He and colleagues interviewed 99 male undergraduates about their sexual histories.
Because male undergraduates are very likely to be truthful about their sexual histories.
Pah.
Well, yeah. This is going to be an area where doing the research on college undergraduates is going to bring in all sorts of huge confounding social factors, like the (okay, I'm stereotyping here, but I doubt I'm that far wrong) fact that for undergrads, being a weightlifter or other athlete is going to be heavily socially correlated with being a slutty frat-boy type.
Protein shakes not working, ogged?
Are you serious? You are skeptical of the conclusion that women find muscular men physcially attractive? I mean, maybe I'd quibble about how to define "muscular." Eg. toned vs. musclebound. But really, you're not seriously skeptical that we like a little muscle on a guy, right?
You know ogged weighs a buck ten, right, Di?
Right. Several people said yesterday that that Reed poll was very indicative of a fratboy's idea of sexual experience. Same thing applies here.
I had the satisfaction of knowing that my very low score means my life is a fratboy's idea of hell.
4: Chief O'Hara, turn on the Jackmormon signal!
I, myself, have a hackneyed taste for big strong hunks of beefcake, but I know it's not universal.
On the other hand, there's this game we sometimes play of pretending that inferences are deductive in order to say, ah, I can think of a counterexample. Ferinstance, why would being musclebound be correlated with confidence and sociability? Intuitive answer: because musclebound guys get positive feedback from social interaction. The study is at least some weak evidence, no?
there's another confounder in using a college-age population.
there's a great deal of variation in the end of male puberty, such that some college boys reached full physical maturation two years before entering, and some still look like high-school kids right up through their senior year--soft features, no facial hair, etc. etc. It's just a curious in-flux period; more guys are basically adolescents at 21 (even physically) than you might think.
clearly this correlates with ability to put on muscle-mass. but that in turn means that the girls who were not digging on the less-muscled may also just have been reacting to an overall appearance of physical immaturity. i mean, no surprise that college women (who have been physically mature for years) are going to go for what look like men in preference to what look like boys. but that doesn't tell us if it's the muscles or a bunch of other stuff.
so the trouble is that college-age guys is really a mixed population of men and boys. run the study with e.g. 25-30 year olds where all the guys are, whether muscled or not, already recognizably adult men.
11: True fact. That's a weird feature of the male population from 12-22, really. (I suppose girls do the same thing, but it hits earlier and for a shorter timespan.)
11 makes a very good point. This different rate of physical and other maturation confounds the widespread social desire for age-equal relationships, which seems greater today than it has ever been.
10: You could separate it out by looking at apparent muscularity as against other measures of athleticism. Big cut muscles is a body-type, and while anyone will get more muscular if they exercise, lots of men aren't going to look like bodybuilders easily at all, while some guys do with fairly light exercise.
12: Ogged is Iggy Pop, right down to the scars.
13: not just male; thinking of my own college cohort, there were a number of women there who, at the age of 20, could have been taken for 12-14. Not very tall, soft features, round-faced, etc.
um, the other design flaw--but it's too obvious even to point out--is that the data were based on "interviews" about "sexual histories", i.e. self-reporting.
new summary: "guys with big muscles lie more about sex!"
I'm also wondering how well they separated muscularity from physical attractiveness generally. If all this says is that physically appealling partners are highly attractive for flings, but other factors become more important in long term relationships, I'm shocked, shocked.
11/13: That's true. Also, the meaning of `musclebound' is probably pretty key, too. I mean, are we suggesting that women on average will find someone who looks fit & active attractive over someone who looks like a couch potato? Is `going to the gym' shorthand for being active? That would be a pretty unsurprising result. If we're talking about the 'roid enabled and other gym junkies, my impression is that for many (most?) women there is a point where it slides from a positive to negative.
I'd comment, but I'm too busy admiring my fine-tuned chest in the mirror.
"This is sweet. Camera crews are setting up and I'm looking totally ripped."
18: Yeah, I was my adult height at 13, but I grew cheekbones at 22.
19 nails it. (At least three times more than anyone else.)
23:
Girls with fully grown cheekbones get laid more than ones without.
"Anecdotally true!"
That is the new scientific method. The professional term is "Bush Science."
Do you think I might grow cheekbones in my 30s? That would be nice.
I'm not saying I have dramatic Slavic cheekbones now or anything. I just went from having a face like a lump of bread dough to having some visible structure to it.
28: I know someone who did! 'course, she had amoebic dysentery .... but no pain, no gain right?
Is it all right to gripe in general about how much analytical political polling relies on self-assessment in much the same way? ("What do you see as the main issue that influenced your vote?") The enshrining of this kind of question seems inherently self-limiting.
Just keep spending year after year as a grad student, the face will turn hollow and sallow eventually.
16: "Big cut muscles is a body-type" Totally true. I was an intercollegiate fencer, with a side order of bicycling in the Tennessee hills, and pecs weren't in it. On the other hand, more than three partners doesn't seem like so many, even at the extraordinarily conservative place I went.
32:
...and next you'll be telling us that the longer you're in grad school, the more you get laid?
i don't think so.
31: It's hard to ask the voting machines though. In this case, there's the shocking idea they could have asked college age girls. And if the target population really is frat-boy, add highschool girls.
1. This guy has an AOL address? Are we sure he's legit?
2. Isn't there some moral responsibility for the person supervising his research to make sure the methodology is sound? I can't even imagine how you would reasonably define "muscular" based on face-to-face interviews.
You know ogged weighs a buck ten, right, Di?
Is this when he's carrying something?
28: I didn't get any cheekbones until my late twenties, so why not? (Weirdly, my face has retained at least a little of the new, exciting cheekbone shape even though I'm fatter now.)
Not-built guys? Teh hott! Built guys? Well, the one I went out with was all sort of moody and odd-looking, which lent the built-ness some frisson, but otherwise it would have been a no. So all you non-built Unfoggers out there, it may be scraping the bottom of the pickle barrel from your standpoint, but at least you're attractive to somebody.
33: Definitely. That constitutes a busy morning, but hardly an insightful statistic for career averages.
I'll join in with 19, but add (or maybe just underline) the theory of an underlying cause: a particular self-image issue in an adolescent male leads to both working out a lot and lying about sex.
The guy's page is just ghastly, too. The AOL contact e-mail only makes it worse.
I guess there's arguments to be made that this is important research. But, wow. Asking college students which of a sequence of varyingly breasts and weights they prefer hardly seems PhD-worthy.
Am I a snob?
39: Soubrz, I didn't necessarily mean "at once."
On preview, maybe you didn't either.
"Do you think I might grow cheekbones in my 30s? That would be nice."
Informal survey: Foxes get laid more than non-foxes. Schrubs mainly just get eaten.
I'm enormously entertained that *this* post is the one that makes all the boys indignant.
Now, now, guys. Women perving on studly musclemen doesn't mean that that's how we judge the men of our personal acquaintance. After all, as the study pointed out, those aren't the guys we marry.
35: College age women might just lie about sex too, you know.
44: You'll have to do better than that B .... the methodology seems, at best, a little weak.
NOW can I go out to the veldt and chase a herd of social scientists into the punji pit? Someone here must have a good recipe.
45: Tell me I don't have a good point there. G'wan.
I don't think anyone's indignant, B. They're mocking.
You'll have to beat me to it, Biohazard.
Nipples hazy, try again.
50: Of course not. Real men don't get indignant.
"Real men don't get indignant."
Not with real women, of course.
Indignation or underweight sexual frustration?
49: Are you serious B? I'm nowhere close to indignant, but pointed out that consensus among the women I've talked to about these sorts of things seemed to be that there was a sharp fall-off in attractiveness as guys got big. The toned vs. musclebound thing. That's my impression, but I'd be interested if yours is different....
Anectdotally, for what little it's worth I've been both notably in shape and out of shape, and while the former definitely accounted for a previously unheard of tendency to be watched swimming/wandering along the beach, it was by no means my most `attractive' judging by metrics of people actually hitting on me, say.
It just sounds like a poor study (although 35 is true, sure. Do you think it's more likely?).
Are you serious B?
Don't you know what "bait alert" means?
Personally, I think soubzriquet is one sexy hunk of man-meat, regardless of his fitness level!
59: Alas, the masses seem to disagree ;)
I'll be post-indignant in the post-baitriarchy.
So B, your strategy is to marry the skinny guy and make out with the beefcake?
63: Doesn't that seem logical, in an Ev Psych sort of way? For purposes of sexual conquest, the independent woman pursues raw magnetism. For selecting a partner hearthside, she pursues qualities more conducive to sustaining hearth and home. Since research now shows that the skinny guys have a harder time getting laid, that would make them less prone to be lured away by a competitor and therefore more stable for purposes of a marriage.
63: I think we've already established that I'm something of an outlier.
61 is excellent.
In 57, 'notably' s/b 'noticeably'. That's an embarrasing typo/braino.
there was a sharp fall-off in attractiveness as guys got big. The toned vs. musclebound thing.
A carefully designed social science survey* in the office just now confirms this. The women like toned/athletic/swimmer/gymnast/rugby/etc. types, not the hugely muscled sorts.
I don't think that's changed much, that's what they said fifty years ago. I'm not really surprised.
*I bought Starbucks for several women and asked them. They were not biased in any way by my largess, largness, nor lithe fencer's body.
logical, in an Ev Psych sort of way
Seriously?
The blue-eyed independent woman had better make sure magnetite and hearthside have the same color eyes. The brown-eyed woman needn't bother.
69: I thought it was widely agreed that `logical, in an Ev Psych sort of way' was long-hand for `pulled it out my ass'.
Since research now shows that the skinny guys have a harder time getting laid, that would make them less prone to be lured away by a competitor and therefore more stable for purposes of a marriage.
Hear that, ladies? Science!
73: Yeah, I figured that out right after hitting Post. I will slink away in shame now.
Since research now shows that the skinny guys have a harder time getting laid, that would make them less prone to be lured away by a competitor and therefore more stable for purposes of a marriage.
True, but would be even more true for men over 400 pounds, men under five feet tall, hunchbacks, eunuchs, and many other subgroups.
74: Slink not on my behalf. My wry wit is lost on most.
a four-foot-eight, 400 pound hunchback sounds extremely stable to me. probably wouldn't tip over in a hurricane.
toned/athletic/swimmer/gymnast/rugby/etc. types,
See, this I'm not following, unless all we're excluding is 'roided-up freaks. Rugby players can look like anything, although my stereotyped image is heavily built but not American-football huge; big guys carrying at least a little fat over the muscle. Gymnasts tend to be little, but proportionately to their height they're heavily muscled -- gymnast proportions are what I'd think of as 'beefcake'. Swimmers less so than gymnasts, but they still carry a lot of musclemass around.
I mean, very few people like looking at a whole lot of veins, but other than that, you seem to be describing people I'd call muscular.
76: I liked the subtlety, I really did. I'm blaming a mild hangover. Usually I have no excuse at all.
I have to agree with with LB. Male gymnasts are freaking buff. Anyone who can do an iron cross is muscular in my book.
Women, just stick with swimmers (whether in shape or not) being the ideal object of lust. If it doesn't come naturally for you, try.
Mmm, I spent a year in college lusting after a trust-fund hippie swimmer. He had a girlfriend, though. Then she left for the Peace Corps, and we had a short fling, that went nowhere. He sure had a nice back, though.
gymnast proportions are what I'd think of as 'beefcake'.
What? Pocket beefcake, maybe.
82:
Elizabeth? is that you? Wow! Small world.
78/80: That's true, but it's also matter of scale. Most gymnasts are pretty small (I gave it up partly because of injuries, partly because I was getting too tall, and I'm only six feet). While you have to be strong, it's mostly about strength to weight ratio, so you aren't huge. I can't think of another sport that has the same kind demands over your entire body, though, so there is no way you can do it without getting strong.
The 400-pound man comment just reminded me of some data my roommate used for a stats project, a really big survey of Brits' sexual experiences. The data showed a positive correlation between men's BMI and their having had sex in the last 12 months for all but the heaviest 20% of men. For the other 80%, gaining weight meant more sex. For women, I think the peak was the second-lowest-BMI 20%.
Dude! Ever get that bicycle-powered generator hooked up, so you could keep on writing programming manuals without consuming fossil fuels?
87: You realize that we shall all now commence with compulsively calculating BMI... ? ["Let's see... convert to kg... carry the 1... uh huh, that comes to... Oh. Guess that explains it."]
You realize that we shall all now commence with compulsively calculating BMI... ?
Candy-ass. You should already be starting each day carving it into your leg, as I do.
81: Wait, you said in the last 12 *months*?
(whether in shape or not)
I hope a tear ran down your face as you typed that, pudge.
re: 87
My BMI is embarrassingly large.* I can state with some certainty that I had more women pursuing me when I was in my 20s, and fit looking.
* However, I worked out recently, based on my body fat stats, that even if I had 0% body-fat [I know that's impossible] I'd STILL be overweight according to BMI calculations.
I think it's pretty well-established that BMI isn't very helpful, and downright misleading for muscular people.
That said, my BMI is 22.2 and you're all fat.
toned/athletic/swimmer/gymnast/rugby/etc. types
These types are pretty varied in size. LB already covered gynmasts and rugby players. I always associated swimmers with a leaner but strong body type also found in rowers, footballers and speed skaters. This is the clearly the type of figure that should be the most attractive (though some poor misled souls prefer the bulkier rugby type).
94: Mmmm, Hot Pockets.... Wait, wait, that's wrong. TJ is the Devil sent to lead us astray!
93: Yeah BMI is pretty much crap. I actually had a body composition analysis done a little while ago and even if I was at an ideal composition according to that I would still have a BMI over 30. Which is considered obese.
91: Right. This was all ages, 15 to 80 or whatever. The rates of "laid in the last 12 months" were around 80 or 90 percent, IIRC, but there were significant differences between the groups. I took it that "laid in the last 12 months" was a decent proxy quantification of overall recent sexual activity. (I'm not using the right terms for all this, I know -- never did much stats or social science, myself.) I should also qualify that my roommate was looking just at the heterosexuals' data, since the homos threw everything off.
96: Speak for yourself, tubs.
99: Crap in determining if you're fat or not, maybe. But the issue is whether it's accurate in determining whether you'll get laid.
re: 95
Yeah, and discussed on Unfogged before.
re: 99
My BMI is about 30. I am fairly fat (for me) at the moment, but even when I have a totally flat stomach and healthy bodyfat levels I'm still around 27-28.
93: Clearly, amputation is your only valid route to health.
I'm not actually all that surprised by the BMI thing. Whether it's innate or socially driven, I think from observation that a lot of people, both men and women, have a strong expectation of and preference for sexual dimorphism expressed in size difference between male and female sex partners. This tends to get expressed openly as a preference for tall men and thin women, but I think it also works to the disadvantage of thin men and tall women.
I'm not saying particularly that women find fatter men more attractive, exactly, but that a heavier man, short of extreme unsightliness, is going to pursue a broader spectrum of women, because they're going to fit more comfortably into the 'people I'm bigger than' category. And even from the woman's point of view, while fatness is generally not an esthetic plus, 'makes me feel little and delicate' does tend to be an appealing quality, and that can go with a certain amount of fatness.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to everybody, all exceptions apply, void where prohibited by law, and so on, but it seems to explain a lot of behavior I see.
78: "Muscular" is a continuum, no? Near as I can tell there's a drop-off in attractiveness towards the Muscle Beach end of the curve. Muscular gymnasts and rugby types don't compare. It's something to do with proportion but I can't nail it down.
102: Well my BMI is 34 and ogged's is 22.2 and I know I'm not getting laid, and this blog has lead me to believe ogged isn't either so draw from that what you will.
'makes me feel little and delicate' does tend to be an appealing quality
Yeah, I've heard similar things. Also, despite being a bit podgy, I do still find that I get flirted with occasionally. So it can't be a total deal breaker.
104: It was pretty funny one day when a girl told me, "You know, you'd probably get more action if you put on some weight. Girls don't like men really fit and thin. They want them to be a little overweight."
I'm not following her advice, but I will admit that my natural small size narrows the pool of dates to some extent.
While we're sharing anecdata about BMI, I will note that at my absolute thinnest ever, when I was all corded-necked and about as whippet-like as as a wide-shouldered woman can be, when my father told me firmly to "stop losing weight", my BMI was 27. As a result, I am not as demoralized by my present bad BMI as I might be, although I could sure stand to lose some weight.
105: Yeah, I guess I'm just saying that at least for me, it's not a linear drop-off, where more muscular is generally less attractive. It's more a 'Muscular is good, until suddenly you've pushed it too far and you just look weird.'
This again seems like something that's class or socioeconomic or subgroup whatsits related. I know a lot of women who like skinny, geeky guys.
111:
sigh...
i still haven't forgiven paulina for dumping me for that skinny geek rick ocaseck.
I know a lot of women who like skinny, geeky guys.
You'd more or less have to, wouldn't you?
LB, haven't you said Buck was something like 135 pounds? Is this the strategy Labs mentioned in 63?
111: Phil Spector could get dates too. Might still could, depending on how dumb the jury is.
Oh, I'm married to one. This isn't the only factor. But I'd bet that short and slight is a brutal body-type for a straight man to date with, and that slight men, whatever their height, are more likely to restrict their dating pool to women significantly shorter than they are. (That is, 5'10" 210 might be happily dating 5'9" 140, but 5'10" 145 is probably dating 5'4" whatever, or staying home.)
This is all observational pulled out of my ass, not science, of course.
And Buck's six inches or so taller than I am.
re: 110
Applies to most things, I'd imagine. In the sense that there are traits in women that men find attractive* but which, when pursued beyond a certain point, flip over into 'wierd'.
* which will vary from man to man, yada yada, all the caveats at the end of 104, etc
re: 111
Yeah, in certain subcultures, definitely. I certainly know at least one girl, on the large-ish side herself, who actively pursued skinny, geek guys. I know another who actively pursues/pursued particularly young looking guys. Usual 'everyone is an individual' caveats, etc.
109: Yeah, it seems pretty screwy. At one point I was doing a pretty good junky impression (what's the positive spin on that? Oh, yeah `heroin chic') and still only hit what must have been about 17 or 17.5. At the other end of the spectrum I've have pretty visible musculature and I think only barely made it out of `normal' at around 27. I am vastly less fit now, and probably not that much above ogged....
Hm. I'm 5'7", and half of the women I've dated have been about 5', but not consistently lighter or heavier than me.
You have to factor age into the equation as well.
As you get to be a certain age, the body-type that you like gets fleshed-out a bit. A skinny 40 year old is different from a skinny 20 year old.
But I'd bet that short and slight is a brutal body-type for a straight man to date with, and that slight men, whatever their height, are more likely to restrict their dating pool to women significantly shorter than they are. (That is, 5'10" 210 might be happily dating 5'9" 140, but 5'10" 145 is probably dating 5'4" whatever, or staying home.).
You all are depressing me so much. I'm glad I live in my little weirdo-activist bubble.
Speaking of which, as woman who has been at various times muscular and muscular-and-fat, I prefer skinnier guys (snap them like twigs!) or fatter guys or shorter guys because they've had at least some experience with not-being-a-socially-acceptable-body-type. They've had to think more about being a body and about society's standards; they've also had to develop various mental and social work-arounds for their perceived unacceptability--and almost any work-around, from the clever and successful to the weird and counterproductive I tend to find both touching and compelling. I also like guys who don't perform masculinity very well, for similar reasons.
109: Frowner is clearly organic tissue over an extremely heavy metal endoskeleton.
87: A quick bit of arithmetic reveals that, if BMI is anything to go by, I would reach peak success with the ladies if I grew two extra arms. Alternatively, I need to get hold of a medium-sized dog and conceal it under my shirt at all times.
122: There's that, but there is also a change in distribution. A lot of guys who were perhaps a little beefy in their 20s seem to jump 10 inches in waist by 40. So if you're thinking in terms of dating pools, it may be that thin guys look `weak' at 22 and `fit' at 42.
Argh. I'm bullshitting about how most people I notice seem to, observationally, behave, not trying to be normative or anything. And I do, generally, cheer for flexibility in the face of rigid gender roles and all that.
My favorite muscles are the ripply things on the sides of a slim, fit man's ribcage. They're not abs, I don't think. Bruce Li had really nice ones; all male dancers build them. Women usually can't get any definition there because our subcutaneous fat tends to hide them.
Will's not-so-subtle attempt to portray his pudge as "age appropriate"...
126: Right; and surely we've gone round this before, no? Societal pressure of couples to be height-matched a certain way, etc.
Hey, I'm still overweight according to the bmi calculator! this pleases me to no end.
127: do you mean lats? It's something that gets noticeable on gymnast/dancer/martial artist types, and is hard to differentiate on most people.
127: My guess is external abdominal obliques.
124: Alternatively, I need to get hold of a medium-sized dog and conceal it under my shirt at all times.
This, by the way, is an excellent strategy, although something cuter might work even better. Having an otter occasionally emerge from the neck of your shirt pulls in the ladies like you wouldn't believe.
As I pointed out in my groundbreaking article on the Guardian (about which ITN apparently want me to comment because Prince Harry has been bullied for having red hair, a hospital pass I think I will drop), you have to factor supply and demand in here. Most hot chicks don't like gingers (shorties, fatties, hunchbacks etc), but most blokes aren't ginger. As long as the number of hot chicks who like ginger blokes equals the number of ginger blokes plus one, I am in clover and anything more is wasted (in monogamous societies). You really have to be careful extrapolating down from these population statistics to individual cases.
It's definitely serratus. That's what those ripply muscles on the lower edge of the rib cage are called.
The lats are great huge slabs of muscle.
Having an otter occasionally emerge from the neck of your shirt pulls in the ladies like you wouldn't believe.
I've been told that an armadillo in the trousers is the way to go.
138: sure, taking these things as population statistics flies in the face of the basic fact that you date locally, and there are all sorts other, stronger effects.
Plus, I'll bet that suave Wrexham accent really goes down a storm.
140: yeah, you're right (see 139). But while lats are big and everyone has them, most peoples aren't well differentiated. It's sort of like like abdominals (and particularly obliques) that way, differentiation is as much a function of low body-fat as development.
"Will's not-so-subtle attempt to portray his pudge as "age appropriate"..."
My pudge is kid-appropriate. If you have a kid, you get an extra 20 pound allowance. Fortunately, I have two kids.
How are the swimming lessons coming?
The lats are great huge slabs of muscle.
Still with the bragging.
I think it's the serratus. Wikipedia's section on chest muscles is very confusing. It might also be one of the intercostals, but it's definitely not lats.
re: 144
yeah, I have really wide shoulders and big lats, more a function of genetics than any attempt to make them bigger. Totally covered in flab though. So no differentiation at all.
It goes down like a shower of shit in Wales, but elsewhere in the world it is mistaken for Manchester which is all right.
re: 146
I have to take the chances for self-aggrandisement where I can get 'em!
Notions of what type I liked, and why, and what it meant and so on, tended to go out the window in the presence of actual women. So looking back, a fairly heterogeneous mix of sizes, types, complexions, etc.
Is this not usual, or do many of you find all your lovers have been physically similar?
148:
But, it is muscular flab, so you've got that going for you.
No, no, not abdominal obliques. Hell, even I have those.
140: The only reason I am not sure on seratus is that it seems they should be mostly under the lats and pecs. The external abdominal obliques on the other hand are not covered by other major muscle groups.
124: Well, it's true that I've never broken any bones, but on the other hand I do float. And my arms are feeble. Maybe I just have a bionic ribcage and everything else is ordinary meat.
If you have a kid, you get an extra 20 pound allowance.
That's only if you're the one that actually gave birth to the kid. Nice try, though.
"do many of you find all your lovers have been physically similar?"
All have had vaginas and breasts (natural or otherwise). Most still had a uterus. Some have had kids. Some tall. Some short.
Almost all brunette. Several red-heads. One blonde.
154: yeah, but they peek out (under the right conditions). I'm pretty sure JM wasn't referring to obliques though, they are too far down.
153: See here for muscle group I am talking about.
external obliques
138: Also, any genuinely peculiar feature is likely to generate strong preferences one way or the other. Someone who likes redheads is probably quite enthusiastic about it, given that they're thin on the ground.
"That's only if you're the one that actually gave birth to the kid. Nice try, though."
Totally incorrect. The birthing gets rid of weight.
Everyone knows the weight gain comes from after the little bastards come out.
159: gah, i'm forgetting my anatomy (to be fair, it's been 15 years or more since I paid any attention). That wasn't the ones I was thinking about!
CJB gets it right. I think Jackmormon is thinking of the obliques.
161: sort of like the freshman 15?
160: The ones looking for the viking kittens, yes.
Look at this picture of Bruce Li (scroll a bit down). Do you see the sort of diagonal muscles between his upper six-pack and his massively overdeveloped lats? They're even more visible on male dancers because the lats are smaller.
160: I'd think that any genuinely strong preference (for a common or uncommon trait) would generate a better predictor. The problem with truly unusual traits is that the pool shrinks fast.
It makes sense that dancers have well-defined obliques.
170: There is defnitely a dancer/gymnast/(some)martial arts similarlity that way.
Now I going to goggle and ogle pictures of a shirtless Nureyev.
"Now I going to goggle and ogle pictures of a shirtless Nureyev."
They use his pictures to advertise D batteries.
Ah, right. On some people (bodybuilders and also martial artists, etc) there's a sort of array of 'squares' just above those which are the serratus. Or at least they are referred to that way in the training literature.
176: Not if you're down with the gente.
"Bruce Li" seems to be the stage name of one if his impersonators.
I remember a photo spread in the old Life sometime in the late sixties about the dancer Edward Vallela. Pretty pron now that I think of it. These muscles very evident.
"Is this not usual, or do many of you find all your lovers have been physically similar?"
For whatever reason, among those whom I stayed with for some time, most of their faces are similar (esp. their eyes), but their bodies have been wildly different. Among those whom I didn't stay with, no correlation whatsoever.
Gayest unfogged thread OF ALL TIME.
FWIW, muscular in terms of "big and strong" doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference, and might even hurt dating prospects because it shades so easily into fat. Muscular in terms of "cut" seems to make one more attractive regardless of body size, though I wouldn't know personally. Also, dancers and gymnasts are generally tiny little lithe dudes, who have a lot of muscle for their small frames. Does any woman ever say "ooh, I love that linebacker body type"?
It also seems like there's a limit to how much sexual dimorphism people really want. 5" height difference, sure. 8" or 11" height difference, maybe a little stranger?
Does any woman ever say "ooh, I love that linebacker body type"?
Er, yes. I hear women express a preference for rugby players and rowers all the time.
Heh. A 6'10" college friend married a 5'1" friend. Admittedly, it didn't last, but man they looked odd together. I lost touch, so I don't know why the marriage ended, but I've speculated that it was fear of childbirth.
Aha! You can see some of the relevant musculature here.
I dated a 6'6" or 6'7" guy for a while. His height just got annoying, but then, so did he.
182: Rugby players are getting bigger, but they are still a *lot* smaller than linebackers unless I've missed something (not that I've been paying attention). In my perhaps inaccurate model, rugby players would all mostly fall into the `really solid' category, while linebackers are heading off towards `freak of nature'.
I actually can't remember if the guy I'm talking about was 6'8" or 6'10" -- from down here the difference wasn't apparent. And the girl might have been 5'4" -- I remember her as short, but my mental image of short goes up to 5'4" or so.
182: well that's nice to hear. Seems less prevalent where I've been, but maybe that's just because the ratio of nerds to non-nerds everywhere I've lived has been skewed.
My paternal ancestors for several generations were champion rowers, so I think it's fair to say I have a rower's frame, but not a rower's fitness (by a long shot). No opinion on what this does or doesn't get me.
What's the consensus on the sunken chest and huge thighs of a bicyclist?
188: Well, are we talking NFL linebackers, or guys who were linebackers when they played high school or small college football? I use 'linebacker type' to mean 'big strong solid guy', even though anyone you run into on the street is going to be an eighth the size of an NFL player. Those guys are freaks.
189: at my middle school, the tallest guy (maybe 6'6" and growing) was dating probably the shortest girl (maybe 4'8") and they got no end of shit and abuse about it. They did look odd walking arm-in-arm (sort of).
Look, can we get to the point? Fontana Labs, hot or not?
187: also, that guy, rather than being muscular, is incredibly skinny.
185: see, but I think a woman's definition of "big and strong" starts a lot smaller (and shorter) than would mine. If I saw a guy who was 5'8" and in excellent shape, it would never occur to me to think of him as a big, muscular type.
193, I'm 14 inches taller than my fiancée. I think it bothers her sometimes. She'll see women who are much shorter than her on the street and say "Am I that short?".
194: We'd need to see a series of shots from different angles of him in a Speedo, allowing us to discuss his merits and demerits, to reach a conclusion.
191: A lot of sports have tells like that, and if you are doing it at an international level you look odd, no doubt about it. Cyclists can't afford the weight of upper body strength.
I saw a poster somewhere of an olympic rower standing beside and olympic cyclist -- both of them sprinters. It looked like someone had swapped two bodies at the waist in photoshop.
Okay, if you're that much taller than your fiancee, and she's running into women 'much shorter' than she is, I think we have a rival to Labs for most ridiculously sized member of the Unfogged community.
198: What? Rowers need huge legs, that's where a lot of their power comes from.
198: wait a minute, I totally screwed that up, it was an olympic kayaker.
re: 188
I think you're missing something. Rugby forwards are BIG. Martin Johnson (recently retired England captain) was 6ft 7 and weighed 262lbs. That's tall for a rugby player, but not a freakish outlier. In terms of weight, a lot of rugby backs (i.e. the smaller, quicker guys) are around 220lbs on more.
NFL linebackers may be bigger, but they aren't massively bigger.
. Martin Johnson (recently retired England captain) was 6ft 7 and weighed 262lbs.
Aren't LB's substantially bigger than that?
Okay, she's 5 feet tall. On the rare occasion that she sees someone who is like 4 foot 6, she notes that that person is extremely short and stands out from everyone else, and starts to need reassurance that that person is significantly shorter than she is.
8" or 11" height difference, maybe a little stranger?
Labs is in trouble.
My daughter's 5' 11." My wife is concerned that her choices are more limited because of it, and was hoping for not-so-tall, even though six-footers seem to be quite common, at least at Northwestern, the place I see the largest number of young women these days.
also, that guy, rather than being muscular, is incredibly skinny.
What?! That's Rudolf fucking Nureyev! Look at that definition! Come on. Okay, lemme find some action shots.
a hospital pass I think I will drop
Is this a Britishism, or a dsquared exclusive? What does it even mean?
202: I'm not a real sports person, so I may be wrong here, but I've sat through this discussion a couple of times, and I think non-Americans tend to underestimate the freakishness of American football players.
Linebackers aren't necessarily more than 260 pounds. The real freakish ones are the tackles.
202: he would probably get creamed as a lineman in the NFL, but would make an excellent linebacker if he can run, so okay.
Seriously, though, in some NFL positions, like center and left tackle, the people are basically inhumanly large. I'll note that kid isn't even in the NFL yet, since he's only 19. Even runnning backs in the NFL regularly get pretty damn big, although it sounds like they're somewhat in line with rugby backs.
Ah, I conflated linebacker with lineman. I always do that. Have I mentioned how superior the NBA is to all other pro sports leagues?
191: It creates a surprisingly feminine physique. Which is fine, but I admit that if asked, I'd say, well, maybe you oughta try and balance things a little bit with some time in the weight room.
202: Ok, well that's why I left the caveat. I played a little in school, but it was in north america where the sport isn't popular so my feel for national standard teams was a bit weak other than a sense that the guys were getting bigger. And this was a while ago.
207: To the extent I've seen this play out with my big sister, yes her choices are more limited (that is, there are more men who won't consider her as a possibility at all), but she'll make it up on the drama factor -- pretty and average height is one thing, but pretty and very tall tends to make people's heads snap around while they start figuring out how many children they're going to have. I'm sure she'll do fine.
215: I also note that my heading towardss `freak of nature' comment was probably better aimed at other positions, as 212 points out.
re: 204
Really? I didn't think so. Having a quick google, the incoming drafted NFL linebackers were all smaller than that. I think your overestimating how big NFL players are relative to sportsmen from other sports that also favour size, strength and power.
re: 209
If someone is passing you the ball in rugby, and there's the almost certainy someone is going to tackle you hard, it's a hospital pass. Taking it is likely to end in injury.
http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl?cc=global&search_word=hospital+pass
The great photo of Willie Shoemaker and Wilt Chamberlain seems apropos. This is approximately what my encounter with Chuck Nevitt looked like, except that neither of us was as nicely dressed.
208: see, I'm not saying he's not fit. He's fit, but also really skinny. I could work out for 20 years and every day I would look a little bit less like that. He also doesn't look very tall.
Anybody who excels in an activity that is all about flinging yourself to and fro absent external resistance is going to be fairly short and skinny, because you need less body weight to be able to jump way up in the air, etc. That's why professional gymnasts are all tiny.
Even if Labs and Dr. Oops wouldn't, for reasons of proximity or otherwise, work out as a couple, shouldn't they be producing children? Talk about the ultimate supergeek: gigantic, athletic, and v. smart.
221: regression to the mean takes care of that to some degree.
If someone wants to surrogate, I'll talk to Dr. Oops about the egg donation. We could get w-lfs-n to design a philosophically appropriate curriculum/mode of child rearing and create a true monster.
re: 215
I played a bit at school, too. We all did, it was part of normal physical education classes. I was tiny though, at that time, and there were all the kids who had had their hormonal spurt early. So there's be a bunch of 13 year olds weighing 100lbs being thrown about by another 13 year old who had chest hair and weighed 160lbs.
I've been watching the Tour, and have noticed that the shoulder and arm development of the riders can vary somewhat even at what is the sport's very highest level. The two guys in yesterday's long breakaway were as 214 describes, but the arms and shoulders of the rider who crossed-over with about 40 k to go were much less "feminine."
225: he was a sprinter, they need more upper body strength because they do a lot more standing. Similarly, the really good climbers tend to be the littlest guys on the Tour.
Clearly the photo in 219 proves that evolution has selected Shoemaker to stay home and raise children, and Chamberlain to make lots of money and run for public office.
We could get w-lfs-n to design a philosophically appropriate curriculum/mode of child rearing and create a true monster.
OMG. Imagine w-lfs-n's little bitchiness married to a physique that allowed him to not only note your failings but enforce all corrections. A more grammatically correct world, surely, but a better one? This needs thought.
221: Aren't they in relatively close proximity these days?
Sifu, Nureyev was my first object of lust. I won't be having you harsh on him. (I can't find any good pictures of him doing what male dancers actually do spend a lot of time doing: hoisting ballerinas up in the air.)
223: I'll gladly provide the womb for such an experiment.
225: It's the climbers that are really lopsided, since every ounce they can shave off helps. There are different specialities in the sport. Velodrome guys can be pretty unbalanced too.
I don't even know where to begin; i'm sure i have like 10 opinion on this, all of which unpopular. I will say taht the body-type women usually actually like is exactly the sort that isn't obvious from underneath clothes. Average looking dudes and hot lick-me chests look exactly the same under all but the tightest tshirt. Huge he-man body types are obvious through clothes, though. Its almost like an extra layer of prevention of direct physical arousal for girls prior to sex time.
230: really, I'm not trying to harsh on him. I'm just saying that's he's not "muscular" in a way I, as a guy, think of the term. He could probably not lift me in the air, for instance, while this dude undoubtedly could. Not that it'd be ballet.
I know you westerners think all east coast states are the size of Rhode Island, but you can get a fair amount of distance and still be in the same state. And Dr. Oops is occupied elsewhere these days. An egg donation, in the interests of science, might still be arrangeable, of course.
It seems like guys tend to use "muscular" to refer to the amount of muscle mass, while women tend to use it to refer more to muscle definition regardless of mass.
235: Yes, but what would that guy do after he lifted you? Nothing conducive to a healthy relationship, I'm guessing.
237: right, which is why women can say "I love muscular guys!" and then point to somebody who weighs maybe 150.
224: It was never in the standard program here (`soccer' was, though) so fewer people played it. We must have played at around the same age --- so I know exactly what you mean about the sizeing thing. There was a real problem with matching up props. I played hooker for a while, and my props were about 6" different in height for a while.
Its almost like an extra layer of prevention of direct physical arousal for girls prior to sex time
What is?
238: sometimes it's okay to hit.
238: he could then lift him *15 more times!* Actually, it being Cro Cop, he'd probably set you down in order to kick you in the head.
He's fighting again in early September, right? Very excited.
228: This needs thought. I'm surprised. IMO, it just needs technology and a little planning. The really big guy has been a genetic anachronism ever since the invention of the cross-bow.
Also, JM, found an example of those muscles for you.
244: is he? The site only lists Couture/Gonzaga and Jackson/Henderson.
104 "I'm not saying particularly that women find fatter men more attractive, exactly, but that a heavier man, short of extreme unsightliness, is going to pursue a broader spectrum of women, because they're going to fit more comfortably into the 'people I'm bigger than' category. And even from the woman's point of view, while fatness is generally not an esthetic plus, 'makes me feel little and delicate' does tend to be an appealing quality, and that can go with a certain amount of fatness."
I think i said this before, but taller girls seem to only like me if i'm all dominant acting, shorter ones i can get away with nice guy stuff more often. I think its the same dynamic, only abstracted away from the pyshical realm.
I know you westerners think all east coast states are the size of Rhode Island, but you can get a fair amount of distance and still be in the same state.
Yes, I'm aware of this (I lived on the east coast for four years, remember), but I had thought Labs's unknown-to-me location was fairly close to Dr. Oops's for some reason.
If womb privileges could be revoked, 231 would be grounds.
225: Oh, the Tour. That's why my boyfriend hasn't spoken to me all week. How could I not remember?
250: see! All this "girls like big, muscular guys" stuff? Lies! Lies!
but taller girls seem to only like me if i'm all dominant acting, shorter ones i can get away with nice guy stuff more often. I think its the same dynamic, only abstracted away from the pyshical realm
Now that is interesting, and seems plausible on its face to me.
Sifu, you weren't around when I told the story of my one date with an extreme fighter guy. He was bragging about how much bigger he was going to get when he went back into training, and that was pretty much the end of it for me.
a rival to Labs for most ridiculously sized member
You jest.
242: The fact that the body type preferred isn't actually detectable until clothes are removed. A some what muscled, cut looking guy will look almost the same in most clothes if he stops working out and keeps relatively similar body size, just with more fat and less muscle.
the body type preferred isn't actually detectable until clothes are removed
That just isn't true, yoyo. Maybe not everyone can read vertebrae alignment the way I can, but posture and movement betray a whole lot.
253: What part of caveats do people not understand? But seriously, Tweety, there are three axes on which you could measure muscularity, and you're ignoring two of them. You seem to be relying on sheer pounds of muscle alone. There's also muscle mass in proportion to frame size: that is, an out of shape 6'4" slob probably has more muscle mass than a 5'4" 140" 5% body-fat gymnast, but I'd call the gymnast more muscular. Little, but muscular. And then there's body fat, which lets you look at the muscles or hides them, and if we're talking about esthetics, that's going to be a huge deal.
255: yikes, I'm not saying you should date Rampage. I thought we were talking purely in physique terms here? Not like you were going to date Nureyev, either.
259: Movement makes a huge difference. Also, afaics you don't get that from a gym (which is also telling).
257: Sort of, though there are things like posture and ease of movement that tend to reveal more than you maybe think.
I thought we were talking purely in physique terms here?
What does this even mean? Anyway, JM's preferance for the skinny guys is well-known.
261.--Well, Nureyev is dead, but he did swing both ways, afaik.
260: right, what I'm saying is that I use "muscular" to refer to size and strength. I understand that women have a different definition, and I understand this is why I have cognitive dissonance when women say "I like muscular men," and then go for 5'4" 140 lb. dudes. Perhaps I am the only guy who thinks this way, but I sort of doubt it. What's wrong with using "cut" or "fit" to refer to those guys?
234: Most shirts certainly make it less obvious how good your pecs are, but I think it's a hell of a reach to say that average and hot look "exactly" the same under "all but the tightest" shirts. They may look exactly the same under thick shirts that are a size too big.
Six months ago, I was about 200 lbs. Three years ago, I was about 180 lbs, and way more muscular. I'm 6' tall, so neither of those weights is off-the-hook crazy, and I was never someone who looked like a body-builder. My experience was that I got TONS more female attention when I was fitter, while wearing perfectly normal clothes.
"Muscular" because on the cut or the fit you notice the muscles?
Rugby players and [i]rowers[/i]???
rowers are all way skinny.
WHen i was on crew i was the same weight as everyone else, and that was at about 6 inches shorter than the rest of the guys. And i'm on the cut side, not he-man side naturally.
267: I wonder how much of this is in the face? It seems to me most people have a threshold weight above which it suddenly shows up --- a girl I knew once loudly complained to me "I only gained 6 lb's, how come it's all on my face?"
What's wrong with using "cut" or "fit" to refer to those guys?
Those words also have other meanings that could be confusing in this context.
By `in the face' of course I don't mean that anyone literally gains significant weight there, but there are subtle changes that are overall very noticeable. And always visible.
Okay. I'm going to stop arguing with everybody else in the thread. You weirdos can use words to mean whatever you want them to mean.
266: Would you call this muscular cause he is about 5'5" and 160. Also this is about what I would think of for a male gymnast.
272: when I gain weight it goes right to my chin.
Sean "the Muscle Shark" Sherk (5'6", 155 lbs.), muscular. Larry Allen (6'3", 325 lbs.), probably the strongest guy in the NFL, but not muscular.
270: Probably a substantial amount of it is in the face. I personally can't tell -- my face looks the same to me at 180 and 200 -- but there was a particular point in my weight loss when suddenly all my coworkers were, like, "Oh, hey, have you lost weight?"
In terms of making your fitness obvious, short-sleeve shirts are also a big deal. But, honestly, if you wear fitted tee-shirts -- even not very tight ones -- both pecs and amount of weight that you're carrying at the belly are pretty obvious. Oh, and a friend tells me that guys' butts are pretty obvious in most common fittings of pants.
"That just isn't true, yoyo. Maybe not everyone can read vertebrae alignment the way I can, but posture and movement betray a whole lot."
That sounds more like athleticism or just confident bodylangugage to me, but you could be seeing something else.
And just about EVERY shirt guys ever wear is too big. Unless you buy in europe.
"And just about EVERY shirt guys ever wear is too big."
Yoyo has small pecs.
271: What other meanings could 'cut' have in this context?
281: I guess the distinction is being made between muscular and strong. That is, at least as I follow this thread: 340lb tackle is strong but not (particularly) muscular, 140lb gymnast is muscular but not (particularly) strong.
It makes sense to differentiate this somewhere. If you are a 400 lb 5'8" guy and walk around a reasonable amount, your legs are stronger than the vast majority of `fit' peoples are. But I don't think anyone is going to call you muscular.
284: I think `cut' is primarily about definition, which has at least as much to do with body fat percentage as it does with development.
287: well, I wouldn't have put him in the `not muscular' pile either, but I think I know where people are coming from with that.
Another edge case: power lifters.
ok, i finally found a picture. This is much better fitting than most shirts i see guys wearing. I can't tell if he actually is cut, but lets assume so because he's a model. He could gain a lot of gut before it would be noticeable. He doesn't have HUGE arms, but i also can't really tell how big they are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/dwb/BananaRepublic.commenshirts_1184178231000.jpg
Here's something I have an irrational strong opinion on: it's spelled "circumsiSed." God, that drives me crazy.
In fact it's spelled "circumcised", but whichever.
Crap, you're right. I was getting hung up on the S thing and overdid it.
291, 292: Hm, I really fucked that one up, didn't I? My bad.
The thing is, I wouldn't call high-body-fat-but-incredibly-strong-football giants 'not muscular' -- I just wouldn't privilege frame size over proportional muscularity.
294: That's why we just say "cut" on craigslist.
289 et al:
Here in America we are civilized, traumatized, and privatized, but many of us are circumcised. Why is this word different from all other words? I personally like the Anglo variants, but Word disagrees.
298: it's not. Incision, precision, circumcision.
I still have to disagree with gymnast being used as the example of high muscle definition low strength. Have you seen male gymnasts perform? Those guys are probably in the top 25% for strength.
The ending of the word is from a different root.
Someone said gymnasts were low strength? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
re: 30
Yeah, their strength relative to body-weight is amazing.
Well, size matters -- I'm sure football players tend to be stronger than gymnasts because they're just so much bigger. That doesn't make gymnasts weak, it's just that they're remarkable for their strength-to-weight ratio, not for their raw strength.
298: Word is a tool of the devil.
They might be only truly remarkable for their strength-to-weight ratios, but they're objectively pretty fucking strong.
304: I bet they are up there on raw strength too.
Now, these 240lb NFL players who can do standing forward flips? That's just insane.
309: Sure. I'm just saying that at any equivalent level of performance, the bigger guy is probably going to be stronger. NFL players are stronger than Olympic gymnasts, high school football players are stronger than high school gymnasts... it's not always going to be true, but it's the way to bet.
300/302: CJB, Brock, I used to be one.
It wasn't `definition' it was `muscular'. Gymnasts are unquestionably strong, but not *particularly* strong in absolute terms, which is what I was pointing out. The outstanding thing about gymnasts is the strength to weight ratio. In fact that's what it is mostly about, which is why you are screwed if you are too large, you'll never develop enough strength to compensate.
I've met some guys who were abnormally strong for gymnasts... but I've also met much stronger guys (who would be hopeless at gymnastics)
309, 310: guys, they're tiny, and they have a vested interest in keeping their weight down. I would imagine there's not a top-level gymnast in the world who's as strong as the weakest (non-kicker) NFL player.
312: No, that's not what 285 said ... and definitely not what I meant (see 314)
Well, size matters
I knew it.
317: Just keep remembering 260.
314: To be fair I only watch gymnastics at the Olympic level so I don't know if the build gymnasts have at that level is representative. I know I wouldn't want to get in a fight with the ones I've seen and I'm 6'1" 260lbs. and weight train fairly regularly.
316: Sorry that is how I read 285. If that isn't what you meant then I withdraw my complaint.
As I recall, during one of my academic sojourns at a small New England university back in the days before most of you were born, the men's fencing team were the campus studs. And not just because their outfits and stances emphasised the family jewels...
Okay, so I am going to change my controversial assertion slightly. I would argue that if there were two fit men, with clearly visible, well developed musculature, who were otherwise equally attractive, with equivalent body fat percentages, the one who was 5'9" and 170lbs would get more attention from women than the one who was 6'2" and 220lbs.
As I recall, during one of my academic sojourns at a small New England university back in the days before most of you were born, the men's fencing team were the campus studs. And not just because their outfits and stances emphasised the family jewels...
That's because they were all from wealthy Europe families, duh.
319: At the time I knew a few guys who competed at that level. There is no question they are incredibly fit. Hell, even the younger ones like me were much more fit that almost all of our school mates (5-6 days a week training will do that) . But the thing you have to factor in is how small most of these guys are. I guess it depends what threshold you want to use for `particularly strong' but since the conversation seemed to be talking about exceptions like national/interanational ranked atheletes --- then gymnasts as a group aren't going to stand out in absolute terms. Walk all over your average joe, of course.
Did you get that backwards Tweety or am I misunderstanding what your initial assertion was.
325: Yes I was talking about raw strength in terms of the population as a whole. I assume NFL players are probably mostly in the top 10% of the population as a whole.
319: do you see them up close in person or on TV? It's almost impossible to tell how tall somebody is on TV. If you ever got in a fight with an olympic gymnast you could probably just lay on top of them until they got tired of struggling. They really are pretty darn short.
323: because life aligns against me, that's why.
326: no, that's what I meant. Women who say they like guys with big muscles do not generally mean big guys with big muscles, they mean little or average sized guys with very visible muscles. Is my fairly unsupportable, theoretically controversial theory.
In fact as a population as a whole it is probably closer to gymnasts top 10% NFL top 2%..
328: From the stats I have seen they seem to be around 5'6" which while not tall isn't exactly jockey height either. If I was laying on them they could probably bridge me.
I would say that's flat wrong. I'm not stating this normatively, I disapprove of stereotypes, your mileage may vary, and so forth, but on average, height and size are sexually advantageous for men. Not to an unlimited extent, there's a point where anything gets weird, and individuals have individual tastes, but for the two guys you described, you're wrong.
I see we've now accepted the fact that women like hot guys, and are now merely arguing over what counts as hot.
Keep going, boys. You'll get there eventually.
329: I assumed by equal definition they would proportionately muscled and women do seem to like taller to a point. So I would guess 6'2" might win. Actual women welcome to correct me.
I would want them to arm-wrestle first.
In fact as a population as a whole it is probably closer to gymnasts top 10% NFL top 2%..
I think that probably massively underestimates how exceptional both groups are. I'd be surprised if anything like 2% of the general population were NFL-player strong. Hell, I'd be surprised if 2% of adult men between say 20 and 45 were that strong. The same would apply to any sport, I'd imagine. I'd bet that far less than 2% of the population have the cardio fitness of a Tour cycle rider, etc, etc.
331: yeah, I was actually thinking there's a problem with my example. Maybe I should put it a different way: the ideal of how a "muscular" man should look is almost impossible to achieve for tall, big framed people. Guys who are 6' tall and naturally big will never get the strength to weight ratio of, say, a gymnast, and if they do it'll look weird and bulgy and weightlifter-y. The combination of leanness, chiseled musculature and normal human proportions is pretty much only available to naturally skinny (or short) people.
You know what? What the hell am I arguing, and why?
I forfeit. 6' gymnasts with bodies like ballet dancers for everybody!
336: See most of the NBA, for example.
6' gymnasts with bodies like ballet dancers for everybody!
I don't know, I've never been with someone that tall. It would take some getting used to.
338 cont. And of course the NBA players have a noticable difficulty getting dates.....
I don't get this "NFL player" standard. Are we talking Orlando Pace, or Eli Manning?
341: that problem has already been discussed, and I think the `standard' was abandoned.
336: Oh, that's true. The perfect Greek statue body is much more likely on a guy who's 5'9" than 6'3" -- bigger guys usually end up leaning toward either gawky or blocky.
The combination of leanness, chiseled musculature and normal human proportions is pretty much only available to naturally skinny (or short) people.
You'd like this to be true, but we all know that you just need to get to the gym more often and stop pigging out after bedtime.
342: awesome. Kick to the head! My initial thought is he'll wreck that guy, but he's been somewhat iffy the past couple years.
Did it really take this long to establish that guys who are between 5'10" and 6'2" get more action?
In other news, C-cup sized breasts are apealing to more men than F-cup.
re: 345
You are spoiling things with facts.
You know what someone needs to invent? A firefox plugin that only allows a certain number of unfogged reloads per day, that's what.
335: You are correct I tend to be over inclusive when pulling statistics ex rectum. I am just going to stop guessing. Point being gymnasts high strength when compared against population though maybe not if compared against NFL and Weight Lifters.
350: And in still other news, virtually all men have no idea what they mean when they talk about cup size.
I see we've now accepted the fact that women like hot guys, and are now merely arguing over what counts as hot.
Keep going, boys. You'll get there eventually.
I feel like you're making a good point, but I don't know what it is. If the questions whether, all else equal, people prefer more attractive partners...well, that can't be the question, can it? If the question is what counts as attractive, I think LB's right in #331. But that's not really determinative as to who dates (or sleeps with) whom, in my experience. Other factors predominate, especially as you get older.
351: I'm trying to erect a scaffold for the clue bird to alight on.
re: kickboxing, CroCop,etc. I sparred with someone in the UK men's national team (s/avate) recently. It was an interesting experience. Only took two weeks for the bruises to fade!
355: I think Bitch is just pointing out that women are shallow about this stuff too.
No, I'm pointing out that this whole looks thing is destructive to the self-esteem, and that the "but I like fat chicks/skinny guys, personally" argument is irrelevant, and that talking about "standards" about what "men" or "women" as a group find attractive, as if attractiveness were something that could be objectively measured, is fucked up, pointless, stupid, and cruel.
To ev. psych types, yes. All our shallowness is supposed to be directed at your wallets, not your pretty obliques.
361: so who's to say we don't know that and are falling on our swords here in order to provide a bit of balance to the world?
All our shallowness is supposed to be directed at your wallets, not your pretty obliques.
Gawd, we never should have let you get jobs.
Where is the art expert to respond to B's attractiveness is all subjective argument?
363: The first half of the thread, in which everyone's sputtering about how that is not true, rather than actually analyzing why the issue would matter at all.
That and my certainty that there'll be some "check out the hot model" thread again in a few days.
361: I think that's what I thought you were saying, and I think agree with all of that except "pointless." "Fucked up, stupid, and cruel" falls into the "feature, not a bug" category.
365: I'm not sure (ask B) but I suspect that's not the argument that she's making. It's more what d^2 was pointing out earlier -- whole population statistics aren't useful, and in most cases even framing the discussion that way has negative effect and little utility.
366.1: that was just so the hurt and disappointment would feel more real. We want you to know we've experienced the unfairness of it. It's a journey, you know?
That and my certainty that there'll be some "check out the hot model" thread again in a few days.
Well, right, obviously. In a perfect world everyone will feel equally bad.
351, 367: how the heck do you know what I look like?
The first half of the thread, in which everyone's sputtering about how that is not true, rather than actually analyzing why the issue would matter at all.
No, nobody actually sputtered about how this was not true (possible exception: Beefo Meaty starting with 181). Nobody was indignant when you said we were indignant, and nobody was indignant afterwards. Stop pretending that the male ego is so fragile.
Stop pretending that the male ego is so fragile.
Because it hurts our feelings when you do. Snf.
Hey now, I certainly wasn't arguing against women being lookist. I was being pedantic about the specifics, so I could define them away from me personally being attractive. Neurosis weaves its tangled web.
370: Yup. If Dsquared *had* caused the genocide in Rwanda, I'd totally rethink it because he's pretty damn smart about everything else.
so I could define them away from me personally being attractive.
You know, it could be your personality.
375: Don't worry --- any sort of globally `attractive' features can be trumped by local details, so you're (or your neurosis) safe that way.
345 didn't say anything about how you looked. Just that saying tall people can't be lean and muscular and normally proportioned isn't really true.
377: nonsense. I am kind, agreeable, and beloved by all. This should be obvious from my online persona.
376: Have you noticed, he also has a way of swanning in here, saying something insightful, and then dissappearing for a while? Probably off somewhere being productive, too, the bastard.
373: Oh, please. The post itself was indignant, and the initial comments were as well. Maybe once we iron out the "let's stop subjecting our judgments about what's attractive to approval by the group" issue, we can move on to the "it's okay to have feelings, and you'll learn to recognize them if you just stop being so defensive for a minute" thing.
I mean, it's hard, but so is being lean and muscular and normally proportioned at 5'10". The difference is people are more likely to notice most men taller than 6'2" and so will have an accurate idea of how many are L/M/NP, while I imagine that the vast majority of normal-looking 5'10"-6'0" men go unnoticed.
381: Yeah, because he's smart enough not to bother hanging around and hashing out obvious conclusions.
I for one am finding the cycle of "guys spend 50 comments hashing out What Women Want, actual live woman comes in and shoot down the theory" hugely amusing. Please do carry on.
381: Wow. For a minute, I thought you were describing me! Then I read B's 384 and realized that no, I'm not that smart.
382: There's been similar indignation greeting a number of other pseudo-sciencey "studies" with garbage methodologies. Just a few posts below this one everyone tore into the stupidity of the Evo Psych misogyny.
What is your actual point anyway? Everyone knows that you can find people into nearly anything, and pretty much everyone can also acknowledge that certain features are found more universally attractive than others, and most everyone in this thread seems clear that we're discussing the latter. You're almost baiting me into oggedian comments about not falling for your baiting, which seems like a horrendously convoluted way to get your kicks.
385: You forgot the part about how one "actual live woman" = "all women." That's a good one, too.
From Gawker
That's when I realized: John Krasinski is the only celebrity who, given the chance, I would really and truly want to do it with. Weird, right? Aren't we all supposed to have a list? And isn't the list supposed to include, like, Brad Pitt? Personally I wouldn't ride that taut-faced gayseemer after having adopted Angelina Jolie's pussy. And while there are other celebrities I find... compelling (Paul Rudd, and Irish hottie Aidan Gillen, and Dominic West from 'The Wire'), there's no one else I'd actually say yes to. He's my Claire Danes, if you will. Who's yours?
Seemed relevant. And interesting, as a female friend or two has had experiences (or not had them) that are in line with this. I suspect that it's ala's "what would a world in which a woman could really be slutty look like?" driving this.
"331: yeah, I was actually thinking there's a problem with my example. Maybe I should put it a different way: the ideal of how a "muscular" man should look is almost impossible to achieve for tall, big framed people. Guys who are 6' tall and naturally big will never get the strength to weight ratio of, say, a gymnast, and if they do it'll look weird and bulgy and weightlifter-y. The combination of leanness, chiseled musculature and normal human proportions is pretty much only available to naturally skinny (or short) people."
I am not sure that 'frame' correlates well with one's disposition to be either skinny or fat. It just correlates with sideways-size. the big framed person will look weightliftery though, not adonisy.
380: Maybe it's because you're ethnic? "Sifu" is Yemeni, right?
384: If smart people felt the need to avoid hashing out the obvious, the archives would be a twentieth of their actual size.
392: damn, it is racism, isn't it?
390: I think the more relevant question has to be, "what would a world in which men were honest about what they find attractive look like?" As opposed to the world we have now, where what men say about what they find attractive has at least as much to do with their desire to not rock the guy boat as it does with the actual women they're discussing.
384: It's a trick I really need to pick up. I mean, I always realize when I'm doing it, but somehow that rarely stops me.
396: seriously, do you think this is significantly different for women? I mean, I don't think the women I've known (well enough to have any insight about this) have been particularly more honest about this than the men --- in different ways, perhaps)
396: "pretty much any woman who's nice to me and not 40 years older" makes for some boring-ass locker room conversations.
I knew she'd successfully bait you if I left. Mentally weak, all of you.
I try to only be baited into rebutting things that are obviously false descriptions of the very same conversation in which we are now engaging, but it seems like even that would be best left unstated.
401: These are not the droids you're looking for.
401: you're just pissy because they scientifically proved you won't get a date.
401: they don't call me Tweety Fish for nothin'.
As opposed to the world we have now, where what men say about what they find attractive has at least as much to do with their desire to not rock the guy boat as it does with the actual women they're discussing.
I know what you're getting at, but I don't think that's quite what is happening on the male end (caveats in place). People have different dating strategies. Pher example, there are guys who won't date someone they like because they don't find the person particularly physically attractive, and there are guys who do. The latter guys are invariably happier, from what I can see. Which is to say that I'm pretty suspicious that there is anything stable or dense about what people find attractive in other people. Some people have figured that out, and some haven't.
I still find it hard to believe that ogged doesnt have a BMI in the upper 20's.
399: I think women spend a *lot* less time constructing arguments/beliefs about what "women" find attractive, yes. I think women tend more to acknowledge up front that what they find attractive, individually, is individualized, and if anything, to take pride in bragging on the guys they think are hot who *aren't* standard beefcake types.
Which isn't a "women are better" argument, btw. It's a "*the* definition of what's attractive in men doesn't perform nearly as much cultural work as the idea that there's *an* attractive female type" argument.
That and a plea, I guess, to stop playing the "who shall we as a group perv on now" game. It would be *way* more interesting if there were a thread where you guys were honest about the specific kinds of women you, specifically, think are attractive and why.
No way. Ogged is tall and relatively thin. I'd guess 6'1"-6'2" and 180-190. Mid-twenties, if that.
396: Isn't that just a fractal of a world where people are so unafraid of the judgment of others that they can be honest about all their tastes/opinions?
I know, I know: "It's an impossible goal, so let's shut up and never try to change anything" isn't really constructive input.
A guy who tells bitchy (in a good way) chicks that he has a wide range of idiosyncratic ideas of beauty isn't necessarily being more honest than one who talks with his buddies about young, skinny, stacked chicks.
406: Not talking about dating. Talking about talking.
Ogged, I think that revealing that "not letting oneself be baited by B" includes "not letting oneself be licked by B" pretty much means I'm gonna win the hearts and minds here.
the specific kinds of women you, specifically, think are attractive and why.
Easy ones. Less work.
I'd guess 6'1"-6'2" and 180-190.
I love you, Jake. 6', 165.
It would be *way* more interesting if there were a thread where you guys were honest about the specific kinds of women you, specifically, think are attractive and why.
Okay, here you go: Women who are shorter than I am and don't have large sagging breasts. Within that range, personality/poise/education/things in common trump any physical attribute.
I like discussing the minute distinctions between idealized women better.
Pher example, there are guys who won't date someone they like because they don't find the person particularly physically attractive, and there are guys who do. The latter guys are invariably happier, from what I can see. Which is to say that I'm pretty suspicious that there is anything stable or dense about what people find attractive in other people.
The thing is, are the latter guys dating people they're really not physically attracted to, or are they in better touch with what they are physically attracted to even if it's not high-status pretty? I've been all over this thread being shallow about pretty men, but while I haven't been involved with a lot of pretty men (the short fling with the hippie swimmer was probably my prettiest) I've never slept with someone I wasn't physically attracted to. In fact, the strongest physical attraction has probably been with the least conventionally attractive partner.
I'd say there are more men (not all, but more) hung up on 'high-status pretty' as opposed to 'what makes my own personal dick hard.'
6'2" and 180 puts you at 23.1.
You have to be completely free of muscle to be that skinny.
It's like every few months B decides that she wants Unfogged to be completely different.
418: It's evolution. Back on the savannah we were always redecorating our caves.
"I'd say there are more men (not all, but more) hung up on 'high-status pretty' as opposed to 'what makes my own personal dick hard.'"
Yea, but who wants to answer "viagra?"
396: What about looking at what men look at in porn? Since usually thats not purchased to look cool. Mostly young blondes and brunettes with long hair, large boobs, low but not unhealthy low bodyfat; a smattering of Othery-types like asians, a small volume some specific body parts like Big 'uns, and a few weirder things like necro.
408.1: I find this attitude a lot amongst nerd/weirdo type guys, which I suppose buttresses your point.
Maybe guys don't talk about the specific kinds of women we find attractive because we don't have a clue? I find women I actually meet attractive when they embody one of the many sets of attributes [smart, cute, funny, nice to me, mean to me] that presses my buttons. Since every woman I've dated has fit that "ideal" in a completely different way, how the hell am I supposed to know?
In the meantime, pictures of aesthetically pleasing women are, you know, aesthetically pleasing.
421: Oh, please.
Maybe guys don't talk about the specific kinds of women we find attractive because we don't have a clue?
Wait, strike that, reverse it.
424: so then we find an intersubjective consensus that Jessica Alba is a babe, and we talk about that, and we know that it's pointless and irrelevant to real life. Excelsior!
"I don't like musclebound guys, I like Ewan McGregor!" = "I don't like those centerfold types, I like Allison Hannigan!"
or are they in better touch with what they are physically attracted to even if it's not high-status pretty?
I guess I doubt that most people can say "that's what I'm physically attracted to" and have that hold up over any length longer than a night. Famously if inaccurately, guys will sleep with anyone. If that were true, what would "physically attractive" mean for guys?
However! Lest this turn into YET ANOTHER thread about What Boys Like, I'll say for the record that I, personally, am usually attracted to guys on the slimmer side of average, with or without visible muscular definition (not that that's a bad thing, mind--just not required), that I've dated men from 5'8" to 6'4", that Mr. B. is, in the words of my little sister, "the only guy I ever dated who actually had a body," and that yes, I've dated fat men too. I think the one thing that really matters to me is that a guy have a strong jawline (not a ridiculously jutting one), and that he not have puppy-dog eyes, which irritate me.
personality/poise/education/things in common
this could be expanded to "personality/poise/education/things in common/voice/sense of humor/friends/all kinds of other stuff". Those are the important criteria, and the physical criteria are basically for identifying who I would never be sexually interested in even though we are mentally compatible.
Unfogged is now Bitch's own personals ad.
429: yeah, sorry about that.
So, facial hair, any thoughts?
426: Ewan McGregor *is* totally hot. But then so is Brian Dennehy, even though he's about eighty years old or something. And Kevin Bacon--I don't care about his snub nose or wispy hair, I just think he's got that wiry sardonic thing going on that totally moistens my knickers.
Lest this turn into YET ANOTHER thread about What Boys Like
That's exactly what you requested that the thread should become, dammit. (see 408) What this actually was until you came along was a thread about what constitutes "strong" and which people are stronger than others.
facial hair, any thoughts?
Depends on the face, and the hair.
435: she wasn't asking your opinion, she was telling it to you.
Jessica Alba is not, in fact, hot. She has an elaborate disguise to make her appear hot to the untrained eye, but I see right through it.
436: okay well see, I was trying to get things back on track, here.
Moustache on Jessica Alba: pro or con?
417: Ok, something doesn't compute. It's not like I known these numbers, and I only have a rough idea of how much I weigh. But when it came up before I looked here which puts your 23.1 in the upper half of the `normal' range, but you are suggesting that it's very skinny?
435: No. I was requesting that we have a thread on that subject in lieu of the next "hot actress" thread. And I thought that before I "came along" this was a thread about What Women Like In Men, and whether guys who are thin but muscular could get laid as often as guys who are not-thin and muscular. Which is a dumb question.
But! Now that my point's been made, I'll shut up. Carry on with comparative BMIs.
Famously if inaccurately, guys will sleep with anyone. If that were true, what would "physically attractive" mean for guys?
I think the key point there is 'inaccurately'. Again, generalizing from myself, when I said that I've slept with guys who weren't conventionally attractive who I nonetheless was physically attracted to, I don't mean that I have a specific type I'm looking for that most people would call unattractive. I've been all over the map. That doesn't mean that there aren't guys I find physically unattractive, all the way to skin-crawlingly repugnant. It's just that there's not an easy way to generalize who's going to be who.
And I think this comes around to Bitch's point about how inhumane this sort of thing is when sexual attractiveness is treated as if it were an objective standard. For almost anyone, someone's going to honestly be physically attracted to them -- not settling or lowering their standards, but genuinely into them. But the way beauty gets discussed, you'd think that 90% of the sex in the world happens between objectively unattractive women and men who find them kind of repugnant, but have uncontrollable needs.
Yeah, but Brian Dennehy generally doesn't get mentioned until someone feels the need to make a point about their own wide and varied personal tastes.
It's the same function that, say America Ferrera or Hellen Mirren serves to a hetero guy in this sort of conversation. "Have I mentioned I like an old/fat/big-nosed person? How many points is that worth?"
441: what about skinny but out-of-shape guys vs. not-skinny but out-of-shape guys? Now there's a puzzler.
Take it upon yourself to commandeer the Hayley Panetierre thread and make it your experimental new thread, then. Or start one at your blog in which you are clear about what you do and do not want people to say. That worked for the "sexual things men/women don't talk about" threads.
389: See, that's the best part. "Wait! JM said you all liked skinny guys! Wait! LB said you all liked beefy guys!" I've just been kicking back and waiting for the subject of hair to be introduced.
...aaaaaaand 433.
"when I said that I've slept with guys who weren't conventionally attractive who I nonetheless was physically attracted to, I don't mean that I have a specific type I'm looking for that most people would call unattractive. I've been all over the map."
I think it is great that you can speak so openly like this. Most women are afraid/ashamed to admit that their sexual conquests have taken them all over the globe.
I've tried really hard to get into the spirit of this thread, but I can't seem to get off the sidelines.
Also, re: 426, if I were gay I'd have a total crush on Ewan MacGregor. As it is I'd put up a big poster with the Mark Renton/Spud milkshake shot, but I think it would flip me. And it's Alyson Hannigan. Get it right.
NZ is about as far as you can get from NY.
For almost anyone, someone's going to honestly be physically attracted to them
A (fat) friend of mine who is, imo, incredibly attractive, phrases this as "it doesn't really matter what you look like, someone out there wants to fuck you." We've discussed having this printed on tshirts.
Okay, shutting up now.
412: Lies. If that were true, B wouldn't have been complaining about not getting any at the DC meetup.
452: And just one letter away. It's a funny old world.
Most women are afraid/ashamed to admit that their sexual conquests have taken them all over the globe.
LB can be seen describing her experience here.
444: I'm not buying it, 'cause that calculator puts 6'1 and 190 at 2.51 in `overweight'. Now, not getting into the whole density of fat vs muscle and how generally useless BMI is, but I'm 6' and at 190, heck at 180 I have noticeable muscle (that is, people notice). I've got a light frame, obviously. One inch can't make that much difference.
Wouldn't it be a problem that people might lie about whether or not they're getting some, with rate of lying covarying with whatever relevant variable? Have any of the women expressing preferences discussed men's shoes, or other sartorial choices?
Queen Latifah, now that she acts.
I think my point, if I have one, is that it's not just hetero guys who take the opinions of others into account when they talk about whom they find attractive.
And among hetero guys, it's not just the other hetero guys they're worried about.
If you're an openly feminist chick, and a guy "opens up" to you and admits he likes all sorts of girls he doesn't talk about to the other guys, odds are he's being just as honest/dishonest as he is in his other conversations.
He's just tailoring his message to a different audience, is all.
One inch can't make that much difference.
Of course it can't, dear.
It would be *way* more interesting if there were a thread where you guys were honest about the specific kinds of women you, specifically, think are attractive and why.
And yet, 400 demonstrates why it wouldn't be very interesting after all.
461: your intentional misreading aside ... we're the same height and roughly speaking weight range, sounds like.
Yeah, a lot depends on your frame, and Will is underestimating how much muscle can be on someone 6'2" 180. My "base" weight, when I'm only running a lot, is 150. 165 on my frame makes Jake, whom I love, guess that I weigh 180.
I watched a show a long time ago that looked at standards of beauty. It was really interesting. If I recall correctly there was some standard things that people found attractive across culture and time. It was fairly general things like facial symmetry and shoulder to hip ratios. Taste in the actual size of people tended to vary culturally, but the ratios staid fairly consistent.
So I think there may be something like a standard of beauty in that if you fall into certain categories most people will find you attractive. Now most people find other people outside that standard to be attractive as well, but there tends to be more deviation in what is attractive outside the standard.
Well, yeah. I've only met you once, but you don't look nearly as frail as your height and weight make you sound.
I know, I know, B will say I'm lying here, but I'd have a pretty hard time saying what specifically I find attractive in women.
This isn't 'cause I'm all SNAGy and only care about people's inner beauty, or some such bullshit. And it's not because I find all women attractive. I'm shallow as hell. I just have never been able to come up with good universal rules for what is and isn't attractive to me.
It would be *way* more interesting if there were a thread where you guys were honest about the specific kinds of women you, specifically, think are attractive and why.
I like fat chicks!
This isn't 'cause I'm all SNAGy and only care about people's inner beauty, or some such bullshit. And it's not because I find all women attractive. I'm shallow as hell. I just have never been able to come up with good universal rules for what is and isn't attractive to me.
I feel the same way. It seems like women spend more time looking for ways to rationalize why they are attracted to certain men and not others. Jawline, shoulders, posture, calves...
165? No shit. I would not have guessed that I weigh a third again as much as you.
Given the nature of the Unfoggedetariat, I think that B's thread about what kind of women specific men find attractive would not include a lot of honesty. There's too much moral and political weight attached to it, especially here.
I think that B's thread about what kind of women specific men find attractive would not include a lot of honesty. There's too much moral and political weight attached to it, especially here.
Hey, I gave it a shot in 415.
Also, seriously, people. The biggest selling point for the BMI is that it's easy to calculate, not that it's accurate. Bodyfat percentage is much more useful.
What would be interesting is pictures of people where the BMI was actually accurate since I have no idea what body type would fit it well.
Ogged:
165 is frail. Make no mistake about it. No muscle.
It looked like you dodged the question, or at least denied its relevance.
Q: What do you specifically find physically attractive in a woman?
A: Personality/poise/education/things in common trump any physical attribute.
165 is frail. Make no mistake about it. No muscle.
Is it your well-developed belly-muscle that makes you kick so fast?
173: BMI works pretty well for me -- at 5'7" 165 I'm just over the line into overweight, and that's about what I look like. Not bad, but just over the line.
464, 466: I can verify this. I'm never mistaken for frail or tiny despite having an even lower BMI than ogged (about 10 fewer pounds on a 5'10" frame). Short is a different issue, one which we've discussed in other "men have weird standards" threads.
475, I could name specific women, but not specific kinds of women. That's the whole thing. And of course, I don't have a database of photos of all the women I've ever met that I could post up here and say "I found these 12 extremely attractive, these 28 very attractive, and these 42 semi-head-turning". As a substitute, I could talk about an actress who embodies attractiveness in some way, but that is apparently unacceptable.
477: Do you know about what your actual body composition is and if that matches? Since I don't have a picture of you I can't really judge by your looks.
The numbers in that earlier BMI link looked like they might be for women only. There's no way that I should near the median healthy weight for men of my height. Any man at 5'10" and over 174 lb is overweight? A guy of the same height who weighs 140 lb is normal weight? Bizarre.
Oh, body fat%? Not a vestige of a clue. Sorry.
481: As far as I know there isn't a different formula for men and women.
450 gets it mostly right, except that I'm not even sure I want to get off the sidelines. My best shot at starting something is to note that hanging around my wife all of these years has made me a lot likelier to form judgments on guys' looks, even though mine aren't necessarily the same as hers and I have basically zero interest in screwing guys.
As far as I know there isn't a different formula for men and women.
WHAT? How did anyone EVER take it seriously?
408: I have, on two occasions, had women who were trying to seduce me explain that they weren't into conventionally attractive men.
Hm. According to that calculator, my honey has a BMI of 17.9, which puts him in the range of "underweight."
486: That's certainly an interesting approach. Did they succeed?
"Is it your well-developed belly-muscle that makes you kick so fast?"
The sport is called "swimming," not "kicking."
488: That's terrifying. He is, currently, alive?
488: why, I'm almost old enough to be your honey's BMI's father! Shameful.
488: I have to concur with 491, I don't think I have ever met a guy ,assuming your honey is a guy, who was underweight according to the BMI.
489: Yes, both. What can I say? In those days, I was easy.
489: Hey, if the song is to be believed, it worked for Janice Joplin wrt. Leonard Cohen.
488: That is somewhat scary. Even at just under 22, I have a couple visible ribs.
How tall is he? In general, a very low BMI will be ever more freakish the taller the person in question is.
I'd have to lose over 30 pounds to match your honey's BMI. But I understand that learning to cook Iranian food is a long and difficult process.
488/491: I hit what would have been those sorts of numbers at one point, but it wasn't anyone's definition of healthy.
491 was me. Has anyone actually met this guy? JM's not Antoinette Hopkins, with a skeleton in her room that is dressed up as a boyfriend, is she?
Buck was that underweight when I met him. He's up to normal weight now.
Lowest BMI I ever had was 20.4, and I was really unhealthily skinny.
He's 5'10", very alive, and eats ice cream regularly. He just doesn't gain weight.
500: All he needed was a good woman's honest love.
Now I know why you think Nureyev isn't skinny.
497: Do it! Don't let that bastard win.
When I was in college, I was 5'10" and 165 pds with a body fat of 5 percent. My 23 would have put me dangerously close to overweight.
483: I know the formula for BMI is the same for women and men, but I thought there were different ranges for what is normal vs overweight vs underweight depending on gender.
On checking Wikipedia, this assumption was incorrect. Wow. Those are some terrible assumptions about body composition right there.
Sadly, he got a tobacco lawyer.
508: Close enough for government work.
According to that calculator, I've actually gotten down to around 17, but I was not doing so well then.
LB:
Tobacco lawyer?
hey, your firm has a Richmond office, doesnt it?
507: yeah, it's a pretty vague number
I feel the same way. It seems like women spend more time looking for ways to rationalize why they are attracted to certain men and not others. Jawline, shoulders, posture, calves...
Not this one, I haven't a clue. Being not too tall and not incredibly short seems to matter to me, and maybe not being too "pretty", but otherwise I dunno, I like the looks of who I like and I don't have a system.
5'10" and 125 pounds?
How many arms and legs does this guy have again?
511: Nope. Big tobacco hires a whole lot of lawyers.
I've seen pictures of JM's honey, and he doesn't look unhealthy. Just very slight of build. All you fat, decadent Americans better step off.
One thing I have anectdotal evidence for is that people who think they `don't have a system' (like me) might have one they aren't aware of. I've been in a couple of conversations where someone said words to the effect of "I don't have a system", only to be jumped on by a friend of long acquaintance saying they were crazy, and every one of their exes had whatever in common.
508: Friends whose son is buddies with our son had him very late and were convinced until they got the amnio that they were going to have a girl. From time to time over the years, they mentioned that in his presence. Result: in second grade, for a "my family" poster for open house at school, he produced one that said something like "my parents really wanted a girl but instead they got me." Oops.
519: great moments in parenting: volume III
518: I know what the women I've dated have in common, and it's not a good thing. So I prefer to imagine I can transcend that "system".
I've seen pictures of JM's honey, and he doesn't look unhealthy.
You weigh eight pounds more than a decent breakfast. I'm not taking your word for it.
I've met JM's honey. He's definitely skinny, but he seems reasonably healthy.
When it comes time for it, my honey will be able to handle the RPG-launcher just fine.
521: Pronounced syphilis, right? Happens to the best of us.
Huh, there was a period in college when I was at 18.5, according to that calculator, and I know full well that I was way too skinny then, not the low end of normal, and was also eating basically nothing. Weird, I would have thought that being a 5' 4" woman of fairly slight but definitely curvy build -- narrow shoulders and tiny wrists, with tits and bulgy thighs -- would be pretty likely to line up with the standard calculator. I do come in as plain old normal now, which is accurate.
529: It seems to me the only real virtue of this BMI thing is it's simplicity. Maybe it's pretty good averaged over populations, I dunno.
I'm guessing that what all of Tweety's ladyfriends have in common is that they're all batshit insane.
I've met JM's honey. He's skinny but looks totally healthy. He's not scary skinny at all.
When did we start having 500-comment threads every single day?
Speaking of scary skinny, there was this girl I was on jury duty with who was a fright. Her size zero clothes were just hanging off of her and you could have encircled her upper arm with your finger and thumb. Like, Holocaust-victim thin. I thought a breeze would blow by and snap her pelvis.
538 - This from Mister "sigh. it's so quiet around here".
536: see? Ogged is a good guesser.
538: Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, mostly.
539: I knew a girl like that in college, maybe a little less extreme. She had a wierd metabolic thing going on though, and ate 5 decent meals a day (at least, I believe her on the others, I'd see here eat an early lunch and a lunch lunch, bigger than mine)
Does he have all of his limbs, JM? Because if not, I think you have to weigh him with the prosthetics. Otherwise, it's just cheating.
I already made that joke, 544.
One thing I have anectdotal evidence for is that people who think they `don't have a system' (like me) might have one they aren't aware of. I've been in a couple of conversations where someone said words to the effect of "I don't have a system", only to be jumped on by a friend of long acquaintance saying they were crazy, and every one of their exes had whatever in common.
My mom told me that she'd noticed that all my girlfriends were shorter than average. I thought about it, and I guess that's right. But why? Maybe because taller girls of my generation seem to be more likely to get involved in athletic stuff, and hanging around with athletic people makes me feel vaguely inadequate.
But "all the women I have dated are batshit insane" is a) fairly common, and b) has, in my case, been occasionally interpreted as a result of them being the only ones who would put up with my shit rather than the result of any preference on my part.
But the "and why" part of B's question seems to be in large part "because they resemble my first actual girlfriend." Which can't be healthy.
I knew BMI was screwed up for me, but I didn't realize it was this universally messed up. When I've been "normal" people have expressed concerns about my health.
(Although I have to say, when I was about 10 pounds above normal, I was in the best shape of my life, even if I did look like a stick figure.)
Ewan McGregor *is* totally hot.
Funny how many women seem to individually reach this conclusion.
540: That's just on weekends (and now that I have a job, I see the appeal of commenting during the work week). But seriously, even during the week we didn't use to have this many comments.
546: I probably wouldn't have used that term myself, but as long as I'm letting people guess.
Usually guys who say all the women they've dated are insane are in some way insane themselves, but mostly unable to see that. I am obviously no exception.
But the "and why" part of B's question seems to be in large part "because they resemble my first actual girlfriend." Which can't be healthy.
Your mother is not your "first girlfriend."
518: So possibly part of this is what constitutes a system.
If you looked at my dating history, you'd probably find that something like 30-40% of the women I've dated are asian. On the one hand, that's over-representing the population as a whole, and that's not coincidence. On the other hand, it's not like I only date asian women, nor even do I have rare exceptions to the rule. How do you codify that, if you're trying to describe your preferences?
I think we decided a while ago that guys who date Asian women are sexist.
Guys who date asian women ever? That had to have been a heck of a thread.
554: Tough break for straight Asian women.
Ogged is baiting. No one said that.
Some people think that Asian women are meek and men who love them want a subservient woman.
Those people have never dated an Asian girl.
That had to have been a heck of a thread.
Oh, it was.
I was making a joke. The last time dating Asian women came up, it got a little heated.
Ogged misspelled. Guys who date asian women are sexiest.
Ogged is racist or at least whiteronormative, saying "guys" when he means "white guys".
At one point a majority of girls I'd gone out with were from Hungary, with the remainder being Zoroastrians. But those trends have flattened out as n increases.
560: I imagine I blocked it out.
550: Oh, I can see the ways in which I, too, am insane. Quite clearly.
For added amusement, the girls in question all generally date men that are more or less the same as me, and also more or less the same as their fathers. It's great fun, since it reduces the already small dating pool in San Francisco by another order of magnitude.
565: oh dear me. I certainly hope we haven't dated the same people.
558: Culture matters, PC bad, yadda yadda, BUT: if, as appears to be the case, "Asian" is being used to mean "Asian-American", the key bit in making cultural generalizations is the "American" part, not so much the "Asian" part.
Having said that, it's not a terrible generalization as generalizations go.
the already small dating pool in San Francisco
Dude, if you think that dating pool is small...
568: it's small all out of proportion to population in SF because of the gay community. You'd be amazed at how incestuous it gets.
Ewan McGregor is starting to get a little puffy, though.
565: haven't dated s/b aren't dating
566: One would certainly hope that. But you are much funnier than I am, which I think should mitigate the overlap.
What percentage of the women you dated a) are shorter than 5'9", b) never played sports involving "smashing bitches", c) are not very close friends with people who smoke crack, and d) are not extremely bitter about being a lawyer?
572: well, I don't know what "smashing bitches" is, and I'm pretty sure none of the women I've dated are lawyers, so I think we're in the clear.
Although a) and c) had me briefly worried.
Well, some other woman has the ball, and is clearly a bitch, and therefore must be smashed. At least this is how I gather it works.
Besides, aren't you in SoCal?
"smash the bitch" = "smear the queer" for ladies?
548: Generally people who are put forward as "sex symbols" are marketed as such--they and their publicists make sure that only attractive pictures of them get into the media, they take attractive roles, etc. Think about Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich, or whatserface in the movie about the serial killer. If "pretty" actors tended to play character roles a lot more, then their "universally-agreed upon prettiness" would probably be a lot less universally-agreed upon.
Re. "I don't have a system," maybe the problem is that men are just dumb about being able to observe and describe. Probably Hopefully because it's been beaten out of them by subtle messages about how "boys don't like pretty things" and "boys don't care about clothes" and nonsense like that.
Clarified to state that from watching games, there are short, skinny, fast women who run around with the ball, and larger, slower women who smash them and each other. In the team that I was familiar with there was also a lot of confusion over sexual identity.
581: or maybe we just don't want to reveal it, in case Jessica Alba reads these threads and doesn't fit the profile.
In the team that I was familiar with there was also a lot of confusion over sexual identity.
This would not be characteristic of rugby players I have known. A variety of sexual identities, but generally expressed with great certainty.
In the team that I was familiar with there was also a lot of confusion over sexual identity.
I'm pretty sure there are strong lesbian stereotypes assoicated with women's team field sports: softball, field hockey, rugby...
581: Men specialize in observing and describing. We've got ratings systems and everything.
578: Funny how so many women agree that the pictures the publicists select are hot.
586: It's because of our commitment to science.
583: Or because you're skeered of talking about your True Feelings.
586: See, that would be my argument, except that the boys are all, "gosh, I dunno, I never even thought about it."
587: You must be right. Back on the veldt, thin Scottish men evolved characteristics that would ensure that they would attract the vast majority of women, which is why thin Scots are now the richest, most successful men in the world.
B I like this "three arguments at once!" style. Very-Kasparov-esque.
In any case, of course I don't want to talk about my true feelings on the internet. What kind of crazy person do you think I am?
587: It's one of the many advantages inhereted from the Scottish veldt. I'm somewhat concerned they don't all acrue to emigrants, but hopefully some of it sticks.
589.2: It's just that not everyone can truly realize their commitment to science in everyday life.
589: I'm just sayin', while there are plenty of problems with making grand pronouncements on What Men Like and What Women Like, you pretty much can draw some general conclusions about those things, and just talking about them doesn't necessarily mean you're making any the usual mistakes.
586: See, that would be my argument, except that the boys are all, "gosh, I dunno, I never even thought about it."
In what way is this a mystery? Let us consider the various ways in which it could go awry.
Guy A: "I don't have a particular type of woman, it really boils down to individual attributes."
His Friends: "Whatever, dude, everyone you've dated in the last five years has been short, asian, and bitchy. Much like your ex-wife. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and they are all different in their own ways."
Guy B: "Well, I happen to find tall athletic blondes in their mid twenties with large boobs really, really hot. Man, do they give me a woody."
Horde of Women: "You tool of the patriarchy! Your standards are completely unrealistic and directly contribute to the fucked-up mental and health status of American women. Besides, you're old, pudgy, and married. What makes you think those women would have anything to do with you anyway? Bastard."
Guy C: "I am strongly drawn to unconventionally attractive women who are highly educated and spend all their time commenting on blogs."
Unfogged Commenters: "Nice try, is still not going to sleep with you."
Where's the upside?
591: Probably not, since obviously the only reason anyone would emigrate from the Scottish veldt is because he wasn't able to find a mate, and therefore carries highly undesirable recessive traits like lacking the precisely correct BMI to attract women.
Fucking html entities.
Unfogged Commenters: "Nice try, <female commenter X> is still not going to sleep with you."
I thought we'd established long ago that Guy C would, like, totally score.
596:
"But I will still lick your face."
597: If so, Guy C has been remarkably quiet about it.
re: 539
There's a girl I spar with occasionally who's like that. It freaks me out.
You know, in Scotland, we don't call it the veldt. We call it the 'carse'.
Who is the sluttiest Unfogged boy commenter? We seem to get all tales of frustration or monogamy, and none of catting around. The girls mix it up a little. Am I wrong?
593: To which my response is that Men and Women are not monolithic entites. Not even if you capitalize them. So while you might be able to say (duh) that people who are picked by Hollywood to be sex symbols, and are therefore groomed and photographed carefully to present aesthetically appealing images, generally are found to be aesthetically appealing by most of us, leaping from that to concluding that "men like women who look the way Angelina Jolie looks when she's been prepped to appear in public" or "women like men who look the way Ewan MacGregor looks when ditto" involves at least half a dozen identifiable assumptions and fallacies that make statements about "desirable body types" and the like just meaningless.
(Also, in 594 "Horde" s/b "Monstrous Regiment.")
601: The boy commenters don't want to seem like braggarts. (Hence Guy C's silence noted in 599.)
601: [Everyone with strong opinions whistles and looks at the ceiling.]
w-lfs-n has slept with every woman who has ever commented on Unfogged.
You know, in Scotland, we don't call it the veldt. We call it the 'carse'.
"Out on the moor, women needed to have more subcutaneous fat so they would be more buoyant and insulated if they sank into a bog when gathering berries and fibrous plants".
Clearly, the "I'm just a sucker who can't get laid" thing about the dudes here is just a rhetorical trope. The only guy with more cred than a guy who brags about sex is a guy who openly says he doesn't. It's like the gay chicken paradox, in which the guy who's the most comfortable with his heterosexuality is the one who can kiss another dude.
"Who is the sluttiest Unfogged boy commenter? We seem to get all tales of frustration or monogamy, and none of catting around. The girls mix it up a little. Am I wrong?"
I'll take Wrongshore for $200, Trebeck!
http://www.fordhead.co.uk/graphics/local-images/carse-s-f.jpg
Is what the Scottish veldt actually looks like. Women need to be hardy with loud voices to attract the wandering drunken half-blind ginger menfolk.
608 is just a trick to get the boys to kiss each other.
What do they need to avoid the wandering drunken half-blind ginger menfolk? Camoflauge?
re: 612
I believe if they disguise themselves as temperance campaigners they are safe. Disguising themselves as sheep is a known mistake.
Who is the sluttiest Unfogged boy commenter? We seem to get all tales of frustration or monogamy, and none of catting around. The girls mix it up a little.
Maybe all of us with the potential to cat around are already married.
Gswift is just a hard-up Utah boy who can never get laid.
609: Am so not. Made a valiant effort, but was subsumed in exclusivity in exactly two Nerve dates.
Made out with a rabbi in between, though. that was cool.
Gswift is just a hard-up Utah boy who can never get laid.
Not according to the internets!
I just want to let everyone know that there's no way in hell I'm reading this entire thread unless I get REALLY bored.
Like I'm telling you peopoe my crazy Van-Wilder-esque college sex stories.
You could check 606 for some personal defamation, Ben.
422 is the only comment that makes sense, just read that one. And mine.
606 is supposed to be defaming? Oh, I see: I waited until L was of legal age.
Maybe all of us with the potential to cat around are already married.
Ain't stopping the lady folks.
602: Of course men and women aren't monolithic entities. The thing is, no one in this thread actually thinks so. You certainly aren't committed to believing that just because you think certain body types are more widely considered attractive than others. All else being equal, guys who look like Ewan McGregor are just plain going to be more successful in the dating world than guys with man-boobs. Saying so doesn't mean you think all women like the same things, or that no one will ever love the man-boob guys, or that you believe some whacked-out version of Evolutionary Psychology. If this all sounds a bit obvious, well, yes, I would have thought so too.
Bodytype being disguised by clothing?
JM and others say no. Yoyo says yes (of course he was apoplectic about putting anything heavier than a pocket square in pockets). Any other yeses out there?
I do recall something about naked people looking much nicer than their clothed appearance would suggest...
So. If you're a reasonably presentable naked man, but look like a pear when you're dressed, how do you rectify it? I'm lazy, busy (together? go figure), and require actual utility from my clothing (gentleman farming requires many implements), and don't want to break the bank.
Where do I shop? What do I buy? Note: lazy not going to comb through a large number of small stores.
It's not L, it's L..
We're on a first-character basis.
Ned in 350: In other news, C-cup sized breasts are apealing to more men than F-cup.
So, no men find my DDD aka E cup breasts attractive. I don't think so.
B in 354: 350: And in still other news, virtually all men have no idea what they mean when they talk about cup size.
Exactly. Having said that, I wouldn't mind having a smaller chest, a nice D cup or even DD. My size never goes on sale.
Re: BMI
My doctor told me that my BMI of 20.5 is perfect, but I have no muscle in my arms. So, I'm probably reasonably healthy compared to the US population as a whole, but I'm definitely not fit.
So. If you're a reasonably presentable naked man, but look like a pear when you're dressed, how do you rectify it?
Speedo, utility belt.
Seriously, I refuse to believe this is a genuine problem.
631: how do you keep from falling over?
632: you just need to work harder to convince men it's okay to wear fitted shirts when you have a beer gut.
You know, I already feel kind of bad for the joke in 633.1. Very sexist. Very sorry.
A utility belt would be good, but a speedo wouldn't really be considered appropriate by the other Burgesses.
Honestly, if you look fine naked, I'm certain you're not offensively pear-shaped dressed. Lay off the pleated pants, but other than that don't sweat it.
For pear-shaped men, the perfect outfit can be augmented with a nice pinstriped blazer to make a more elegant line.
628: You're still being silly. First, it's impossible to control for "all other things being equal"--presumably a guy who thinks he looks like the current Hollywood "type" is going to have more confidence than a guy who is aware that he doesn't. Second, what do you mean "success in the dating arena"? And why do you assume that that "success" (of whatever type) is determined by looks? And talking about what's "widely considered attractive" is very different, actually, than statements like "men like X" or "women like Y"--which do, in fact, get made all the time, even in this here thread.
Always the muumuus. Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in.
637: I bought myself an aqua colored mumu not long ago, as it happens. *Which* I like to wear with my fabulous pool-boy-get-me-a-drink shoes.
I'm sad to say that I was talked out of wearing this outfit to the get together, though.
LB's right that men who are heavy on the bottom should avoid pleated pants. Also, jackets that are well cut with maybe shoulder pads.
629: Find yourself a good-looking pair of jeans and a number of blue oxford shirts. Take someone with you to buy the jeans and make sure they are fitting but not tight. Buy the shirts as fitted as you can (I'm guessing from your comment that you are a regular fit), and get the correct neck size.
I would say that if you want to simplify your shopping and look presentable, this is good for everlasting stylishness.
If you're serious about gentleman farming, Carhartts always look good. But I think that was just a presidential pose?
Fatter men look better in double breasted suits than skinny men do. But I'm still not sure you're all that ample.
Also, on the yoyo/pocket question -- I got sick of having stuff in my pockets, and now I carry a purse. I let no one call it a 'manbag'. That is what my scrotum is called.
641: I bought myself an aqua colored mumu not long ago, as it happens.
I thought there were to be no more horrifying confessions on the site.
(Just kidding, I'm sure it looks great.)
now I carry a purse. I let no one call it a 'manbag'. That is what my scrotum is called.
I love Wrongshore.
644: It's completely fabulous. If only I could find a matching turban.
609 to 645.
Forget being cut, carry a purse!
643, 645: A housemate of my sister's once asked her: "Everyone says my shoes should match my bag. Where do I get wrinkled, hairy, shoes?"
The gentleman farming was just part of my cover. But the need to carry implements carries across all handles. And I will surely quarter the King's men in the rooms of my gentle relations before I carry a purse.
Implements? Tell me you don't want a utilikilt.
651: At last, somethign to wear to the opera!
Holy shit -- 640 comments.
People, lifting weights gets you laid, lifting weights! Not internet commenting about the theory of getting laid. People just aren't getting the idea.
651: I just met all these Burning Man types who carry utility belts. Not my cup of tea, but they do carry a lot of stuff that way. Better than having stuffed pockets.
657: they wear them, like, around the house?
and 16 more in the time it took me to write that. Step...away...from...the...internet.
I'm bitchphd, and I approve the message in 655.
B, I find it miraculous you haven't been to burning man.
Also. It is impossible not to love the ad copy for the leather kilt:
Given all the disclaimin' going on upthread, "Women like X," does mean pretty much the same thing as "X is widely considered attractive by women."
634: Tweety, don't worry about it. I'm not clever enough to pick up on the sexist implications of it.
What men don't seem to understand is that cup size is a relative thing.
661: I'm surprisingly conservative, actually. Also, I dislike being dirty.
Wow! A thread without a point! Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I assume that part of the motivation behind B's objection to the hot-chicks discussions is that they're so much more culturally sanctioned than hot-dudes discussions that (we) women inevitably suspect that real life relationships we're engaged in have our men essentially settling.
Because I don't look anything like Jessica Alba, and never will.
This is all so obvious.
I seem to remember a past thread in which we, or I, spoke of the pressure on women to put a hell of a lot more effort into self-presentation than men are called upon to do. This goes toward B's mention of hot actresses always prepped for the photographer.
Anyway, it becomes annoying when one realizes over time that many men probably do operate with dual sets of criteria: chicks lusted over as hot, and chicks [GOD, I hate that word] they actually have relationships with.
658: They wear them out and about. Parties, art-walks. If by 'around the house' you mean 'while working on Burning Man stuff' then sure.
656 made me laugh out loud. Unabbreviably.
654 to 648?
668: For example, B's blog glosses over the hours and hours that her dad made all of her extra-poly-marital partners sit on the porch with him present, only holding hands when he knowingly went inside to fetch more lemonade and give the lovebirds, all seven of them, a little privacy.
Gawd, my wife would be very happy if I got a utilikilt. I love her, but I just can't do it. I'm less Scottish than perhaps any man living.
666: Fortunately, since I look exactly like Justin Timberlake, I never have to worry about this.
654 to 652.
667: yeah, uh, there's a certain subset of Burning Man people who are just crazy for those things. Let me take a wild guess: they camp with Gigsville?
Me, I wear Armani.
668: see, this is what I'm thinking. What with the utilikilt love and the polyamory, she's an RV and a portable shower away from finding her people.
I've been in far better shape when I've weighed about 140 pounds than when I've weighed 160-170 pounds. But I'm sure with the right workout setup I could be in better shape at the higher weight.
(Wearing one would make me a fully-fledged member of the doucheoisie, causing her to hate me. Conundrum.)
669: God no. My dad was usually a complete dick to my boyfriends, except that he decided he liked Mr. B. b/c Mr. B. was in ROTC and called him "sir." Also b/c of aforementioned "only guy I dated who had a body" issue, I suspect Mr. B. was the only guy I dated who my father thought didn't seem a bit twee.
675: high doucheoisie. Get invited to douche cotillions and shit.
672: 1. Yes, it was joke.
2. Bingo. I kinda figured you might know some of them. (Googleproof G/gsv/lle?)
3. I'm tempted to bring my seersucker suit to the playa, but I fear it would meet an untimely end. Might be worth it, though.
Since any man awesome enough to wear a leather kilt would also be awesome enough to wear it with the traditional lack of underwear, the leather kilt also has the feature of minimizing the embarrassing effects of updrafts.
678.2: eh, there's like 150 people that camp there. If you were at the Br/w/ry for that art-walk I almost certainly know at least some of them.
.3: yeah, it'd be dead. Pick up a suit at a thrift store if you want to go formal (always an excellent plan).
651: At last, somethign to wear to the opera!
I've never seen anyone in the formal number, but kilt-wearers are not uncommon among Seattle Opera audiences.
My wife has been after me for ages to get a kilt. I don't really understand why.
Hey, those utilikilts are pricey. Even the one on ebay is at $102.
an RV and a portable shower away from finding her people
Ugh.
They are extremely well made and durable.
But, again, the signifiers are pretty strange.
682.1: Because a man in a skirt is hott.
I am anti-kilt. The wool ones are scratchy. As for the rest, whatever bonus there may be from easy access is canceled out by the fact that we can't see your ass in it.
Because a man in a skirt is hott.
Depends on the man, the skirt, and how he wears it. Let's get real.
As for the rest, whatever bonus there may be from easy access is canceled out by the fact that we can't see your ass in it.
You clearly have not admired a man in a sarong. (In Samoan, an ie, but no one would know what I meant.)
Note that you can have your Utilikilt made with special "beer gut" tailoring, so that it rides low in the front.
689, 692: Nice try, haters, but I said *a* man in *a* skirt.
What a woman really likes is a nice, firm pair of pectoral muscles.
697: Well, yeah. This is going to be an area where doing the research on college undergraduates is going to bring in all sorts of huge confounding social factors, like the (okay, I'm stereotyping here, but I doubt I'm that far wrong) fact that for undergrads, being a weightlifter or other athlete is going to be heavily socially correlated with being a slutty frat-boy type.
What a womanOgged really likes is a nice, firm pair of pectoral musclesfins.
My wife has been after me for ages to get a kilt. I don't really understand why.
She'll get a picture, publish it widely, and never have to worry about you cheating.
What a woman really likes is a nice, firm pair of pectoral muscles.
What a woman prefers is a firm body, ease and grace of movement (both physical and mental), a quirky and/or cutting sense of humor, and a willingness to be strange, unusual, or dare we say, unique.
Oh, and not afraid of sex.
End. Of. Discussion!
703: Asked and answered: only if you can wear it properly. You know what I mean.
I just showed all the utilikilt ads to PK. Of course I had to explain the running subtext of "wearing a skirt does *not* mean you're not a real man--see, girls think it's hot." We agreed that the "don't pee" commercial was the funniest.
706: see, that's what I don't like about Utilikilts. It's such a cop-out. "Sure, I'm wearing a kilt, but look, still super manly! Totally not a gay thing! Look, I have a hammer! Look, tools! Not gay!"
707: Fair enough. Men should wear skirty skirts as well.
Who said it wasn't? I'm old enough to find all sorts of people attractive (although I do generally keep my hands to myself around large Samoans of either gender--they're big and they have lots of big relatives).
707: Whoever thinks that a hammer and tools are not gay, has a narrow view of what men like. And likewise for other things "super-manly".
bostongirl has a BMI of 20.5 with E cup breasts? How can that E?
bostongirl has a BMI of 20.5 with E cup breasts? How can that E?
628 seems more like a intro to philosophy argument then something meant seriously.
Im also surprised this thread is not breaking.
And the men=trousers women=skirts thing has always seemed so backwards to me.
682.1: Because a man in a skirt is hott.
There was a dude at Chicago who wore not just a utilikilt but an honest to god skirt, and I won't lie: they looked pretty good on him.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, ben:
"O Zarathustra"- said the child to me- "look at yourself in the mirror!" But when I looked into the mirror, I shrieked, and my heart throbbed: for not myself did I see therein, but a devil's grimace and derision.
You're going to have to spell out a little more concretely what you mean there, Stan.
That you were the one wearing the skirt, and that you're now mis-remembering your self-loathing of then.
[cross-posted to Standpipe's blog]
It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Hey, we have to hate on you somehow. See 606.
720: Come on, it's a 200-level argument, at least.
Personally I think happily-coupled-up Stanley is a more logical object of hatred, but I don't make the rules.
I'm an aberration. Ben's a phenomenon. Let us get caught up in the hard bigotry of high expectations, young teo.
re: 683
Real kilts cost a hell of a lot more.
re: kilts, *I* wanted to wear one for my wedding. I was told, in no uncertain terms that, 'I am not marrying a man in a skirt'.
So much for the cultural dominance of the Scottish male.
A utilikilt, and an honest to god skirt, make up a "they".
He wore *not* the former, *but* the latter.
not just the former, but [also] the latter.
Oh. Somehow missed the just. Fuck. Thought I had you.
re: 735
We are only dominant over other men. We have long since realized that our proper role is to keep our frighteningly domineering womenfolk back in Scotland where they are safe, rather than unleashing them onto the world. If they didn't have Scottish men to mock/henpeck they'd be ruling the world in a matter of weeks.*
* Ignore for the sake of a 'comedy' the fact that I am not actually married to a Scot...
741: Yeah, well, but that's exactly the point. Czechs do not exactly have a reputation for world domination.
Not in general, no, but they do among the cognoscenti.
Behind every world-dominating Scottish man is a Czech woman.
744: Cultural and artistic excellence do not world domination make, I'm afraid.
Czechs do not exactly have a reputation for world domination.
If Czech literature and film is to be believed, and it is, the reputation is for pointless bureaucracy, cheekbones, black humour and adultery.
In other news, C-cup sized breasts are apealing to more men than F-cup
poof.
that is all I have to say. Except that non-Scottish people wearing kilts are unspeakable.
If Czech literature and film is to be believed, and it is, the reputation is for pointless bureaucracy, cheekbones, black humour and adultery.
Sounds good to me. I'd take that over world domination any day.
Huh. For some reason it's surprisingly difficult to find a picture of an attractive young Samoan man in an ie online. I'll have to ask people to take the appeal on faith.
Holy fuck, this thread will not stop.
Can we get a post about how much President Bush sucks? STAT!!!
I'll take it on faith, since an ie is not a kilt and it doesn't require me to change my anti-kilt stance.
750. 50% more than the usual 500post benchmark of a megathread. anyone know what the biggest ever was?
OK, y'all asked for it.
http://www.midamericon.org/photoarchive/05worldb5.htm
2nd photo down, direct from Glasgow.
