
NuclearGeo20
I Hate Injustice
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2024
- Posts
- 1,441
- Reputation
- 1,113
A wide ribcage makes you take up more space. This leads to a dominant appearance. The more dominant male has a bigger ribcage.
Take the example of Roman Reigns vs Undertaker. Despite Undertaker being 7 inches taller he doesn't have that much bigger of a ribcage than Roman Reigns (6 foot 3). Undertaker looks slightly more dominant than Roman Reigns, but there's not enough ribcage mass to have a more dominant body over Roman Reigns. That's why his height doesn't halo him that much. Roman Reigns still has better body proportions and muscle insertions, which is why his body looks better imo.
Body proportions matter too. If you have a big ribcage that is unproportional to your height or torso, you'll look endomorphic and blocky, which is an unideal appearance. People still debate whether raw features (ribcage size, biacromial, bidelt) or body proportions (ribcage to torso, bidelt to torso) matter more when considering a male body's attractiveness. I will leave that up to debate, but I believe both matter, I just don't know how they both fit into the full picture.
The ideal male body is one that is not only taller, but one thats features also grow in aesthetic proportion to the height. For example we can all agree that a 30 inch bidelt would look goofy on a 5 foot 9 male body, but it would look extremely aesthetic on a 6 foot 10 male.
Take the example of Roman Reigns vs Undertaker. Despite Undertaker being 7 inches taller he doesn't have that much bigger of a ribcage than Roman Reigns (6 foot 3). Undertaker looks slightly more dominant than Roman Reigns, but there's not enough ribcage mass to have a more dominant body over Roman Reigns. That's why his height doesn't halo him that much. Roman Reigns still has better body proportions and muscle insertions, which is why his body looks better imo.
Body proportions matter too. If you have a big ribcage that is unproportional to your height or torso, you'll look endomorphic and blocky, which is an unideal appearance. People still debate whether raw features (ribcage size, biacromial, bidelt) or body proportions (ribcage to torso, bidelt to torso) matter more when considering a male body's attractiveness. I will leave that up to debate, but I believe both matter, I just don't know how they both fit into the full picture.
The ideal male body is one that is not only taller, but one thats features also grow in aesthetic proportion to the height. For example we can all agree that a 30 inch bidelt would look goofy on a 5 foot 9 male body, but it would look extremely aesthetic on a 6 foot 10 male.