What about this one?

Women prefer men with genitals.


That could be a good one.

Hahahaha....many do!

/applauds

The study asked college 'women'...sorry, but I'd call them 'girls'.
While some big beergut is a turnoff, so are the 'Brad Pitt' types.
When I'm being hugged, I want a bear, not a skeleton. And when there's talking, I want humor and intelligence, not "So, I'm at the gym, right?...."
I married a guy with huge biceps, spectacularly built legs and who could do a roundhouse kick above his own head...shoulda gone with the intelligence...

That almost makes it sound like a man is either smart or in shape, not both. It'd be really cocky for me to say that I'm in both groups, but I happen to know plenty of my friends who are men that are in shape and intelligent. It's not like you have to make a choice between the two traits.

Yeah....uh....*Ahem*....what he said

uh huh... so that's why Quadro spends so much time at the gym now.... :thumbsup:

Some interesting points here,

I guess one of the issues I take with people saying "But this is how we're wired" or "Given the choice, a woman will take the muscly man", is that any time people / media / society tries to tell us these things, I only ever see the complete contrary out in day to day life, aka, reality.

Hence I only feel it's perfectly natural and rational for me to reject something like this report when it runs contrary to what I've observed and my personal experience of the real world.

People are so diverse in and of themselves and each individual has such vastly different tastes to the next ,it's really quite difficult to point to what the norm is.

I'm willing to bet if you asked every woman in just one country alone what they find physically attractive, the answers would be so diverse it would be pointless to draw any kind of conclusion at all.

Yes, the report is Mr Muscles against Mr Average, but what the fuck is average supposed to mean?

I would be very interested to see what the results would be if you did survey everyone woman in America and gave them the choice of Mr Muscles, and Mr Not-muscly-but-not-fat-just-average.

But so long as their only evidence is what 141 woman tell them and 99 guys, I'm throwing the reports conclusions right out the window.

Of course not...guess that came out a bit wrong...it's more overlooking one for the other-being 'shallow' is what it boils down to. At 20, appearances mean more. Sometimes that continues, sometimes not. But we'd be lying if we said looks/build didn't matter at all. It's just preferrable to be able to hold a conversation outside the bedroom or bar and that is not something some of us consider for the long haul.

oddly enough the sit coms, it's all Fat Man - Skinny Wife.... all the way back to Honeymooners.

I seem to recall we had been discussing that in another thread, relating how the husbands were all overweight bobos?
And, also oddly enough, Trixie, Norton's wife, was probably the only 'showgirl' with brains...
This all just proves how much we feed into stereotypes, I reckon.
I might be mistaken, but I believe I saw something years ago on 20/20 about just this very topic-several men, some extremely good looking but short, went up against taller guys re: getting noticed by girls and the taller ones always came out ahead. They also did a similar thing with model-ish, voluptuous women vs average with a broken down car and the model-type got help every time, the 'average' ones, not so much.
While I'm with Shani about the 'Brad Pitt' syndrome-don't care much for pretty as, in my opinion, it denotes a higher level of self-absorption(wrong or not)- I'd be lying if I said that if you put up a slovenly unkept but highly intelligent, mannerful guy against a well-groomed man of equal intelligence, it wouldn't matter. Oh wait, I met Tec...nevermindhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gifhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/images...ies/2rofll.gif


You know I love ya, Tec :icare:

Well, I'm attracted to my muscle-y hubby...but years back I was also attracted to my skinny ex hubby. For me, it starts with the eyes. Personality (humor) is next.

Never did understand the Brad Pitt phenomena. I like ones like Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis. Mostly fit, but not overly muscled. Rambo wasn't bad, either, but not my first fave.

The Discovery Channel has told me for years that I prefer Rambo over Mel Gibson due to the fact that I have ovaries. That doesn't mean that I do.

Many of the people responding have named specific actors that they already have formed opinions of. I believe the study said that one of the comparisons was simply sillhouettes of body shapes to eliminate facial features, skin color, etc... As well as personal opinions of celebrities. Plus, lets face it. Brad Pitt is not a big dude. Only around 165 lbs.
Note also that the study tried to create differences between sexual arousal and who becomes a good lifetime partner. If I bought a hooker, she is not going to look like my wife. She is also not going to be a nurse and a great future mother.
If you are going to have sex, do you pick the less attractive or the more attractive guy (or Girl)?
One other point. Do some people on this forum pick partners that look more like them? Some of the people here are large and so are their partners. I do not know about others on this forum. However, there could be a thing about picking people that fit how you perceive yourself. If you take care of yourself then you will tend to appreciate that trait in others. If you sit in front of a computer all day then maybe pasty skinny or plump people (like many here) start to look more attractive, because these people by their presence do not illustrate differences in your appearance. So maybe you make negative comments about someone else's appearance to justify your own and you surround yourself with what you want to see to put yourself in a certain light. Not trying to denigrate or personalize with anyone, but I think people in all walks of life tend to point out perceived flaws in others to elevate themselves.

Sounds good to me.

You seem to be completely missing my point.

You, are the minority. I guarentee it.

Sure maybe you have some friends who are into physically non-prime people, but the huge majority of people if given the decision, to be made 100% on looks, will not be choosing the chubs or iggie pops of the world.

The reason is as I stated before, "Survival of the Fittest" if you want to call it that. The "Peacock Tail Feathers" etc etc... it's all true. We, however having the ability to stop ourselves from acting on instinct (If we understand thats what it is), are no more immune to it than a horse, pig, or peacock.

I named well known actors because people in the forum will probably have a general idea what their sillhouettes look like if I commented on them. Not really to get away from the sillhouette idea. Also, I think it would be interesting if they did a wider study with specific age groups of the women. Say, 20, 40, 60. It would be interesting to see how they change, if they do.

Bwahahaha!

Hoookay, I'll be point and force myself to comfort the muscle-bound Crompsin with bad taste in music--but you gotta turn the light off! :lol:
:icare:

What can I say? I'm a double-bagger.

One on the mansword, one over the head!

(Letterman-style drum crash w/ applause)

I KNOW some of the other dudes on this board are the same way.

Muscles or not... sometimes the good looks are from the neck down.

Actually, in the context of "survival of the fittest," the peacock is a poor example here. If you want to see a peacock's tail in a human, look to the skinny, bald, fifty-something gentleman driving the new Porsche. Peacocks display wondrous tails, but physiologically speaking, the tail is a disadvantage, especially if you consider natural predators. (i.e. High viability, restricted maneuverability.) But what makes them successful in mating, is that they have survived despite this ridiculous display. The gentleman mentioned above is successful for the same reason: he has money well into his fifties and despite being bald and skinny. Very attractive.

We are talking about mating/sex, and physically the peacock tail works the same way as a toned body, they are aesthetic triggers to draw attention and create lust, or trigger the want to mate/reproduce with.

The porsche doesnt work in the same context, well, it does technically, but if you stand a bald 50 year old next to a toned 25 year old. You don't know he has a porsche unless you are told.

A porsche doesn't really = fit so I donno how it makes sense in this study.

A Porsche = fit in the sense that this 50-year-old has successfully amassed the resources to be able to afford a Porsche. There would be a likelihood that he has done so in a responsible fashion (i.e. he has also might have established assets such as a house and investments) as compared to a younger man, who wouldn't likely have had the time to amass these same resources in his youth. Mind you: I am speaking about probability, as there are exceptions.

"Fit" in an evolutionary sense (i.e. survival of the fittest) does not mean physically fit; it means fit to adaption to the environment in which you live. In a modern human world, physical fitness has limitations... this 50-year-old directly and/or indirectly hires muscularly men to produce his food, build his houses, and mow his lawns. He would be considered well "fit" to his environment and would be deemed successful enough to attract females. This would be reinforced by other factors such as intelligence, sensitivity, etc., and, to some extent, his ability to defend himself, however which way.

The Porsche acts as a peacock's tail in the sense that it is a frivolous object that may act to merely attract people's attention (e.g. younger females). What other worth, practically speaking, does a Porsche have? If you want to go from A to B, there are far more sensible options out there, especially considering limited resources.

With all this in mind, a skinny 50-year-old Porsche driver may very well be considered more valuable as marriage material than a muscular 25-year-old Porsche driver, because the 25-year-old may not be able to maintain his lifestyle and would have a higher likelihood of being "all show," as it were. How else do 50-year-olds manage to marry 25-year-olds?

Why does every girl in her mind equate muscles with stupidity and other negative traits?

I'll say this like I said before, this treats ONLY looks. These girls know absolutely nothing about the persona behind the body. Yall have your own stereotypes and you have applied them to the body type, which is what I'm sure these girls have been told not to do (for "scientific" study reasons).


What I'm trying to say, unsuccessfully apparently, is I have no doubt the majority of women prefer athletic (not Mr. Universe big) males when stereotypes of intelligence or personality are not applied.

Exactly,

and thats all the study is saying... though the fact that they needed a study to say this is kinda silly. Though I guess there are people who for whatever reason don't see it.

I know, I know - I just heard about a study that says fat kids get bullied in school.

D'uh! Probably spent 100K to figure that one out.

I was fat in school, and I never got bullied.

Anyway... I always felt that there was a lot more SCOPE in what women found attractibe then in what men find attractive.

Although... now I think of it.

When I was 11 the head mistress of my school called me a "fat slob" in front of the whole school (cos in assambly I was lounging in the corner rather than sitting up and paying attention) - and then at lunch break this kid who was 1 year younger started dancing round me calling me fat slob, so I punched him in the face and threw him into a brick wall and he had to go to hospital with concussion...

so maybe I did get bullied a little.

Be that as it may, face it, most schools have a little chubster called "Piggy" who gets their lunch money stolen daily.

Mind you, so many of the kids are fat these days it seems ...

I doubt it. A fat kid is gonna defend his lunch money harder than any other kid cos he likes his food.

I got bullied for being a skinny nerd. In fact... everybody gets bullied.

Point here: Personal evolution from teen to adult is HUGE.

(listens to Dr. Feelgood by Motley Crue)

Oh-YEAH.

Heh, I was a full head taller than everyone in the 5th grade (early growth spurt). Because of that, everyone wanted to pick a fight with the giant in hopes of beating me.

It never worked out well for them, as the early growth spurt aided my fighting abilities as well.... but it's the closest I ever got to being bullied.

Isn't the correct term "muscular". Am I being picky here....

Muscly is more fun... kinda like truthiness!

Baraka is right. It be more fun to y'argh the wordz.

We're not here to speak proper English anywho, a'ight?

Hell, the "leader of the free world" can't even do it... even WITH index cards.

Well, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

As a college girl...the survey sounds about right.
Although it might sound right, personally it's not my preference.
A lot of my friends are actually guys since my major was male dominated (architecture) however I do have some lady friends.
My girlfriends have said they enjoy a guy who's in shape although it puts more pressure on them to stay in shape and feel as physically pleasing and their male counterpart which I do understand.
I worked out pretty regularly all year and consider myself to be in pretty athletic shape.
As many of you know, JStrider is my man and while we we're both very athletic in high school and still so now, myself more than him, we both like to try to stay in shape for one another as much as possible. Not to mention it helps keeps our sex life awesome as well, being fit = great sex.

Back to my point, He's not a gym monkey or a frat brother worried about impressing the sorority girls. He stays in general good shape and does not let himself go extensively.
I go to the gym more than he does, but for some unfair reason he can NOT go to the gym for weeks and hardly show at all, and if I stop going it shows within a few days. So because of that and my job, I make it more of a priority to go. I've been talked to at the gym by the body builders but they never really catch my eye. I'm happy being athletic and toned instead of conforming to impossible standards that sororities impose on their members.

So as a stereotype, I believe the bodybuilding fraternity brothers are meant to be with the thin, perfect bodied sorority girls. They both have priorities of being in shape for their stuff so go for it. I have a life outside the gym, so does James.
And I do believe that looking for someone similar to yourself is true.
James and I have a lot in common, and we get along great. We're not completely ripped but that's ok with one another however we do make sure to keep the other in check when it comes to being shape.

So as a college girl and having read the survey...I would say it's unrealistic to how life really is nowadays in school...each person has different taste, but I know for a fact some guys spend more than 4 hours every single day in the gym, not giving them enough time for a girlfriend, let alone a real relationship. Usually they view their body as #1 instead of their girlfriend.
I wouldn't want that kind of man in my life.

This is weird. What kind of muscles are we talking about? I can understand why a lot of women don't go crazy over huge, 300-style muscles. In the same way, I don't like boobs to be disproportionately huge.
But what about guys who just look fit? Surely they do attract attention, no?

I think the muscles in 300 were CGI.

Women probably don't like cartoon characters.

...

I think the study is talking realistic human adult muscles like high school stereotypes: Football Player vs. Chess Club.

I view the survey talking about the 250 + category of bodybuilder guys.
And yes guys who are fit are nice but I believe the majority of the responders on here were talking about the 250+ lbs men.
Girls like guys who look fit, nothing wrong with that at all.
:love: *Thinks of JStrider*:love:

There's such a big difference though, a sort of ambiguity. I think I can judge the situation fairly well, but then again who am I to impose judgement, anyway here goes:

I've been fat, I've been bodybuilder large and I've been hypercut. Right now I'm normal looking, with just a tad more muscle than most men you see and I'm not particularly cut either anyway, I've got a healthy layer of fat covering my body. In my experience the way I look now is 100% the most attractive to most women.

The bodybuilder type worked great in clubs on women with a lower rank in society (sorry to be blunt, but social stratification is a fact). The hypercut look attracted VERY shallow, albeit stunning women. The way I look now attracts pretty much any woman. I'm past thinking about it in physical terms, if I can't win a woman over (mainly) because of who I am, instead of what body I am in, I don't even bother anymore, they don't deserve me.

The ambiguity I was talking about is this: in my experience, girls/women go gaga and all shaky-legs over Brad Pitts and whatnot when they see those guys on screen, but in real life they tend to go for more "normal" looking guys.

LOL:p

The sound of it hurts my head. But that's my problem. I'll try to ignore it. : (