Calling it "dad bod" is creepy as fuck. Do these girls think of their dads when they see them?
FutureDirector24
+lwAtErOnEl Do guys think of their moms when they say "milf"? All milfs aren't moms, it's more of an age thing.
deathtokoalas
+FutureDirector24 it's not the same thing. milf is about the sexuality of older women - it's a process of objectification. "dad-bod" refers to the relative unimportance of sexual attraction in favour of financial security - just like daddy. as i mentioned, things are changing, but when you culturally enforce patriarchy you have to expect that young women are going to have this idea of husband as father. it's more than subconscious.
you can't draw these broad equivalences in a society that remains fundamentally unequal. it's more accurate to suggest that "dad bod" and "milf" are the opposite of each other, in terms of sexual objectification.
Joe Themig
+deathtokoalas Lol... patriarchy? Really?
Guess when they call a dad a DILF, it's just the patriarchy in action.
Tin foiled hat nonsense.
deathtokoalas
+Joe Themig if dilf was a thing, it would at least be an equivalence. it doesn't really actually make sense, though, as dads don't need to go through the rearrangement of their bodies that mothers do. but it's not actually a thing. and you can clearly see how a dad-bod is not a dilf, but the opposite of it.
Ivan Ivanovsky
+deathtokoalas LOL! You said "patriarchy". Go back to Tumblr. Xaxaxa! You can't blame "patriarchy" for stupid trend made popular by childish, trend-hopping western female. This "dad bod" nonsense only became topic of conversation because stupid, childish, celebrity obsessed, American woman gushes over and promote Lenard DeCrapio's "dad bod". The so-called mans getting on this bandwagon are of pathetic weak mans who think this is their chance for female approval.
deathtokoalas
+Ivan Ivanovsky the empirical truth that women overwhelmingly choose financial stability over sexual desire is neither recent nor a trend. if you want women to choose muscles over money, that is short-term fun over long-term security, you need to ensure they have the financial freedom to do so, and exist within a culture that encourages independent thought. otherwise, the size of your house is going to remain sexier than the size of your chest, as the groupthink enforces the family structure.
Aaron Brown
+deathtokoalas So you sound like a feminist gold digger. Females want equal rights and to be treated fairly but yet you want the man to make the income. Sorry but that's that what equality is about. Taken from Merriam Webster- " the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc." So with that being said , according to "equality" the man is not equal in your "long-term security" plan. Stuff happens in the world. People lose jobs out of nowhere for no reason everyday. AND in case you try to say "I'm not a gold digger" BAM! HERE YOU GO: a person who dates others purely to extract money from them, in particular a woman who strives to marry a wealthy man.
deathtokoalas
+Aaron Brown it's a conditioning thing - it's what women are taught. and mostly by men, although mom doesn't always set a good example or say the right things, here. i've stated a few times that things are changing. slowly. but the society continues to teach women to be dependent on male economic activity. breaking that cycle relies on opening up more opportunities, but all the opportunities in the world aren't going to break the cycle if the dominant christian patriarchal culture that teaches female submission isn't smashed, too.
i'm telling you how things are. i'm not endorsing this.
John Doe
+deathtokoalas The problem with your analysis is the "dad bod" trend doesn't equate with financial status. Actually, in relative terms attractive men tend to make more money than less attractive men. You're approaching the issue as a matter of "everything is patriarchy" in spite of the reality we don't live in a patriarchy.
A better way to look at the dad bod trend might be to examine if women are rethinking their stance towards hypergamy on a wider scale. Perhaps women are realizing that always choosing relationships with men that are above them is responsible for a lot of women's relationships wounds. Choosing the "dad bod" might be a step away from hypergamy towards lateral relationship choices, which numerous studies have shown make women happier.
deathtokoalas
+John Doe you're incoherent - you claim it's not financial, then claim it is. further, the studies you're citing about attractiveness and wealth tend to suffer from the flaw of being circular. it's difficult to define the term "attractive" but, in context, it usually means things like "well dressed" rather than "works out". as the primary thing that defines male attractiveness is wealth, you end up in this circular argument that resolves by reversing causality - it's not that more attractive men make more money, it's that men that make more money are more attractive.
Aaron Brown
+deathtokoalas Are you a christian....do you go to church....do you read the bible. If you answer no to any of these then your statement is just an observation you have made. I could look at a muslim who is all dressed up and assume that they are a terrorist or I could assume that that is their religion. One would be right and the other would be null. However for you to state this is literally as vague as saying a rainbow has pretty colors. Your view on christianity is warped. If you were to go to most modern christian establishmenst (Some denominations still live in the old times, yes) what you just said is irrelevent. They don't teach that women are to rely on the man for money.
deathtokoalas
+Aaron Brown i'll acknowledge that christianity does not have a single set of views; just about anything has been argued from the bible, and the result is that just about anything can be blamed on christianity.
the broader perspective is to realize that religion is never a world view in itself, but always a way to enforce a worldview. in the era of slavery, you had southern churches arguing that blacks were cursed by god some time back in the garden of eden days, and the bible demands they're enslaved....while you had christian abolitionists in the north. neither came to their positions because of christianity. rather, both used the religion to argue their point.
so, when you have these limbaugh and falwell type groups preaching their ideas of male dominance, it's perhaps worthwhile to point out that they're using the old testament statements as a means to convince somebody of something they'd try and convince them of anyways.
that doesn't change the reality on the ground that evangelical christianity produces, or the coercive nature of the social shaping that it promotes.
some milder denominations may have moved on, but, as a whole, does christianity (especially the evangelical sort) continue to push patriarchy? yes. absolutely.
Dom Ferris
How did this turn into a religous debate?
deathtokoalas
+Dom Ferris i'm not interested in a religious debate. christianity is stupid. this is a social debate.
erwin s
+deathtokoalas Islam is even worse ;-)
deathtokoalas
+erwin s they're all the same. ask anna comnena.