What body types do women/guys find most/least attractive?

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I can gather from this that the trend is women find well muscular, well toned guys attractive insofar as they are a novelty and nice ogle and phoaw over but they're not attracted to that physique in a serious settle down with them type of way. They wouldn't want to date or marry them (assuming equivalent personalities here)

It follows that it seems also that there is a greater preference for "dad bod" type physiques. Why do people think this is? It seems counter intuitive, no?

To me a slack, dad-bod would be indicative of sub-optimal health, not a great diet, sub-optimal fitness and strength. The theory of human attraction and mating behaviour is that a person is seeking out fitness and health in a partner and certain body types etc look more attractive because they are indicators of health and therefore that person would be a good bet to breed children from vs someone less attractive, and therefore possibly less healthy. For example certain human behaviours such as dance evolved because being able to do so was a display not only of fitness, able bodiedness and health, but also of strong social skills which are equally important in a breeding partner.

Logically you would think that people would be attracted to a physique that was stronger, fitter and healthier.

Someone commented that heavily muscular physiques were not especially selected for since protein rich food was scarce enough for most of our history. I don't think it was a case of it being selected against, per se, but because protein was scarce even those who had "muscular genes" did not have an advantage because their muscle building ability was limited by diet. That meant mr muscle genes was on an equal footing as mr skinny. That's why we have different body types today its just some guys who have "big muscle genes" are able to capitalise on it due to the availability of protein. It could also be theorised that we have some women today that are attracted to less muscular male bodies because their ancestral cavewomen couldn't select for muscular physiques because everyone was probably skinny back then regardless of their genes because of the limitation of protein rich food.

I think it's a reasonable attempt at amateur analysis of our evolutionary biology and why we are the way we are.

What a shame people didn't start dancing because they enjoyed rhythm. Where do the poor lesbians and gays fit into all of this, consdering they've less need for a breeding partner? Or is it that deeply ingrained?

Shenshen

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I can gather from this that the trend is women find well muscular, well toned guys attractive insofar as they are a novelty and nice ogle and phoaw over but they're not attracted to that physique in a serious settle down with them type of way. They wouldn't want to date or marry them (assuming equivalent personalities here)

It follows that it seems also that there is a greater preference for "dad bod" type physiques. Why do people think this is? It seems counter intuitive, no?

To me a slack, dad-bod would be indicative of sub-optimal health, not a great diet, sub-optimal fitness and strength. The theory of human attraction and mating behaviour is that a person is seeking out fitness and health in a partner and certain body types etc look more attractive because they are indicators of health and therefore that person would be a good bet to breed children from vs someone less attractive, and therefore possibly less healthy. For example certain human behaviours such as dance evolved because being able to do so was a display not only of fitness, able bodiedness and health, but also of strong social skills which are equally important in a breeding partner.

Logically you would think that people would be attracted to a physique that was stronger, fitter and healthier.

Someone commented that heavily muscular physiques were not especially selected for since protein rich food was scarce enough for most of our history. I don't think it was a case of it being selected against, per se, but because protein was scarce even those who had "muscular genes" did not have an advantage because their muscle building ability was limited by diet. That meant mr muscle genes was on an equal footing as mr skinny. That's why we have different body types today its just some guys who have "big muscle genes" are able to capitalise on it due to the availability of protein. It could also be theorised that we have some women today that are attracted to less muscular male bodies because their ancestral cavewomen couldn't select for muscular physiques because everyone was probably skinny back then regardless of their genes because of the limitation of protein rich food.

I think it's a reasonable attempt at amateur analysis of our evolutionary biology and why we are the way we are.

I think you're missing some very obivous points. Attraction is not hard-wired into us. We're not imprinting the way birds do.
What was considered attractive has changed dramatically over the centruries (and millenia), it's always been subject to fashion with humans.
Don't forget that humans at one point in our history interbred with Neanderthals.

These days, you don't need to be the strongest spearthrower or the fastest runner to look after a family. So while health and fitness still play some role, other characteristics have become far more important to many females.

lawlolawl

I like my women to look and speak like The American Dream, Dusty Rhodes.

Still waiting to meet that special lady

Username here

lawlolawl wrote: »

I like my women to look and speak like The American Dream, Dusty Rhodes.

The dead wrestler??

I don't have a 'type' but if I did my O.H would be it. I also like floppy haired fine-featured men like Cary Elwes when he was in the film ''The Princess Bride''. His beauty was fleeting. He's stodgy looking nowadays.

Pac1Man

lawlolawl wrote: »

I like my women to look and speak like The American Dream, Dusty Rhodes.

Still waiting to meet that special lady

Username here wrote: »

The dead wrestler??

Did you mean Dusty Springfield lawlolawl?

eeguy

Widdershins wrote: »

I've never seen a woman whose face was obscured by her hair. It usually falls alongside the ears not over the face! Even a plait or ponytail looks better long and that's well away from the face.
Hair is lovely.. why would you want to have less of it.

Unfortunately short hair reminds me of my mother.

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's actually 5'9'' in Ireland. I'm 5'11'' and I thought I got a bit of a raw deal!

I would hazard a guess that the median height of men aged 18 to 28 in Ireland nowadays is about 5'10.5/ 5'11. If I ever have kids I hope I only have daughters so all least then I have a chance that any grandsons could be average or above average height - because while we currently live in a more shallow, superficial, socially-competitive, judgemental, openly-image-concerned, status-obsessed, self-absorbed, sterile, gym-frequenting, protein-gorging, self-indulgent fashion/haircut-wearing, social-media-validation-wanting world than in the past, future generations will have it worse and being a short man will be even more of a numb pleasureless existence than it is now.

eeguy wrote: »

Unfortunately short hair reminds me of my mother.

Me too. I don't like short hair. Why do women have to chop their hair off at a certain age.

Deleted User wrote: »

being a short man will be even more of a numb pleasureless existence than it is now.

There's always food. Be a short fat man.

DoozerT6

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't have a 'type' but if I did my O.H would be it. I also like floppy haired fine-featured men like Cary Elwes when he was in the film ''The Princess Bride''. His beauty was fleeting. He's stodgy looking nowadays.

Ah jaysis, the Princess Bride was nearly 30 years ago in fairness! He's in his mid-50's now and still looks grand for his age I think...

Widdershins wrote: »

There's always food. Be a short fat man.

An average height man a stone overweight looks better than a short man in perfect shape, so hard to enjoy junk food as a short man knowing that. And in order for a short man to maintain a BMI of say 23 they can only "afford" to eat significantly less food than a man 6"2 of the same BMI. So the tall man gets to enjoy the pleasure of knowing they look good, feel more athletic, not feeling inferior based on height, enjoying people's respect without merit, much more sex, on top of getting to eat larger quantities of pleasurable-to-eat food. The universe is indifferent to our feelings- being short *actually just is* as bad as it appears and that's that.

_Kaiser_

Curves FTW.. the wafer thin look does nothing for me. I like big boobs! Add to that an open, uninhibited, cheeky attitude with the ability to hold a conversation and I'm sold!

Deleted User wrote: »

An average height man a stone overweight looks better than a short man in perfect shape, so hard to enjoy junk food as a short man knowing that. And in order for a short man to maintain a BMI of say 23 they can only "afford" to eat significantly less food than a man 6"2 of the same BMI. So the tall man gets to enjoy the pleasure of knowing they look good, feel more athletic, not feeling inferior based on height, enjoying people's respect without merit, much more sex, on top of getting to eat larger quantities of pleasurable-to-eat food. The universe is indifferent to our feelings- being short *actually just is* as bad as it appears and that's that.

Yes, same for short women. Harder to carry the weight spread over a short frame.
I don't think tall men have it easy, either. Unless they're fairly well built they often think they're ''lanky''.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

An average height man a stone overweight looks better than a short man in perfect shape, so hard to enjoy junk food as a short man knowing that. And in order for a short man to maintain a BMI of say 23 they can only "afford" to eat significantly less food than a man 6"2 of the same BMI. So the tall man gets to enjoy the pleasure of knowing they look good, feel more athletic, not feeling inferior based on height, enjoying people's respect without merit, much more sex, on top of getting to eat larger quantities of pleasurable-to-eat food. The universe is indifferent to our feelings- being short *actually just is* as bad as it appears and that's that.

Without trying to dismiss your feelings OnionBelt you really need to try and accept who you are.

lawlolawl

Pac1Man wrote: »

Did you mean Dusty Springfield lawlolawl?

Nope.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that the median height of men aged 18 to 28 in Ireland nowadays is about 5'10.5/ 5'11. If I ever have kids I hope I only have daughters so all least then I have a chance that any grandsons could be average or above average height - because while we currently live in a more shallow, superficial, socially-competitive, judgemental, openly-image-concerned, status-obsessed, self-absorbed, sterile, gym-frequenting, protein-gorging, self-indulgent fashion/haircut-wearing, social-media-validation-wanting world than in the past, future generations will have it worse and being a short man will be even more of a numb pleasureless existence than it is now.

How small are you? Anyway, it means nothing. When I think of any married friends of mine, the two I would think are happiest with their wives and have great families etc are probably only about 5'8'' or 9''. I have other tall friends who are currently undergoing horrible divorces and haven't had sex in a long time! So it really means nothing. I wouldn't dwell on it!

Salrub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

An average height man a stone overweight looks better than a short man in perfect shape, so hard to enjoy junk food as a short man knowing that. And in order for a short man to maintain a BMI of say 23 they can only "afford" to eat significantly less food than a man 6"2 of the same BMI. So the tall man gets to enjoy the pleasure of knowing they look good, feel more athletic, not feeling inferior based on height, enjoying people's respect without merit, much more sex, on top of getting to eat larger quantities of pleasurable-to-eat food. The universe is indifferent to our feelings- being short *actually just is* as bad as it appears and that's that.

So by your reckoning I'm screwed with me being a man and "only" 5ft 7. I'm hoping not all women are only looking for tall men!!

_Kaiser_

Salrub wrote: »

So by your reckoning I'm screwed with me being a man and "only" 5ft 7. I'm hoping not all women are only looking for tall men!!

Wouldn't worry.. about the same height myself and never had a problem. I've dated women were we were both same height, they were shorter, or a little taller and it really doesn't matter - and if it does, they're not worth the time anyway IMO as it usually comes with other "issues"

Salrub wrote: »

So by your reckoning I'm screwed with me being a man and "only" 5ft 7. I'm hoping not all women are only looking for tall men!!

I'm not going to tell you how you should feel about being that height but I know that I don't like it. (Actually about 5"6.75..) I love hearing from lads who actually are short saying that they don't mind it that much. I don't feel it instinctively as much as it probably appears but intellectually it makes sense for me that it is a bad as I think.

cookiexx

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I can gather from this that the trend is women find well muscular, well toned guys attractive insofar as they are a novelty and nice ogle and phoaw over but they're not attracted to that physique in a serious settle down with them type of way. They wouldn't want to date or marry them (assuming equivalent personalities here)

Most people are average, and are attracted to their physical, mental and/or emotional equivalent.

What's "Dad bod" to you, is a normal, average looking fella to someone else who perhaps has a glowing personality, wicked sense of humour or sparkling intellect that ignites the fire of some woman who's sitting across from him and getting to know him in a dating scenario. She can acknowledge that he's no Brad Pitt / Channing Tatum / hot-man-du-jour but that makes no difference to her because while those fellas are great to look at, she's looking for something more in a life partner other than "phenomenal to look at" and besides, she's no Jessica Alba either so dating someone who's that committed to their looks probably isn't her bag. In fact it's probably a bit intimidating.

I think online dating has massively skewed this though. Guys are less successful because of the uneven ratio of women to men and so they come off thinking that women are unreasonable in their expectations. IME as a woman who has done some online dating, the view on the other side of the fence can be that there are a phenomenal amount of men who are "after one thing" and so have to make a bit more of an effort other than a blank profile, one blurry photo and a "hi how r u x" in order to impress. These messages can be ten a penny every day. It takes more for a guy to stand out. And everyone is disposable, a click away from the next possible "perfect guy/girl" so this culture of swiping on people encourages a sort of stalemate between the sexes. We don't treat each other as humans but rather as commodities.

myshirt

Lads, as I said in the other thread, they all look the same face down in the pillow. In, out, put the kettle on. People here getting too worked up.

Your Face

myshirt wrote: »

Lads, as I said in the other thread, they all look the same face down in the pillow. In, out, put the kettle on. People here getting too worked up.

So cool.

andekwarhola

When the fcuk did Irish people start saying stuff like 'Dad Bod' with a straight face?

andekwarhola wrote: »

When the fcuk did Irish people start saying stuff like 'Dad Bod' with a straight face?

lol. Don't paint us all with OnionBelt's brush! I'm not even sure what it means!

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

lol. Don't paint us all with OnionBelt's brush! I'm not even sure what it means!

Never used the phrase in my life!

Deleted User wrote: »

Never used the phrase in my life!

Oh pardon me, it was CookieXX. Blame her!

Ayuntamiento

I'm all about the tall. 6ft 3 as a minimum. I like being towered over. Body shape is mostly irrelevant beyond that. Even extremely good-looking men do nothing for me if they're short (<ie less than 6ft). I used to love Cillian Murphy until I passed him in Temple Bar one day and realised he's tiny.

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I'm all about the tall. 6ft 3 as a minimum. I like being towered over. Body shape is mostly irrelevant beyond that. Even extremely good-looking men do nothing for me if they're short (<ie less than 6ft). I used to love Cillian Murphy until I passed him in Temple Bar one day and realised he's tiny.

Dammit, just 8 inches off! If you could alter your height through willpower and behaviour like you can with weight I would have zero problem AT ALL with womens' universal height preference in attraction (or humanity in generals subconscious negative bias against shorter men)
Even if statistically most shorter men couldn't improve their height with willpower in the long run, if it was literally possible for even a small percentage to do it I'd wager myself to be among them as I have an obsessive nature and would do whatever I had to.