The female body is classically "beautiful."

(Hello, and thank you in advance for the opportunity to have a discussion and mutually expand our knowledge and experience :3)

At the very outset, I would like to clarify that I am neither a sexist nor a misogynist, and I do not objectify women. However, for the sake of this discussion, given the multitude of personalities, I will focus on the physical aspect - that is, corporeality and primal reflexes, namely the instincts of both sexes in the *Homo sapiens* species.

The next issue is defining what exactly I mean by "beauty." In the context of this debate and the context of the sexes, I consider beauty to be: deep aesthetics, the harmony of the body not only through its appearance but also through the design that both sexes received as a result of evolution (or an act of creation by God).

Having defined what exactly lies behind this concept, I can move on to defending the thesis I have put forward.

I consider the female body to be more "beautiful" not only because of the statistically more frequent body proportions resulting from sexual dimorphism i.e., wider hips, breasts, and a larger, differently distributed amount of adipose tissue that makes men's heads spin.

I would focus more on the design that "guided" nature (or God) in endowing women with these traits.

would like to point out that, as I mentioned above, the traits we now associate with eroticism have their genesis in motherhood and procreation . I believe there is no need to explain the functions of specific organs here. Since the dawn of civilization, women have been treated with reverence precisely because they were, in a way, the "creators of life" [e.g., the Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük, the Hindu goddess Durga, etc.] (naturally not alone, however, women bear a greater biological "cost" in bearing offspring). Furthermore, it is women who are more often identified with traits we would call more civilized. Women are generally characterized by greater emotionality, empathy, and superior skills in forging close interpersonal relationships.

Men, on the other hand, are characterized by a defined and distinctly different external appearance, but, more importantly, a different internal one. I would venture to say that men are closer to "animality," driven in part by the influence of testosterone on their instincts and behaviors - such as a greater propensity for competition and aggression, but also an enhanced ability to perform under constant pressure and stress. These internal traits exert a decisive influence on their physical characteristics. Broad shoulders, more muscular arms and thighs, along with reduced and differently distributed body fat, were meant to ensure that a man was not merely a loving family patriarch, but an effective killer—one who could provide for his family and guarantee their survival through the coming winter. Research also shows that infants tend to look longer and more frequently at female faces, recognizing them over male ones, as they perceive them to be more familiar and "friendly."

-->Reaserch here

However, please do not jump to hasty conclusions. I am not suggesting that men are absolutely incapable of possessing "beautiful" traits,  rather, as I outlined above, these are simply a byproduct of them being fashioned into effective killers. I believe one can certainly find heroism in masculine traits, but I would remind you that just as we might marvel at the tale of the noble King Arthur, it would be equally primal and human to revel in the sight of Achilles brutalizing his enemies.

I look forward to continuing our conversation! Warmest regards :DD

 

(Please debate with me :(  I have a terrible craving for a discussion)

I’ll even go a step further in my statement and point out the unique feminine gift that allows a woman to control almost any man with just a slight glance, a small gesture, or a sensual smile. I am, of course, talking about sex appeal. I believe this is an almost uniquely female capability which, although it can occur in men, certainly does not appear with the same intensity or power as it does in the opposite sex 

(Thank you for being willing enough to do another round with me despite my mistake of forfeiting in the first round ;v; And for your kindness and patience with me)

(Also, I read through your first argument and tried clicking on the linked article, but I can't access it.)

(Anyway, moving on...)

Hmm... Since you make good points for your first round of argument that focuses solely on the corporeal and "primal" traits of both the male and female body, I'll concede. Along with your second argument that I expected to make a counterargument against, but found your generalized conclusion solid enough not to.

My apologies if I disappointed you with not arguing against any of your points. If you wish to continue the debate, just go ahead and publish another argument :)

(I am terribly sorry for my absence; I've had an awful lot on my plate lately, so please forgive me 🙏)

Adding one more strictly biological argument to my thesis: it won’t be at all controversial to state that the "fairer sex" is also simply more important when it comes to the survival of the species. I am referring here to one of the earlier points of the discussion, but please allow me to expand on it. From an evolutionary perspective, men were individuals of less genetic and reproductive value (in men, one can observe, for instance, more traits appearing at both extremes of the Gaussian curve). If there were 10 women and 10 men in a tribe, even if only one man survived a battle, the next generation could still count on 10 offspring. This situation, however, would not look the same if women were missing; in that case, the number of offspring would immediately drop along with the number of women. I believe this is the direct cause of the culture we live in—by default, it is the man who dies to defend the woman: the object of desire and the key individual for the survival of the nation.