Chicks Dig Muscles

How often prehistoric women came across buff-looking men?

Women's attraction to buff guys seems so very primal. I'm wondering how often prehistoric women came across buff-looking men. Were hunter-gatherers generally more muscular than modern average guys? They certainly would have been leaner than the modern-day flubber, but someone as buff as Chris Hemsworth would be considered a super stimulus comparatively and almost impossible to achieve in our past.

It's also possible we've commodified so many physical activities that our ancestors engaged in that would have made them muscular that the modern man, on average, normally doesn't get as muscular anymore. It's possible a built-in attraction trigger for women is not as stimulated as often because of that lack of muscularity. That would be another side effect of technology, similar to the pill.

Hunter-gatherer men likely averaged 5' 4" tall and had runners-type physiques. But to quote Mike Rashid, “Fuck average.” The man who was 5' 6" and had comparatively more musculature would outclass his peers in physical prowess and likely had more sexual options due to the Sexy Sons dynamic playing out. 

Fast forward to the Greco-Roman era, and you can see the masculine ideal physique in the sculpture of the times. Not a bodybuilder type like Ronnie Coleman or Hidetata Yamagishi, but an athletic physique with muscular definition and a height closer to 5' 9".  More like a swimmer’s body. Strong man of the 1900s, George Hackenschmidt topped out at 5’ 9”. This ideal was also contextual. 5' 9" (the average today) was tall for the era. We don't see hypertrophic musculature on the superhero level in Greco-Roman art because there were no examples of it in the men of the time.

Anabolic steroids and modern bodybuilding techniques wouldn't be developed for millennia. What we think is an exaggeration of physicality today was inconceivable for people just 100 years ago. However, that doesn't mean women aren't aroused by men exemplifying hypermasculine extremes – up to a point. Today, we see posts on social media comparing Marilyn Monroe’s figure to modern examples of hyperfeminine “beauty.” These posts are always an effort to reinforce the idea that female beauty ideals are social constructs of an oppressive patriarchal society. Women still cling to this meme from the Friedan/Steinem era of feminism whenever body positivity or fat acceptance themes crop up. We’re meant to believe poor Marilyn is overweight by today’s standards, but modern obesity stats in the US put the lie to this meme. Perhaps a bit “curvy,” but Marilyn is within modern medicine’s generous BMI threshold.

Ironically, Marylin’s physique comparison only proves the hyperreality principle, not the social constructionism rationale. The evolutionary underpinnings that made Marilyn Monroe sexy in the 50s and 60s are the same attributes that made Greta Garbo sexy in the 1930s. Marilyn had the advantage of 30 years of social refinement of the biological attributes that made her a Bombshell of her time. Since Norma Jean’s passing, modern technology has identified and developed techniques to enhance the innate physical characteristics that make women sexually arousing to men. 

Nutrition, exercise, makeup, hair coloration, breast implants, botox, Brazilian butt lifts, and the oh-so-annoying Kardashian lip injections are de rigueur for women in the 21^st century. It’s become a hobby for angst-ridden viewers to chat/comment on the ‘fake, plastic, superficial’ physiques of some of the most beautiful women in the world on my show Access Vegas. They don’t realize their angst is driven by a crisis of authenticity in men’s and women’s physicality in an era that’s virtually perfected modifying our physiques. The boobs are “fake” because they’re too perfect. Her hair is “artificially” colored. Chris Hemsworth, Andrew Huberman, and the Liver King are “not natural” because they’re on anabolic steroids or testosterone replacement therapy.

But the critics are correct. None of these individuals (including Marilyn) could exist on the sub-Saharan African plains of the Pleistocene epoch, much less the Greco-Roman era. But the aspects of physical prowess, arousal cues, and good breeding potential that existed then are still part of the human firmware today.

Have a look at model Jamie Villamor. Jamie is 43 and a mother of two children. At no other time could a woman look as physically arousing under similar circumstances. In the same era that 75% of Americans are overweight (and 40% of women are obese), Jamie stands out as a super-stimulus anomaly that could not exist in prehistoric times. 

Yet, men still find her as sexually arousing as they find obese women (also non-existent in prehistory) sexually unattractive. For all the gnashing of teeth about ‘fake’ OnlyFans girls on “those red pill podcasts” or the ‘not natty’ guys who ‘cheat’ by taking TRT or gear, the fundamental truth is men and women will always attempt to disqualify superior competitors in the sexual arms race. Men and women will also always be Power Gamers, looking for the most recent ‘unfair’ advantage to outclass their competitors in the most expedient way possible. 

The presumption that any of these technological advantages are ‘fake’ only draws attention to a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that argues that if something is ‘natural,’ it must be good. It’s also closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is.’ Few people realize this fallacy informs their belief. They just think natural boobs are better than big ‘fake’ tits or ‘natty’ bodybuilders should have a moralistic high ground above guys cycling trenbolone. Regardless, the empirical reality is that these unfair enhancements are based on naturally evolved dynamics that gave our ancestors an advantage in survival and/or reproduction. That the environmental conditions that made these attributes ‘sexy’ are long past is irrelevant. The human machine is what it is.

Virtually anything that gives a person an unnatural advantage in the sexual arms race will be deemed inauthentic. Appeals to moralism (even secular moralism) are the only countermeasure the unenhanced have available. That moralism makes any advantage in muscles, money, or Game unnatural and self-righteously reinforces the ego. Even progressive ideologies will appeal to evolving above our base natures – “We’ve evolved beyond all this.” – in an attempt to disqualify those who outclass them in the great game. “Aren’t we better than this?” Yes, we are. That’s why we’ll continue to enhance ourselves ‘unfairly’ into the future. Call it vanity or superficiality, but the desire to be more than we are – as efficiently as possible – will always be part of our natures.

---

Rollo Tomassi is the author of the Best Selling book series, The Rational Male.

Pick up all these titles on Amazon Today!