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

Roger Hassenforder · 02-11-2016 09:34PM

REM76 wrote: »

I work with a tall, good looking girl whose eyebrows look like they've been constructed using Etch-A-Sketch. She looks like a clown.

Coulrophilia alert

Colser · 02-11-2016 09:40PM

Threads gone very fecking technical...are beer goggles a thing?ðŸ˜

Wibbs · 02-11-2016 09:41PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

But that's what you seem to be doing below, analyzing every element of attraction from an evolutionary perspective.

Well kinda, though TBH I was more about applying that suite of theories to attraction.

What do you mean by inner template?

That subconscious "ideal" that builds up in our individual heads. Shaped by culture, personal experiences and yep some biological/evolutionary stuff.

All this MAY be true. It may also be not true. The smartest people I know did not become the most successful. I'd say the same is even more true before education became so widespread. I imagine that there were plenty of brilliant young minds in the past who just did not receive the education to capitalize on it. I know you've pointed out below that strong pressures can cause quick changes, but its really only been about 30 years since intellectual skills became important in the workforce, they're still not that important, and usually as long as you have above average intelligence you can perform these jobs. So I see no need for selection based on perceived intelligence.

Well there was/is my Chinese example, but intelligence also propelled people forward. It's not just book smarts that is attractive. Indeed I would say social intelligence is more attractive. For example rulers who fight their way up from the bottom or even the middle are intelligent. Ghengis Khan was a genius in his manoeuvring. There are many many leaders who came from the bottom who certainly possessed no ability for personal brute force, so had to rely on their wits. When "book smarts" were required they pay others to do that kinda thinking and their social intelligence allows them to be pretty good at gathering such people.

Well take the biggest outliers of all, gay people. Now I know there are plenty of theories within an evolutionary framework that purport to explain this, but these usually explain why people who are not attracted to the opposite sex exist.

Aye, one interesting one concerns not the gay folks themselves, gay men in this example, but it has been found that women with gay brothers have more children. It's not by much, but it would be enough to keep the traits in play in a population.

They tend not to explain the attractions of these people. Gay culture has an extremely diverse set of attractions, and in many cases they've got labels for these types. Why does one guy like bears (big, hairy guys) and another likes twinks (young smooth slim guys). Why among guys who like bears do some guys like muscle daddy bears and others like chubby geek bears (I recently was told by a friend there's a night in london that caters to this subtype). Here you have bizarrely specific types, not one of which will result in a child.

Well while homosexuality might be seen as a "fault" as far as direct reproduction goes, it's an advantage for the group, or enough of an advantage to continue. The different attraction types are explainable enough if one considers that the trait basically swaps out the sexual attraction focus for the other genders. IE gay men and very broadly speaking have "straight women" areas of the brain that select for men as the attraction focus and gay women have the same going the other direction. To various degrees of course. Straight women also have different "types" as a group. Some go for more muscly guys, some for more weedy, some go for rough and ready, some go for polished. That's before we get to local cultural aspects and even that men tend more towards more compartmentalised thinking, so we're more likely to see more specific delineations of subtypes.

I'm not saying evolution hasn't played a part in attraction. I just find analyzing every attraction in those terms just doesn't make sense. It seems in many human enterprises there are aspects of taste, not just attraction. Not only do people have different tastes in movies (drama v comedy etc) but even within these categories tastes vary (gross out comedy, subtle comedy, slapstick) with many people having very strong preferences. To me, the specifics of attraction just reflect that natural human divergence of tastes.

Oh sure, culture plays a huge role on top of more basic biological trends. EG while the ideal hip/waist ratio transcends cultures and times, the size of the women themselves varies as far as the ideal of a culture is concerned.

Widdershins · 02-11-2016 09:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

. Indeed I would say social intelligence is more attractive.

IIRC this type of intelligence is what attracts women to so-called bad boys. They're considered streetwise.

Colser · 02-11-2016 09:58PM

Wibbs wrote:

That subconscious "ideal" that builds up in our individual heads. Shaped by culture, personal experiences and yep some biological/evolutionary stuff.

Do you think that the "ideal" changes with age and would that explain why a lot of couples who were once "in love" grow to seemingly despise each other?In other words are we really designed to stay with one person for life?

Wibbs · 02-11-2016 11:20PM

Widdershins wrote: »

IIRC this type of intelligence is what attracts women to so-called bad boys. They're considered streetwise.

Sure, many would display that, but not all and oersonally I'd place "bad boys" in another attraction bracket. Broadly speaking the "it's my subconscious duty to tame the wilder nature of young men for the good of society" bracket. The Bad Boy(™) loses his appeal if he goes too far for too long, or goes too safe too quickly. The latter for me strongly suggests that the taming is the thing. And it runs deep as an archetype and process. The Beauty and the Beast, the Heathcliff, the countless male amours of equally countless romance novels translated into every language of the planet. One author of such narratives Barbara Cartland used to say that in her books any hanky lanky stopped at the bedroom door, but the stories ended just at or before the point where the object of the heroine's love became "tamed" by her. Hell even when whips and chains are involved like in Fifty shades of Grey it's as much about that narrative not coming to fruition. The "one that got away", which keeps a yearning going in the mind of the reader. The "I could love/tame him" notion. The also has an age range. That is, a woman of say 20 is far more likely to gravitate towards the bad boy than a woman of say 40.

Colser wrote: »

Do you think that the "ideal" changes with age and would that explain why a lot of couples who were once "in love" grow to seemingly despise each other?In other words are we really designed to stay with one person for life?

I reckon humans are again diverse and adaptable to different cultural norms and pressures. We can stay together for life, but we can also have rolling long term relationships or multiple partner relationships or whatever. The general tendency has been towards monogamy though(even in multiple partnerships). This was likely because of resources and offspring. Nowadays with reliable birth control that's far less in play, but it IMHO remains to be seen if we've quite caught up with it. And that's before we get to interwebs dating and the like and pressures they bring to things. I would say that there are increasingly more winners and more losers in that milieu. Interesting times.

Oh and I'd say the ideal does change and dare I say it

evolve in a relationship trajectory. There is quite a clear honeymoon period and then the long term stable period. The bit in the middle - which depending on interaction and proximity tends to last from about 18 months to three years - is the most delicate time for a couple and the most likely time for a break up(usually instigated by the woman, especially when younger).

LLMMLL · 02-11-2016 11:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Well there was/is my Chinese example, but intelligence also propelled people forward. It's not just book smarts that is attractive. Indeed I would say social intelligence is more attractive. For example rulers who fight their way up from the bottom or even the middle are intelligent. Ghengis Khan was a genius in his manoeuvring. There are many many leaders who came from the bottom who certainly possessed no ability for personal brute force, so had to rely on their wits. When "book smarts" were required they pay others to do that kinda thinking and their social intelligence allows them to be pretty good at gathering such people.

I don't see how political/military leaders using their intelligence says anything about human attraction,or whether women found them more attractive than bookish types.

The different attraction types are explainable enough if one considers that the trait basically swaps out the sexual attraction focus for the other genders. IE gay men and very broadly speaking have "straight women" areas of the brain that select for men as the attraction focus and gay women have the same going the other direction. To various degrees of course. Straight women also have different "types" as a group. Some go for more muscly guys, some for more weedy, some go for rough and ready, some go for polished. That's before we get to local cultural aspects and even that men tend more towards more compartmentalised thinking, so we're more likely to see more specific delineations of subtypes.

I'm very sceptical of the purported similarities between gay male brains and straight female brains (and leabian/straight guy brains). Its pretty obvious from a cursory knowledge of gay male culture that their sexuality is far more similar to straight males than to straight females. I'm unaware of any study that has been able to do anything other than show similarities in broad structure. Its a bit of a leap to think that gay men have "straight women" areas that cause them to desire men but still have the broad sexual characteristics of straight men. I think variability in human tastes that did not arise from selection is far more plausible.

Wibbs · 02-11-2016 11:42PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't see how political/military leaders using their intelligence says anything about human attraction,or whether women found them more attractive than bookish types.

Genghis Khan's genetic legacy numbers around ten per cent of men who live within the once range of his and his kids empire. Hell, even in Ireland we have the Niall of the nine hostages gene which shows up in a couple of million people today. If one wanted to perpetuate one's line, then being a politically intelligent warlord seems to be a far better bet than being a intellectual giant. How many kids did Plato have?

I'm very sceptical of the purported similarities between gay male brains and straight female brains (and leabian/straight guy brains). Its pretty obvious from a cursory knowledge of gay male culture that their sexuality is far more similar to straight males than to straight females.

One word; testosterone. Or two words; testosterone and zero risk of pregnancy. Testosterone is a major driver of horniness(in women too BTW, but in far smaller amounts. Though women who take the hormone or it's equivalent EG cheating athletes, show more aggressive sexuality). The risk of pregnancy is a big issue with women. Don't forget that childbirth was the number one risk factor for young women dying until the medical science of the 20th century. Medieval churches and superstitions around the around shows this. Both are chock full of talismans and prayers to gods unseen to preserve mothers to be.

I think variability in human tastes that did not arise from selection is far more plausible.

Oh sure. As I said using the crude hammer of general evolutionary theory is hamfisted when we get to some details and of course outliers can come up. The vast majority of mutations are random and bad, or do feck all and some of the random ones get propagated. The process isn't "intelligent", there is no plan, beyond transmission(and even there..) The broader picture tends to stack up a little better mind you. I certainly would not apply it to individuals or even small groups, but the larger the group, the more it can be seen in action.

Wibbs · 02-11-2016 11:45PM

On the gay/straight difference, I personally find more intriguing the bisexual and asexual folks. And the latter two are woefully under researched. Seriously, if you take a look at the sexuality research those two are almost entirely absent.

Widdershins · 02-11-2016 11:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, many would display that, but not all and oersonally I'd place "bad boys" in another attraction bracket. Broadly speaking the "it's my subconscious duty to tame the wilder nature of young men for the good of society" bracket. The Bad Boy(™) loses his appeal if he goes too far for too long, or goes too safe too quickly. The latter for me strongly suggests that the taming is the thing. And it runs deep as an archetype and process. The Beauty and the Beast, the Heathcliff, the countless male amours of equally countless romance novels translated into every language of the planet. One author of such narratives Barbara Cartland used to say that in her books any hanky lanky stopped at the bedroom door, but the stories ended just at or before the point where the object of the heroine's love became "tamed" by her. Hell even when whips and chains are involved like in Fifty shades of Grey it's as much about that narrative not coming to fruition. The "one that got away", which keeps a yearning going in the mind of the reader. The "I could love/tame him"

Good points although the moral of beauty and the beast was to look beyond appearances..the beast was already tame/decent. And I really don't think submissives want to alter the power structure of their relationship,However I believe they go into that with their eyes open and seek out a partner who is stable and self controlled. The commitment side of it comes easy enough in those relationships when the dominant partner is receiving what they need too. It's not the same as being a nice/good man. Actively attempting to mold one would be exactly the kind of laborious mental excercise a submissive person would typically want to avoid in their relationship, I think.

LLMMLL · 02-11-2016 11:53PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Genghis Khan's genetic legacy numbers around ten per cent of men who live within the once range of his and his kids empire. Hell, even in Ireland we have the Niall of the nine hostages gene which shows up in a couple of million people today. If one wanted to perpetuate one's line, then being a politically intelligent warlord seems to be a far better bet than being a intellectual giant. How many kids did Plato have?

Ah here, I don't know much about Genghis Kahn, but I'm guessing his legacy was as a result of rape, and women making the clever conscious decision to tie their wagon to his economic fortunes. Is there any evidence he was considered by women to be the local hottie?

One word; testosterone. Or two words; testosterone and zero risk of pregnancy. Testosterone is a major driver of horniness(in women too BTW, but in far smaller amounts. Though women who take the hormone or it's equivalent EG cheating athletes, show more aggressive sexuality). The risk of pregnancy is a big issue with women. Don't forget that childbirth was the number one risk factor for young women dying until the medical science of the 20th century. Medieval churches and superstitions around the around shows this. Both are chock full of talismans and prayers to gods unseen to preserve mothers to be.

Horniness isn't the only difference between male and female sexuality (in my opinion). Men seem to favour more obvious physical features, and don't give a **** about status. Gay men share that among other traits I would consider typically male. While there's some overlap between what gay men "generally" find attractive and what women "generally" find attractive, there are also huge differences. I don't think that can all fall under the influence of testosterone.

Pac1Man · 03-11-2016 12:11AM

Too much text!

Wibbs · 03-11-2016 12:15AM

Widdershins wrote: »

Good points although the moral of beauty and the beast was to look beyond appearances..the beast was already tame/decent.

And who brought that out in him to the wider society? Our heroine. She saw the "man" within the "beast".

And I really don't think submissives want to alter the power structure of their relationship,However I believe they go into that with their eyes open and seek out a partner who is stable and self controlled.

Sure, but there is also the element of deeper need transformed into fetish. I'd call it the rollercoaster effect. That is; we like to get on roller coasters to be scared, a deep human psyche need, but safely. That sub dom thing in say BSDM setups is very similar. Though obviously it's a little more nuanced.

Actively attempting to mold one would be exactly the kind of laborious mental excercise a submissive person would typically want to avoid in their relationship, I think.

That's assuming a "submissive" person is not active in more subtle ways. We can all point to individuals who on the surface are "submissive", non aggressive in mind and body, who nevertheless exert great influence on partners and wider groups.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah here, I don't know much about Genghis Kahn, but I'm guessing his legacy was as a result of rape, and women making the clever conscious decision to tie their wagon to his economic fortunes. Is there any evidence he was considered by women to be the local hottie?

The "hottie" bloke is the one who in the end propagates more of his influence and genes to the next generation.

Horniness isn't the only difference between male and female sexuality (in my opinion).

Oh I would agree 100%. Women's sexuality appears to be more nuanced, more complex and reams of research show this to be true. Or rather women's sexuality all too often was and continues to be viewed through the prism of male sexuality by male researchers comparing it to their own.

Men seem to favour more obvious physical features, and don't give a **** about status.

On status we're on more solid ground, but obvious physical features are just as much in play for women. It's just that such preferences are more subtle, even hidden from plain sight. When eye tracking equipment is placed on women in mixed groups it turns out they've just as roving an eye as any man as far as the physical goes. The notion that they don't is again that old stylee male bias in regarding women's sexuality. A sexuality that because it is more "hidden" has and yes continues to be seen as a) through the male prism and b) viewed with either suspicion or romantic notions. To illustrate the hidden aspect; alone among the great apes humans have hidden fertility. A chimp or gorilla female is, or isn't very clearly ovulating and receptive. Women are not nearly so obvious. They keep men guessing as it were, or they selected for that over time. Likely because of human kids far more extended early childhood, so it made sense to keep support around for longer so bonding was far more important and keeping the male guessing played into that. Even the human breast is an outlier. In women it's inflated all the time. In other great apes it's not, except when nursing babies, when the female is at her least fertile and receptive. To a Bonobo a page three style photo would be a turn off.

Gay men share that among other traits I would consider typically male. While there's some overlap between what gay men "generally" find attractive and what women "generally" find attractive, there are also huge differences. I don't think that can all fall under the influence of testosterone.

Of course culture, wider and internal to gay folks and even fashion plays a part, but broadly speaking the overlap is far more there than it is not.

Wibbs · 03-11-2016 12:17AM

Pac1Man wrote: »

Too much text!

Well in fairness, nobody ever caused me of being short winded(should be a term). Except.. insert irony here. Or maybe not. Now where was I…

:D

Widdershins · 03-11-2016 12:32AM

Wibbs wrote: »

And who brought that out in him to the wider society? Our heroine. She saw the "man" within the "beast".

True but she didn't try to change his nature or tame him.

Sure, but there is also the element of deeper need transformed into fetish. I'd call it the rollercoaster effect. That is; we like to get on roller coasters to be scared, a deep human psyche need, but safely. That sub dom thing in say BSDM setups is very similar. Though obviously it's a little more nuanced.

That's right. That's why I don't think they'd want to change anything. A good dominant has good self control and is stable already. Some will settle for an ass***e if they can't find a better one but then it comes down to my other point. Those ones just accept it and do not try to change it. It's basically desperation. This is why there are bdsm relationships that verge on abusive, and people cut off from friends and family to suit the dominant partner. Look at poor Elaine O'Hara.

That's assuming a "submissive" person is not active in more subtle ways. We can all point to individuals who on the surface are "submissive", non aggressive in mind and body, who nevertheless exert great influence on partners and wider groups.

They generally are but your dominant partner is there to accept the control you give up, so why would you really want to get into trying to change and tame them. Too much hassle and it wrecks the buzz, for want of a better description (the brain's working even less than usual at this hour)

I've stuck my replies in between your comments. Fifty shades of grey is a terrible rendition of a bdsm relationship and the mindset female character imo isnt accurate.

LLMMLL · 03-11-2016 12:35AM

Wibbs wrote: »

The "hottie" bloke is the one who in the end propagates more of his influence and genes to the next generation.

So in your view, a rapist in an era where abortions weren't available can be assumed to have been more physically attractive to women than any celibate individual?

On status we're on more solid ground, but obvious physical features are just as much in play for women. It's just that such preferences are more subtle, even hidden from plain sight. When eye tracking equipment is placed on women in mixed groups it turns out they've just as roving an eye as any man as far as the physical goes. The notion that they don't is again that old stylee male bias in regarding women's sexuality. A sexuality that because it is more "hidden" has and yes continues to be seen as a) through the male prism and b) viewed with either suspicion or romantic notions. To illustrate the hidden aspect; alone among the great apes humans have hidden fertility. A chimp or gorilla female is, or isn't very clearly ovulating and receptive. Women are not nearly so obvious. They keep men guessing as it were, or they selected for that over time. Likely because of human kids far more extended early childhood, so it made sense to keep support around for longer so bonding was far more important and keeping the male guessing played into that. Even the human breast is an outlier. In women it's inflated all the time. In other great apes it's not, except when nursing babies, when the female is at her least fertile and receptive. To a Bonobo a page three style photo would be a turn off.

What women look at and who they choose to have sex with are two different things. The differences between male (gay and straight) and female sexuality in that regard is fairly clear, whatever you believe the reasons are. Again this evolutionary explanation of keeping men guessing to keep them around longer is a just-so explanation. It could just as easily be cultural embarrassment around bodily functions, especially relating to bleeding and sexual organs.

Wibbs · 03-11-2016 12:54AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

So in your view, a rapist in an era where abortions weren't available can be assumed to have been more physically attractive to women than any celibate individual?

Nope. Never came close to stating that.

What women look at and who they choose to have sex with are two different things.

You don't saaaay… However the former usually informs the latter, unless you think women are somehow a different species made up of sugar and spice and all things nice? Take the notion of "love at first sight", a far more potent archetype among women than men and don't try to tell me that isn't kicking off from an agreement with an inner template based on feck all but the obvious, surface and physical. Unless you subscribe to the notion of fate and other such magical thinking? Do not get me started on The One(™).

The differences between male (gay and straight) and female sexuality in that regard is fairly clear, whatever you believe the reasons are.

Actually they're not and certainly not just because you think they are. I've outlined why I think they are and can dig up a few links to research which backs my point(s) up, you have not, merely retorted to "nope, you're wrong".

Again this evolutionary explanation of keeping men guessing to keep them around longer is a just-so explanation. It could just as easily be cultural embarrassment around bodily functions, especially relating to bleeding and sexual organs.

Eh…. Other great apes show no such "embarrassment" and "embarrassment" itself changes over time and culture, yet the basic bodily differences and approaches remain and are extremely plain to see. There are huge differences between us and the other great apes and indeed a fair few differences between what we clearly select for and what archaic humans selected for.

tomwaterford · 03-11-2016 01:12AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

So in your view, a rapist in an era where abortions weren't available can be assumed to have been more physically attractive to women than any celibate individual?
.

Aaggh lad...... How did you draw this conclusion??

Talk about taking things outta perspective like

LLMMLL · 03-11-2016 01:19AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Never came close to stating that.

You've said that whoever manages to successfully reproduce is a "hottie". Can you clarify? I think you are throwing out unrelated facts and they are confusing things. Itseems to me that the issue raised was in relation to whether people find social intelligence attractive. Yu gave Genghis Kahn as an example because of his "legacy" of procreation. I gave reasons why someone might have no choice, or make a conscious choice to procreate with Kahn that has nothing to do with his perceived attractiveness, and your response was the above. I'm not trying to twist your words, it genuinely appears to me that youre linking the term "hottie" (someone sexually attractive) with who successfully reproduces, regardless of how he achieved that.

You don't saaaay… However the former usually informs the latter, unless you think women are somehow a different species made up of sugar and spice and all things nice? Take the notion of "love at first sight", a far more potent archetype among women than men and don't try to tell me that isn't kicking off from an agreement with an inner template based on feck all but the obvious, surface and physical. Unless you subscribe to the notion of fate and other such magical thinking? Do not get me started on The One(™).

Pointing out differences between men and women (whether you think I'm correct or incorrect about these differences) does not imply I think they're a different species. Just that I think there are differences. Pretty sure you think there are differences too. Love at first sight is more a literary thing than something I hear people genuinely experience. But I'll give one example of what I meant by these differences. A girl I know was attracted to a guy whose friends are far more conventionally attractive "because of his christmas jumper". I hear this kind of stuff from women regularly (such as my sister and her love of geek glasses). I hear it from men far less often.

Actually they're not and certainly not just because you think they are. I've outlined why I think they are and can dig up a few links to research which backs my point(s) up, you have not, merely retorted to "nope, you're wrong". Eh…. Other great apes show no such "embarrassment" and "embarrassment" itself changes over time and culture, yet the basic bodily differences and approaches remain and are extremely plain to see. There are huge differences between us and the other great apes and indeed a fair few differences between what we clearly select for and what archaic humans selected for.

But we're not discussing other apes. Its clear you have some knowledge of ape sexuality and want to discuss that, but just because other species aren't embarrassed about menstrual blood doesn't mean that humans can't be.

pumpkin4life · 03-11-2016 10:23AM

Wibbs wrote: »

On the gay/straight difference, I personally find more intriguing the bisexual and asexual folks. And the latter two are woefully under researched. Seriously, if you take a look at the sexuality research those two are almost entirely absent.

Great stuff here, but I disagree with you about gay/straight differences.

(pumpkin going to get a lot of flak for this lol)

The heritability of homosexuality, according to a plethora of twin studies is about .25 to .3. Monozygotic twins>polyzygotic twins>brothers/sisters etc. That means there is a genetic component but it's mostly environmental. There is no gay gene. You even see this with internet porn. Check out yourbrainonporn.com. Tonnes of porns effect on the brain neuroscience articles up there. Sexual tastes are surprisingly malleable.

In comparison, the genetic heritiblity for intelligence and height/hair color is about .7-.8, i.e mostly genetic.

The second thing is adaptability. Again, lads can look this up, but homosexuals have far worse life outcomes than heterosexuals, money, crime, number of friends, cluster b personality disorders etc. In addition, gay sex is far more dangerous from a disease point of view. There is no evolutionary advantage to being gay.

Musketeer4 · 03-11-2016 10:39AM

Maybe homosexuality evolved to "soak up" males who were not fit enough to reproduce? Being attracted to other gay men dealt with them and kept the peace.

Banned.

pilly · 03-11-2016 10:51AM

lawlolawl wrote: »

Being a tall guy is a huge advantage when trying to attract women.

A short guy can learn any amount of pick up techniques etc but he will still be at a disadvantage comparatively.

For instance, I have a friend called Colin who is 7 feet tall and you just can't teach that.

Ah 7 feet tall now!! Is he a giant.

pilly · 03-11-2016 10:52AM

Ah this conversation has gone way off topic and is just ridiculous now at this stage.

Musketeer4 · 03-11-2016 10:57AM

pilly wrote: »

Ah 7 feet tall now!! Is he a giant.

Ah yeah, he probably has women climbing up him like ESB men going up poles with the spikey shoes.

Wibbs · 03-11-2016 11:56AM

pilly wrote: »

Ah this conversation has gone way off topic and is just ridiculous now at this stage.

True and mea culpa, partially at least.

I'm an arse man myself and legs and stomach. Boobs not so much, though don't dig large ones TBH. Anything above a D and nope. Prefer willowy to "curvy". Holly Willoughby would do little for me TBH, though I can of course see why she'd ring other's bells. That kardashian wan god no.

Colser · 03-11-2016 12:04PM

Wibbs wrote:

I'm an arse man myself and legs and stomach. Boobs not so much, though don't dig large ones TBH. Anything above a D and nope. Prefer willowy to "curvy". Holly Willoughby would do little for me TBH, though I can of course see why she'd ring other's bells. That kardashian wan god no.

You're going all around the house but still not naming your ideal looking woman..we're waitingðŸ˜

Gunslinger92 · 03-11-2016 12:58PM

I like my men skinny/lean, and dark haired. Bonus points for nerdy glasses and/or 5 o clock shadow. Actually no, some stubble is probably a requirement actually :pac:

Wibbs · 03-11-2016 01:13PM

Colser wrote: »

You're going all around the house but still not naming your ideal looking woman..we're waitingðŸ˜

I don't have one really C, just a very general suite of features I'd find personally attractive. Crazy specific stuff doesn't affect it much. Hair colour etc. I would prefer long hair to short mind you and have a strong preference for European women. Asian or African wouldn't be in the mix much at all.

david65 · 03-11-2016 01:25PM

small breasted, tall, and after that anything else

Roger Hassenforder · 03-11-2016 01:39PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Asian or African wouldn't be in the mix much at all.

is it "racist" not to find African ethnicity attractive?
Rianna and Beyonce for example, do nothing for me either.

Asian on the other hand, if you'll pardon the innuendo...
Prefer white skin, dark hair, willowy, their own teeth.
Kate Beckinsdale ticks most boxes

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

Comments