority of those, not even Auron

But I think sports really perpetuated it, you got swimmers and such as well as the oiled up body builders and such. Walking Shirtless Scene usually are buff and work out and end up along those lines.

I don't find body hair gross on men or women, but I hate facial hair and have considered saving enough money to get full laser hair removal for my face. While I prefer hardwood floors, it's not because I think it looks gross.

But thinking about it, whenever you do see a woman in any state of undress in popular media, she has no hair aside from on her head, and it's often pointed out by the camera. I'm not usually checking out the guys, but usually they're hairless as well. I don't know if that really makes it an endorsement of hairlessness, but I'm sure it sets up subconscious expectation of bare skin.

Now if we are talking about fashion ads and whatnot, yeah maybe. But when it comes to movies and music stars or something like that, it seems to be more varied.

It seems like when it comes to male body hair, they expect it to be more groomed like: Hugo Parisi, Gerad Butler◊, or like this gentleman◊.

Women are pressured to be more bare. I hate body hair on myself so I shave but that's for my comfort. I don't really mind it on others.

There are some benefits to either way, but I have noticed when it comes to film depictions of female body hair, it is normally disparaging comedy, like Anna Farris in The Dictator or again Anna Farris in Scary Movie.

edited 28th Apr '15 8:40:36 AM by Gabrael

The Bible outright mocks the Queen of Sheba for her "savage" body hair. It's hardly new. <_<

Which translation?

I hate my body hair in the summer, but love it in the winter since it seems to help keep my legs warm. So I only shave when it's warm out.

Mainly Catholic translations, but a few Anglican ones have it. It's hard to tell if the savage hair is just in regards to her body hair or if it's implied to be how the hair on her head is styled like if it's in dreadlocks or otherwise knotted.

In the Jewish Torah, she is marked as having hair on her ankles with means that she was a decedent of animal worshipers or jinn worshipers as other Semitic translations would adapt to.

I'm not fond of my body hair from my waist down, mostly because I have too much of it.

But a good chunk of my female friends and relatives, including my ex, stated they prefer man with natural body hair, while I've also heard from both men and women that body hairs are "unclean" or not appealing.

For beards, I'd rather keep a well maintained goatee rather than looking clean shaven, specially because with it I ended up resembling my late father and nearly all my friends agree that I look better with a beard than without one.

Bears can be awesome if you can grow and put some effort to keep it neat.

Personally I don't like body hair on the armpits and waist down.

Okay, but "Semitic" refers to an ethnic group, not a language. I ask because the Arabic and Hebrew texts are noticeably different from the early modern English text in describing Queen of Sheba, especially in II Chronicles. Solomon's attitude toward Queen of Sheba's physical appearance varies. I'm specifically asking about translations, not historical and sectarian analyses.

edited 28th Apr '15 9:39:41 AM by Aprilla

And we have Arabic translations of the Torah. Hence why I said Semitic. That seems to be where the change goes to Jinn worshiper, which makes sense because Jinn are an ancient tribal belief of the Semitic peoples farther east into Persia and Arabia that carried over into Islam, but doesn't hold in Judaism.

The languages used differ, but basically a lot of cousins shared the story and argued over the details. Then a bunch of white guys later decided that most of these details were unimportant and kept the spirit but the language was more vague, hence why the debate in Europe is savage based on her appearance while the now Arab and Persian world considers her a savage from her belief systems and her looks of no consequence except to say she was beautiful but cunning.

Man. Anyone seen that new Sean Penn movie, The Gunman?

It is all about a young nubile french lady swooning over Sean Penn. It might as well be titled "Sean Penn is a DILF: The self serving script by Sean Penn. Featuring sexy french arm candy."

There were at least two dozen languages spoken among Semitic peoples over the course of 1200 years, so no, that's not a correct use of the word in a linguistic and ethnographic sense.

My original point is that time and language evolution are going to factor into how these beauty standards are being expressed. That was why I said "translation" and not "interpretation".

Some medieval Italian and Middle English texts have Queen of Sheba looking like some sort of werewolf whereas Arabic and Hebrew texts from nearly a thousand years prior make her sound like the Nubian equivalent of a Victoria's Secret model.

edited 28th Apr '15 10:03:31 AM by Aprilla

I've translated them, I'm aware, but in some cases the words have changed, such as the difference between her being an animal worshiper which was common of native tribes to her being a spirit or jinn worshiper, which gives her a completely different context including her looks.

Basically, a hot animal worshiper can be turned over to the good side and Solomon was capable of controlling her and making her legitimate.

But if she was a hot spirit worshiper, her looks are a trap and she can be a serious threat to the sanctity of Solomon and the Jewish people.

Her story is reflected in many common myths and superstitions. It's quite fascinating actually.

Makes me think of how male and female beauty has changed in being a prized asset to character over the course of literature. Such as Hyacinth and Apollo changing to a slim and pale Edward Cullen.

What is considered great physical traits for Aphrodite are not valued in the common wife and what not.

The cultural confusion between the two is very interesting.

What do you mean with the physical traits of Aphrodite, if I may ask?

Also, isn't Solomon supposed to be wise? Like. Why did it take summoning a demon to have her shave her legs, sheesh.

Sandro Botticelli is a good example. Take his Birth Of Venus. (Maybe NSFW) But many people know this version. She's on a shell covering herself with her hair as she comes up out of the water.

Seen here.◊

Venus has inhumanly pale skin, smaller breasts, no hips practically, and an elongated neck.

Basically, she is very boyish in form with the trappings of femininity, an idealized form. A symbol if you will.

No one in that period expected a woman to look like that nor was that what the average woman was suppose to aspire to. But it was okay for Venus to look like that because she is Venus and that aestetic has been the visual shorthand for: THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE VENUS! for a couple of hundred years by that point.

The Madonna also is similar in the sense she had a commonly standard aesthetic: blue robe, subtle or no smile, larger eyes, etc. to establish who she is.

It's like we all know pikachu is pikachu even if you don't know any other pokemon. And chances are, if you see a yellow mouse with red cheeks, you're going to say that's a mouse that looks like pikachu, not a painted mouse.

So if you take a look at common portraits of a similar time, like this◊, this◊, and this◊ you have a better idea of what they considered beautiful on real women. This is still painting so there will be liberties taken, but it helps because we also have writings and what not to back up the pictures.

like how they did like bigger women.◊

But is that not anachronistic for a bit? Are not boticelli and the rest of the paintings you linked Renaissance and beyond? Would the paintings not speak more of the tastes during italian renaissance rather than the tastes during the classical era?

Venus and Adonis◊ from 1580s by an Italian.

Copy of Venus by the sculptor Praxiteles◊ 4th C BC. He was most popular for his Marathon Youth.

Fresco of Aphrodite found in Pompeii◊

So yeah, the motif has been pretty consistent. She was a little fluffier after the 1550s to the 1620s, but otherwise the idea of Venus hasn't really changed that much.

That's why it was able to stay a motif.

edited 28th Apr '15 10:47:02 AM by Gabrael

Ohhh I did forget about Pompeii.

The smutty art in Pompeii would reveal a bit too, wasn't it like. A perfectly preserved smuthouse or something

Dang work. Won't let me watch smut for some reason.

Where in The Bible is this verse? I can't find anywhere in the bit of text that mentions her that actually talks about her appearance.

edited 29th Apr '15 5:25:53 AM by shiro_okami

Was it in Kings maybe? I can't remember now.

It may even be apocryphal, which happens a lot. I wouldn't be surprised. There's a lot about canonical Christianity that never actually appears in the Bible. And there's junk that gets thrown into the text that obviously wasn't there thousands of years prior *cough* Leviticus *cough*.

edited 29th Apr '15 11:13:31 AM by Aprilla

Kings, Chronicles and I think a little in Luke or Matthew... <frantic Google> Matthew. Here for waaaaay more.

PS: Not included: The Song of Solomon. Too much outside material similar to it.

edited 29th Apr '15 11:20:40 AM by Euodiachloris

I don't think Leviticus is apocryphal, unless you are saying stuff was added to it?

Yes. That was a jab at contemporary audiences embellishing the living hell out of Leviticus.

edited 29th Apr '15 5:50:51 PM by Aprilla

What stuff was added, then? The last time I checked, the book had 27 chapters.