goddess me
now, some of you faithful readers may not know that whilst we're conducting our blog-love-fest with mr sven over in "the world according to me", that we vikers are still here to answer all your confunding questions that we seem to be able to muster up our neurons for.
a recent question was - "why are girls so fascinated by arms?"
the simple answer? we girls are attracted to guys who have the right balance of testosterone running in their systems. too much and we're looking at fabio gone wrong with aggressive tendencies, too little and well....we're looking at ourselves.
now there are several ways in which we women can gauge how testosterone-y a guy is. one has the potential to get the guy landing himself in jail for indecent exposure, the other more safer way would be to judge how much muscle a guy has on himself, hence arms.
but i know what you are asking me. what does arms + testosterone have in common? well that my friends, goes back to sven's survival of the fittest theory. we and every other species out there in gondawanland procreate so as to pass on our genes. and we all know that only the strongest of our genes survival. so more testosterone = fitter genes = fitter offspring = more of us running around.
now even before getting to the procreation stage, there is another life stage in which a guy's arms comes into play. women, throughout hollywood history have had the image of the darlin newly married husband carrying their bride over the "threshold" on their wedding night, compounded into our heads. now nothing dirty, i just meant the hubby carrying the bride through the door. i don't think many women enjoy seeing their hubby struggling or not even being able to do that and possibly even worse, dropping them.
so boys, bulk up. cos we're getting mighty heavy!
a recent question was - "why are girls so fascinated by arms?"
the simple answer? we girls are attracted to guys who have the right balance of testosterone running in their systems. too much and we're looking at fabio gone wrong with aggressive tendencies, too little and well....we're looking at ourselves.
now there are several ways in which we women can gauge how testosterone-y a guy is. one has the potential to get the guy landing himself in jail for indecent exposure, the other more safer way would be to judge how much muscle a guy has on himself, hence arms.
but i know what you are asking me. what does arms + testosterone have in common? well that my friends, goes back to sven's survival of the fittest theory. we and every other species out there in gondawanland procreate so as to pass on our genes. and we all know that only the strongest of our genes survival. so more testosterone = fitter genes = fitter offspring = more of us running around.
now even before getting to the procreation stage, there is another life stage in which a guy's arms comes into play. women, throughout hollywood history have had the image of the darlin newly married husband carrying their bride over the "threshold" on their wedding night, compounded into our heads. now nothing dirty, i just meant the hubby carrying the bride through the door. i don't think many women enjoy seeing their hubby struggling or not even being able to do that and possibly even worse, dropping them.
so boys, bulk up. cos we're getting mighty heavy!
posted by viking_mistresses at 12:54 PM
12 Comments:
should be lookin' at legs
looking at a guy's legs?
Ewww, they're so skinny and hairy! I agree with Helga - prefer to look at more dexterous appendages.
well i'm just not so sure what looking at a guy's legs would really tell us, the female counterpart.
plus most guys wear pants 99% of the time so it's hard to gauge the size of their legs, so unless you're the female superwomen with x-ray vision then we're just looking at $400 tsubi jeans.
technically the arms don't do the lifting. i would have thought the legs and lower back carry most the weight.
perhaps that's why the less mighty heavy are becoming the better option...
well from an anatomist's point of view (which i am one), its bad to lift with your back, and it's this common perception that makes ppl hurt their back.
plus it's less obvious for us chicks to check out a guy's arms and their bulging biceps, triceps and deltoids than looking "down there"
well if guys wore more skirts, i guess it would be better for the ladies then
;)
I am no anatomist but I know that with proper lifting technique lower backs aren't that easily injured.
I also know that arguably lower back, legs, and abs are more important in core strength than upper body muscles (smaller muscle groups like biceps, deltoids etc).
Meaning, if you were to choose your 'mates' looking at how well developed their muscles are then it'd be perhaps wiser to concentrate on their leg and back muscles rather than being misled by their fancy upper body muscles.
(Of course, it can't hurt to have nice upper body muscles as well)
Hence the conclusion that you SHOULD (refer to my first comment) be looking at legs.
well there's a reason why there's the age old saying lift with your legs not your back.
as an anatomist who have heard and seen all the stories and statistics relating to back injury, i assure you even a proper technique does not mean you can't injure your back, easily or otherwise.
so whilst by your suggestion we SHOULD look at the legs of a guy, its like asking guys to look elsewhere than the chest region for making out their evolutionary pick.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean
Is that an encouragement to check out ladies' legs more?
in the majority of the female population, i think they secretly enjoy being checked out. chest, arms, legs, the whole elevator look. doesn't make a difference to them.
just avoid the hardcore feminists. they might knock you out at the same time as you "elevating" them
Post a Comment
<< Home