Hey, what about the blokes?

[Liar]

Why is http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/vdl.jpg the male ideal instead of http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/jbl.jpg?



Vin should come with a health warning. Living up to that is a steroid abuse fad waiting to happen. Oh, strike that, it's one already happening.



(Nacho Libre is my new fav movie. Rented it yesterday.)

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Great idea, Liar. Of course, some of us "good ol' boys" are way ahead of you.

http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~matasar/Fat%20Guys.jpg


Rumple Foreskin

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Vin isn't even all that big. He isn't pro weight lifter or pro wrestler sized. He's actually just really marine-fit looking. Practical muscle, as it were.

And I cansider myself over weight with a bit of a pot belly, and so I have to consider Jack Black to be less than desirably pudgy, to downright flabby (he seems fluxuate more than normal people).

And unline the romans, I would rather be fit than gaunt and pale (thoguh I can't help the pale bit, I don't tan I burn).

 

[Liar]

I guess the whooshed by you too fast, TGP.

Anyway, if that chest is practical muscle and not aestethic muscle, something must have changed re. practical use of muscles in the last half a century. Point in case:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/flynn.jpg

No, I'd say cosmetic ideals changed, and gym habits followed.

 

[minsue]

No, I'd say cosmetic ideals changed, and gym habits followed.

I think you're quite right, Liar.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Thanks a lot, Rump, you just made me remember the guys who hit on me last friday...

I object. We women have been socially blackmailed into striving to look like models even if it kills us or maims us. I think it's only fair that men suffer a little steroid abuse to please US in return.

Men want slim, pretty girls with big tits - is it really all that strange that we prefer slim, muscular hunky guys before fat, hairy, ugly bozos?

 

[rise_again]

Men want slim, pretty girls with big tits

no i dont.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

do i dont.

I /do/.

. . .. ... .....

The straight up question is something like this:

Independant of all those little editorializations about "how he acts" or "I like smart men" or "I think a little pudge is adorable" (which dodges the question)...

Would a woman rather be sexually involved, even briefly and for the one time, as a matter of physical attraction and aesthetics, have this:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8459/mmc28hz.jpg
http://blogs.papermag.com/images/2006/07/072506_matthewhotbutt.jpg
Or either of these:

http://kjkamk.people.wm.edu/macho shirtless_files/macho shirtless.jpg

http://www.xxxchubs.com/young_chub/4.jpg

. . .. ... .....

I think, if all my suppositions and what the TV tells me is accurate, that most women honestly are more physically and immediately attracted to the the lean, muscular, slightly tanned, handsome fella than either the skinny, out-of-shape, pale guy or the chubby, out-of-shape guy.

Just sayin'.

 

[S-Des]

(Nacho Libre is my new fav movie. Rented it yesterday.)

I should have warned everyone...that movie is ridiculously addicting. I showed it to my daughter and now she watches it at least twice every time she's with me.

BTW, there are some wonderful women who aren't too much into appearance. The lovely one to the left (my AV) tells me she loves the way I look (even though I'm closer to Jack than Vin).

 

[tolyk]

Joe, the imageshack file doesn't work.

 

[cloudy]

Vin is hot, no doubt about it, but my guy is actually much closer to Jack Black than Vin, and I still think he's sexy as all get out.

There is much more to people than their exterior. If you automatically reject someone because they aren't up to your "standards," then you miss out on an awful lot of potentially great matches for you (as well as landing yourself squarely in the "shallow" classification).

 

[impressive]

Vision is the lowest of my senses in terms of attraction/arousal.

In fact, I don't really trust it. The visual aspect of a person is transient. It will change, simply through aging if nothing else. Thus, I don't invest emotionally in someone who is only attracted to me as I appear today, nor do I have any desire to forge a relationship with someone based solely on his/her looks.

 

[cloudy]

Vision is the lowest of my senses in terms of attraction/arousal.

In fact, I don't really trust it. The visual aspect of a person is transient. It will change, simpy through aging if nothing else. Thus, I don't invest emotionally in someone who is only attracted to me as I appear today, nor do I have any desire to forge a relationship with someone based solely on his/her looks.

Exactly.

 

[kendo1]

Exactly.

There's hope for me yet then?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

See... riding the "it depends on /who/ he is" just dodges the issue.

Let's assume all three of the examples above (Matthey McCaunehay, the skinny guy, and the chubby guy) are ALL nice, wonderful, romantic, hardworking, down to earth, loving, emotional, intelligent, sincere, stable, and absolutely wonderful guys (basically appoint them all the same personality, and whichever one you like the best in a person)...

...who'd you rather be with?

 

[impressive]

See... riding the "it depends on /who/ he is" just dodges the issue.

Let's assume all three of the examples above (Matthey McCaunehay, the skinny guy, and the chubby guy) are ALL nice, wonderful, romantic, hardworking, down to earth, loving, emotional, intelligent, sincere, stable, and absolutely wonderful guys (basically appoint them all the same personality, and whichever one you like the best in a person)...

...who'd you rather be with?

It depends on how he perceives ME.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It depends on how he perceives ME.

(basically appoint them all the same personality, and whichever one you like the best in a person)

...you can assume they /all/ percieve you in whatever way you want to be percieved, whatever is /most/ attractive to you.

 

[impressive]

(basically appoint them all the same personality, and whichever one you like the best in a person)

...you can assume they /all/ percieve you in whatever way you want to be percieved, whatever is /most/ attractive to you.

Then the choice is irrelevant. Chances are, my innate distrust of the visual is going to bias my decision AGAINST "eye candy."

 

[cloudy]

There's hope for me yet then?

pfffft.

You're a doll.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Then the choice is irrelevant. Chances are, my innate distrust of the visual is going to bias my decision AGAINST "eye candy."

So, all personality traits being equal... you have absolutely no aesthetic preferences at all?

Ron Jeremy looking fella is as good as Denzell Washington looking fella?

You have absolutely no conception of "handsomeness"? And, rather, a good-looking person gets cut despite the fact that they're a quality human being?

I think that would be, even amongst the most heartful and honest and deep of women, insanely uncommon.

 

[impressive]

So, all personality traits being equal... you have absolutely no aesthetic preferences at all?

Ron Jeremy looking fella is as good as Denzell Washington looking fella?

You have absolutely no conception of "handsomeness"? And, rather, a good-looking person gets cut despite the fact that they're a quality human being?

I think that would be, even amongst the most heartful and honest and deep of women, insanely uncommon.

Ah, but I do have a visual aesthetic. It's just not a positive factor in my choice of lover.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ah, but I do have a visual aesthetic. It's just not a positive factor in my choice of lover.

(we're going around in circles)

So, what is your visual aesthetic? And does it lie more in accordance with the McCaughnehey or the Napolean Dynamite or the Artie Lang visual?

 

[rgraham666]

Ted Bundy was good looking, and smooth as silk.

I'd hardly call him quality though.

 

[impressive]

(we're going around in circles)

So, what is your visual aesthetic?

Semantics, Joe. It's the game you play with others all the time.

Matthew McConaughey, as he appears today (I can't see the picture you posted), is "prettier" than the other two photos you posted. I am not willing to wager that that will always be true.

It's also not reasonable to assume that these men will have the same personalities. It's likely that those who've received more reinforcement of their attractiveness (in this case, visually) are going to exude more self-confidence. That, in itself, will make them seem sexier.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Semantics, Joe. It's the game you play with others all the time.

Matthew McConaughey, as he appears today (I can't see the picture you posted), is "prettier" than the other two photos you posted. I am not willing to wager that that will always be true.

It's also not reasonable to assume that these men will have the same personalities. It's likely that those who've received more reinforcement of their attractiveness (in this case, visually) are going to exude more self-confidence. That, in itself, will make them seem sexier.

O.k.

So... given that the McConaughey is "prettier" (granted), and given that they're personally all the same (possible and certainly relevant)... you would /not/ prefer the McConaughey?

Leading to the Ron Jeremy is /just/ as likely or /moreso/?