mesmerized Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 "Tall, dark, and handsome," a preference without much deviation between the population of women, and without much room for compromise. I've heard women say that they can't find a guy attractive if he's under 6'0" or has light hair. It's stated as an absolute: "I only like guys with black hair." Having light hair automatically makes you unattractive to them. Quite an unfortunate reality for guys like Daniel Craig and Brad Pitt. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You don't travel much do you?? Link to post Share on other sites
Author MomsSpaghetti Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You don't travel much do you?? I wasn't saying all women are like this, but some are, and I think it's worth bringing up because I've never seen a guy who is equally strict about what he claims is attractive. I don't know any guys who have "deal-breakers" like the girl can't be under some specified number of inches in height or something. Guys can find women they consider hot who are short, tall, blonde, redhead, brunette, flat-chested, large-breasted, Scandinavian, Asian, Latino, Italian, etc. Which is why I think it's true that there is more varian in the sexual preferences of males than in females. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
tbf Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I wasn't saying all women are like this, but some are, and I think it's worth bringing up because I've never seen a guy who is equally strict about what he claims is attractive. I don't know any guys who have "deal-breakers" like the girl can't be under some specified number of inches in height or something. Guys can find women they consider hot who are short, tall, blonde, redhead, brunette, flat-chested, large-breasted, Scandinavian, Asian, Latino, Italian, etc.Are you saying you've never known of any men who have height and weight maximums for their deal-breakers, never mind the rest? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
mesmerized Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I wasn't saying all women are like this, but some are, and I think it's worth bringing up because I've never seen a guy who is equally strict about what he claims is attractive. I don't know any guys who have "deal-breakers" like the girl can't be under some specified number of inches in height or something. Guys can find women they consider hot who are short, tall, blonde, redhead, brunette, flat-chested, large-breasted, Scandinavian, Asian, Latino, Italian, etc. Which is why I think it's true that there is more varian in the sexual preferences of males than in females. Not really. I know plenty of guys who just don't find certain races attractive or women with certain body types or hair etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Author MomsSpaghetti Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) Not really. I know plenty of guys who just don't find certain races attractive or women with certain body types or hair etc. I doubt it. Although women complain about guys not liking short hair on women, I've actually never heard a guy say that, and no straight guy would kick this out of bed: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f8d5f586bb3f79067000074/maria-sharapova-hair-cut.jpg. Maybe I'm different than most guys, but I don't really have anything I look for that I consider absolutely essential for a woman to be hot. Women who I find attractive I would still find attractive if they got a little pudgy or changed their hairstyle or whatever. Edited June 8, 2013 by MomsSpaghetti 1 Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Stereotypical women all like the same kind of guy and dislike the others. Real women vary in their interests and what attracts them probably more than real men do. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Pompeii Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I believe you are misusing that word. Often. Perhaps you mean "aesthetically pleasing," or something like that? Google is your friend ... Hm. Quite. I suppose an explanation is in order. From an outside perspective, it may appear to be that I am misusing that word. However, those who are familiar with bodybuilding and the jargon surrounding the lifestyle/community would know where I am coming from. Theoretically speaking, the state of being "aesthetic" and being "aesthetically pleasing" occupy two different universes but they can often overlap. The notion of being aesthetic is based around Greco-Roman depictions of the ideal man. Classic (Arnold's day) bodybuilders often reached back to the era of classical antiquity and Renaissance depictions to find inspiration for the ideal male figure. Discobolus of Myron and David by Michelangelo, respectively. These figures are seen as an effortless display of masculinity by many and an ideal for the male figure. Mesomorphic, powerful yet graceful, intelligent and aware. The ideal man is encompassed within these figures and these features. Being "aesthetic" is simply having a lean yet defined body structure when applied to the body, and defined facial features when applied to the face. Using "aesthetic" in this context is becoming quite mainstream, mainly due in part to Zyzz and his "aesthetics crew". For example, someone may say that Michael Cera is "aesthetically pleasing" subjectively but however, he is in no way "aesthetic". Being "aesthetic" is not subjective, you either are or you are not. You cannot be aesthetic while being 250 lbs at 30% body fat. You can be aesthetically pleasing however (to someone, maybe). Whereas, if you look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, not only are you aesthetic but you are also almost-universally aesthetically pleasing. When someone has strong facial aesthetics, they are quite defined and almost distinctive. I suppose "chiseled" would be a more common word for such. When someone has strong bodily aesthetics, they are also quite defined. I suppose "sculpted" would be a more common word for this. All in all, the aesthetic man or woman looks as if they were created from a slab of marble by the most careful precision of the master artisans and craftsmen. I may not have facial aesthetics, but I am on a personal quest to achieve bodily aesthetics. It is all part of my multifaceted plan of mastery, in this instance it is mastery over the body. The body wishes to have a mind of its own, it wishes to be its own master. Left to its own devices, the body will virtually destroy itself with bad habits after bad habits. Mastery over the body overcomes this. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Pompeii Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I doubt it. Although women complain about guys not liking short hair on women, I've actually never heard a guy say that, and no straight guy would kick this out of bed: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f8d5f586bb3f79067000074/maria-sharapova-hair-cut.jpg. Well, it all comes down to whether you are attractive or not. I know a lot of girls with short hair and they look great. Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Hm. Quite. I suppose an explanation is in order. From an outside perspective, it may appear to be that I am misusing that word. However, those who are familiar with bodybuilding and the jargon surrounding the lifestyle/community would know where I am coming from. Theoretically speaking, the state of being "aesthetic" and being "aesthetically pleasing" occupy two different universes but they can often overlap. I agree with this explanation. Link to post Share on other sites
Revolver Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Women are more different in what they find attractive but they find a very small percentage of the male pop attractive. Men are more like minded in what they find attractive but they find a much larger percentage of the female pop attractive then vice versa If we did an experiment and took lets say a 21 year old man and showed him 50 different women in his general age range he would find a much larger percentage of those women attractive then if we did the exact same experiment but had a 21 year old woman and 50 guys 1 Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 If we did an experiment and took lets say a 21 year old man and showed him 50 different women in his general age range he would find a much larger percentage of those women attractive then if we did the exact same experiment but had a 21 year old woman and 50 guys Someone should do an analysis of the male and female contestants on the reality show Bachelor and Bachelorette...it might provide some insight... Link to post Share on other sites
skydiveaddict Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 To restate: Is there less variation in what the population of women find physically attractive in men, than in what what the population of men find physically attractive in women? Yes. Girls are attracted to looks and money. Men only looks. Also, do you find that men or women are more compromising with their physical preferences? Women are more compromising, as long as the money is there. Link to post Share on other sites
Author MomsSpaghetti Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 Yes. Girls are attracted to looks and money. Men only looks. Did you miss the part where my post was strictly about physical attractiveness? (Although you kind of have a point. There was a study where one group of women rated a group of men on physical attractiveness based on their pictures, and another group of women rated the same pictures on physical attractiveness, except with bio's attached that mentioned how much the men make. You can guess how the results came out differently between the two groups.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheGuard13 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I've actually never heard a guy say that, and no straight guy would kick this out of bed: [COLOR=#990000]http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...a-hair-cut.jpg[/COLOR]. Right, but that's mostly because she looks good with short hair. A lot of women don't. Link to post Share on other sites
sillyanswer Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 To restate: Is there less variation in what the population of women find physically attractive in men, than in what what the population of men find physically attractive in women? What will you do with the answer? I'm not even sure that it matters. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eternal Sunshine Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Eh I think it's about the same. I am sometimes more shallow than most men 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Revolver Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I wasn't saying all women are like this, but some are, and I think it's worth bringing up because I've never seen a guy who is equally strict about what he claims is attractive. I don't know any guys who have "deal-breakers" like the girl can't be under some specified number of inches in height or something. Guys can find women they consider hot who are short, tall, blonde, redhead, brunette, flat-chested, large-breasted, Scandinavian, Asian, Latino, Italian, etc. Which is why I think it's true that there is more varian in the sexual preferences of males than in females. Lol men absolutely have deal breakers man. The thing is tho men like to keep their deal breakers to themselves and their inner circle of friends. Guys don't want to upset women in their social group or acquaintances who might have those flaws The reason for this is Guys will still bang girls that aren't their ideal for relationships. I can't tell you how many guys I know that will say a woman being fat is a dealbreaker but at the same time regularly sleep with overweight women Link to post Share on other sites
salparadise Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 OKC did a study where they had men rate women on looks. Men judged women fairly with a nice distribution. Meaning men accurately considered most women as average looking and equal number of women below average and above average. Women were not so kind to the men. Women judged an incredible 80% of men as below average looking. Which is a completely unrealistic standard. I think online dating is at fault for this type of disruption. Really! Not at all hard to believe. It's the way women are wired biologically and this is a bit of empirical evidence. Gotta go read this. It's pretty well accepted in the fields of evolutionary biology and psych that men are attracted to women for their reproductive and genetic potential, and that women are attracted to men at least as much for wealth, status and willingness to make familial investment as for genetic potential (looks). That's for pair bonding, or permanent mate selection in monogamous societies. After this is secured they tend to be attracted to superior genetic specimens during ovulation. I don't think internet dating has changed a damn thing about the nature of human beings. It's merely a new way of facilitating what we've been managing to do without internet for about 3 million years. Link to post Share on other sites
LSTom Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I tend to think women, generally, like similar things more so than men. Men tend to find very specific parts of a woman attractive. Some even borderline on fetishes. Women, on the other, don't generally do this. Men that are tall, dark, handsome, rich, and big penis will be VERY desirable to 95% of the women out there. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts