Women like muscly men....apparently
 

I stumbled accross this else where, and, well, I though the article was worthy of discussion.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...833467911.html
I personally think this article is complete tripe.

For starters, the sample range is of 141 women who in college. How is that supposed to reflect what a majority of women feel. And 99 male undergraduates, no doubt all of similar age and socio economic backgrounds.

I think many of you here will agree, sexual attraction is very much down to individual and personal taste.

What I really don't like is how insinuates that a big muscly man is going to be less suitable as a long term partner than a regular man. Or that a guy with a regular body wont be as sexually active as a muscle guy. Not only that, I feel it paints all women, based on a small sample, to be superficial.

So what are your thoughts on this article?

In a broad, stereotypical sense... I think there's some truth to that. Especially in a place like NYC. Women get pretty practical about potential partners the older they get. They're just as superficial as men - we, too, like a nice chest - but just like men look at a woman all dolled up in tight clothes and a bit of extra make up and think "score!"... women look at a muscley guy in a tight shirt and think "score!" too.

We have stereotypical expectations of these looks - they are probably programmed in from a young age, really. Think about it... in Hollywood, who's the dependable type, the nice guy (or gal)? The boy next door look, the loveable schlub. Who's having all the irresponsible (and hot) sex? The muscley one. When we're looking for a partner and not just some sex, we look at a broader picture, just like men. I'm not a physically perfect specimen, but Q wants me anyway - he wanted a partner, not a toy. But if he were out at a club (ok, stop laughing, it could happen!), what kind of girl do you think would get all the attention?

It's all in how we advertise ourselves. And a man who's bothered to get muscley is advertising.

I disagree with the study completely. I'm probably within the age group that they worked with (low 20's) and I've actually never gone out with a muscly or toned guy. Not because I couldn't I've had a few offers but because I haven't been attracted to them as an individual. My partners have always tended to be skinny or slightly pudgy (just a few love handles).

I'd rather go out with someone I can have a decent conversation about my latest computer game frenzy or the book I am reading, a guy that's willing to come and watch my dance shows and even if he doesn't want to be there pretend he does to support me then someone who is just eye candy.

Hmmm kinda shows in who I picked as sexy in the 'sexy people' thread to lol, smart, slightly awkward Dr type.

But moving aside from what is after all just my personal preference / history the study wasn't done in an overly accurate way. First of all the selection of subjects was WAY too small and all come from the same area geographically (and probably socio-economically). This also applies to the male applicants. Also ALL of these people selected have the same level of education - I would like to see how a similar studywould have gone if they had selected people working minimum wage jobs.

The entire thing about muscular men being more aggressive is completely ridiculous as well. Some muscular men are extremely concious about their strength and go to great lengths to ensure they don't hurt anyone where as a coke addict is more likely to be skeletally slender and suffer from extreme mood swings.

But yeah as you can see I don't find it very scientifically accurate.

Sorry but I don't buy it.

You fail to draw the destinction between personalit and body type. YOU are failing to see what the study is pointing out. Imagine you have the choice in body type between two guys. Their personalities are the exact same, and both will appreciate you equally. Now you get to choose between them both, would you choose the Steve Buscemi looking guy or Brad Pitt's bod in Troy.

Are you honestly going to lie and say you don't prefer Pitt?

That is all this is pointing out, you prefer the toned body type.

Actually I don't find Brad Pitt at all attractive. Maybe I'm a little odd that way but it's just working on plain physical responses, like I said that was about me and my history and personal preferences not overly about the study. I guess I tend to stereotype toned / muscly guys as less then interested in the same things I am, not overly fair to them really.

I did point out that that section of the post was directed towards my own personal preferences, the majority of women would probably disagree with me and they have every right to. As for your comment about lying, I really don't see the point in lying to a group of what are thus far faceless people on a forum site. I kinda resent the implication that if someone disagrees with what YOU find attractive they must be lying though.

Your post does not address the fact they they selected a very small and controlled group of both men and women for this study however. If they had selected say 500 from different age, cultural, religious, social and educational backgrounds and the same results had come back then I would be far more open to the results.

Fact of the matter is each society has a different opinion on what is physically attractive - look at paintings and sculptures from different periods in history, you very rarely see the nymph like women that are held up as beautiful in todays media in a Romantic era painting and statuesque women used to be the ideal. Even today different places in the world find different features attractive, many men from western cultures find Asian women attractive yet one Asian country has a 45% plastic surgery rate for women wanting to look more western.

The thing I object to in this study isn't that it doesn't agree with me and my personal preferences but that they are saying it's scientific when they have not taken into account the influence of the society these people are living in and how this effects what they consider physically attractive.

I call bullsh*t! (Throws out red flag)

See, I've GOT the ultra-chic superficial ravioli abs and tennis balls in my arms and get no play.

...

It must be my taste in music.

...

Okay, its my face. (hangs head, cries)

Crompsin I've got to be honest I have no idea whether you're talking about my points or the OP when you're calling BS

Either way (comfort Crompsin) I'm a softy, can't stand anyone crying

In another breaking story: men like breasts! More news at 11.

This makes perfect sense. Men in good shape communicate a myriad of facts about the men: perseverant, able to perform, tenacious, able to defend, etc. Not only that, but our society does tend to put the healthy muscular man shape as the physical goal. Bruce Lee and Brad Pitt probably saw more action than John Goodman and John Candy. I'd call this a 'duh' situation.

It's not the only trait many women look for, but it's gotta be on a lot of lists.

OH, MAN... BOOBS ARE GREAT!

Uh... where was I?

OH! Sure, it be a total DUH situation... but its not the have-all-do-all-screw-all that society might assume.

I've seen plenty of hotties with plenty of fatties.

Statistical necessity... god, how many Americans are fat / chunky / obese?

Pure Bullocks...


I'm pretty sure I'm a skinny fuck. And I'm pretty sure I've been with... to many women to count.

It's not the only thing women are interested in.

They also like money!:eek:

Sorry but you couldnt pay me to take brad pitt ala "troy"

Nope, dont go for muscles at all. That look does nothing at all for me. In the example given above, I'd pick Steve B every time over some brad pitty person

And that's awesome. I think articles like this one should come with the disclaimer "warning, this is a generalization derived from one study". Not all men like boobs, either.

I do think this is important IF it can spark further study into the psychology of sexuality in women. Psychology = cool.

Well, it depends on what questions the scientists asked the women who were tested. Also, the article did not say what demographic is excluded or included in a very clear way.

If it is about just first impression, then it is accurate for my female friends (approx 18-28 years old, different races and religions). Some like to look at good-looking men who pass by and make comments, but it does not mean they want sex with them.

I think the women in the study were thinking like this instead of looking at pictures to determine possible sex/long relationship partners. Humans do not really isolate factors so clearcut like science wants.

WillRavel,

Hahahah, I'll pay you to call me each morning and toss out one-liners like that men-like-boobs one in your best John Tesh voice.

That'd make my day.

How do you know about my Tesh voice?!

As in Buscemi?

The hell you say.

yes, thats who seaver put up against that waste of space brad pitt

Nothin' wrong with that. I always prefered Baily to Jennifer and Maryanne to Ginger.

/me shows my age.

I wouldn't deny that in general, a lot of women would find slightly more muscly men more physically attractive. I mean there is a certain amount of what we find attractive that's biologically hardwired. BUT, I think in light of the times we live in, it does have to be the case, and to a point isn't the case.

It's a pretty fair assumption to say "In general, women are attracted to men", but it's certainly not a rule. But it's too simplistic to draw anything meaningful from, and human relations are anything but simplicity, that's my major beef with this article. It just seems absurd to me.

Hey, not all men like women either for that matter....

I don't necessarily agree with it. Some people are attracted to the muscley type, some are not. The thing that amuses me is that when all the sudden a study says women like "hot" (I'm saying that in a stereotyped way) men, it's shocking. The reverse happens all the time!! Anyways, I think we're all attracted to different things, often inexplicabley (I don't know why I like some of the feature I do on a guy, I just do! And bodybuilder big is not on that list of things that I find attractive btw).

Tenniels, I find similar studies done into what men like just as pointless and stupid :p

:orly:

The only muscly men I find attractive are Daniel Craig and Jason Statham.

In real life, I go for skinny stick guys. Always have. Always will.

Also, given the sample size...I call BS on this study. Way too small to make generalizations.

You can't say you disagree with a study that is about a 'majority' and say because YOU don't feel that way.

The study is dead nuts on. The majority of women are going to go for a physically fit guy when given the choice between 2 people they don't know AT ALL. It doesn't mean 100% of women will. The women who choose otherwise are oddities who don't find that particular niche attractive. But the mass majority will choose physical fitness.

I don't know anyone who would choose otherwise, it would be just silly.

I don't feel that report can accurately represent what the majority of women feel given how narrow the sample is.

In my personal experience with all the women i know, I can quite honestly tell you each and everyone has a completely different tastes in what they find both physically or emotionally attractive.

Hell, I'm good friends with a girl who will loose her shit and go three kinds of moist if she sees a skinny androgynous looking guy.

still the minority

nobody wants to be with someone ugly, chances are if a physically well off dude was set beside a wimpy lil dude, or a fatass, or a chub, or whatever you want. Those friends of yours on the majority will pick the fit guy.

It's been built into us for thousands of years now, mate with the strongest, to create the strongest, and a very, very, low percentage of people who are capable of snagging a toned, fit dude, will pass that up.

Why is it "silly"? Hell I wont even visit the full monty threads cause I CANNOT stand looking at guys like that...at all....ever. I prefer a "meaty" "chubby" "non thin man". I couldnt have sex with a person like that because its actually a turn off to me

That is my preference, and I resent being told its "silly"

Muscles annoy me. They get my attention only because they look freaky, and then my eyes bounce away again. Every guy I've dated and/or liked has been the non-muscular type, so there's my data point for you.

Sometimes I hate the majority. They ruin it for the rest of us.

Personally, when I am in good shape, I tend to be more confident in myself and the increased self respect is quite obvious in the way I carry myself. I have found that women in general, find confidence a major factor in how attractive a man is to them. It may very well be that such attitudes in the men with toned muscles had an affect on the women in this study, just as it does in everyday life. When the initial attraction is coupled with a personality match sex is often the result, but without the attraction in the first place there is a smaller chance of finding the personality.
Any woman honest with herself will recognize that she too, is more attracted to a man that carries himself with a confident air, and any man honest with himself will admit he feels better when he looks in a mirror and smiles.

Well of course, that doesn't take much honesty... confidence is always sexy. Arrogance, however, is not. And in my experience, people who spend an extraordinary amount of time building their muscles in a gym (not just staying in shape, but purely for the sake of "getting big") tend to be assholes. So, there's my generalization about men with large muscles. :)

But yes, of course confidence is a great thing. It just doesn't have to correlate with outward appearances, in my book.

But that's kind of the point... for most of us, our confidence is greatly affected by our outward appearance. Outward appearances matter, no matter how much we wish it were otherwise.

Q has been gymming it up for a long time now, and has built a lot of muscle mass he never had before. Did I find him attractive and enjoy him before? Obviously. Am I enjoying the new musculature? Lots! (I have a lot of fun objectifying him regularly, but that's just me being a little silly about the hotness.)

It's funny... I notice sexy eyes just as much as I do sexy shoulders.. and I find it really odd that everyone else has such specific preferences about body types. I never did. I like *people*. But I can't help it... if I were trolling the bars for meaningless sex, I'd be more likely to target the muscley ones. In my mind, they're just more likely to go for a booty call than a guy who isn't. And if I were looking for a booty call, I wouldn't want to choose someone who I might hurt - the muscley ones are more superficial and less emotional, didn't you know? :rolleyes: /at self Is that logical? Absolutely NOT. It's just instinct based on stereotypes.

I would agree it does not "Have" to, but it seems it often does. Likely the study would not detail individual preferences, but a more general law of attraction anyway, making it somewhat useless for many.

I'm not sure what they defined as "muscled" - I doubt they are speaking of big bodybuilders but rather simply men who are relatively athletic and toned.

It's almost certainly true that, on average, women do prefer such men. Chris Farley and John Goodman would be pin ups, rather than Brad Pitt, Jason Statham and the like.

Yes, individually, some people may not be attracted to fit guys, but there is no doubt whatsoever that more women will find a fit man physically attractive than an unfit man, at least initially (i.e. first date scenario). Over time, other factors may become more important - money, personality, intelligence, etc.

Well yeah, and I agree that for certain women, if that's what their goals are, then a muscle-y guy fits their goals to a T. Nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone's up front about everything.

But I'd say that for those women who are not trolling the bars, etc... muscles are going to matter a hell of a lot less, because those "other" things that are crucial for long-term relationships are going to figure much more highly (intelligence, personality, humor, responsibility, maturity). That's what makes it so hard to generalize... different people want different things, regardless of gender.

Now Jess, I agree with you, if our previously less-muscular men are getting into the gym, I'm not one to get in the way (as long as the goal is to get in shape, not obsess over one's looks). But it wasn't an initial attractor for me, that's all.

Not me. :)

That's exactly my point! According to the survey, the more muscley guys had more sex partners than those who didn't. Because if we're just looking for sex, those are a good target. If we're looking for a good PARTNER, we almost veer away from muscley types to find a good balance of yes, hotness (is in the eye of the beholder), but also personality traits we are attracted to.

Now, clearly, we have ladies of more discriminating taste on TFP. I'm just talking generally, and stereotypically. :thumbsup:

Obviously. ;)

I can't see how this study can be accurate at all. They had a very specific type of person they used as the participants. Had they worded the results differently, maybe saying that most women in such and such an age group, etc. found muscly men more attractive... then maybe they have a point. I say maybe, because I don't ever remember being attracted to very muscly men, even in college. I'd prefer healthy, funny, considerate, smart, no need to go on, is there? And the things I looked for in a man changed with my age, with my place in life, and probably many other things.

Attractiveness is a very personal opinion, I don't see how this can be quantified.

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. : (