For me, a woman’s physical attractiveness is more about proportions and shape than size. I sometimes say “curves are nice, rolls aren’t.”
That and nice skin. I tend to like long straight dark hair, though wavy is nice. Curly or blonde isn’t a dealbreaker, but if I go for that type, there’s usually some other reason I’m attracted.
And the woman you want on your arm as you go out doesn’t always look the same as the woman you want in your bed when you get home. Sometimes they are, but definitely not always.
And I personally think good conversation, being cultured, and general intelligence adds a lot to the mix. I find it really irritating to be around dumb girls, no matter how pretty or hot they are. Intelligence, culture, and wit can’t make someone I find genuinely ugly suddenly become attractive enough to pursue, but it can make someone who might be more “average” looking become more interesting and attractive in my eyes.
search function brah, this has been discussed at length. there is a male intuition to destroy a chubby girl from behind. Hence the credo, ‘more cusion’ for the pushin’
I… didn’t know that was a thing…
never had that intuition
I always thought it had to do with a reproductive instinct that is triggered by larger hips area…
I feel like there may be a story here bchad, care to elaborate?
I had a woman friend tell me that she’d read about research saying that the best single predictor of how physically attracted a man is to a woman is her hips-to-waist ratio. I don’t know if it’s true - sometimes one feels that there is research that can be used to support any opinion you choose - but it certainly feels plausible.
If it’s true, that would suggest that a woman who has a big rear end can have a wider waist and still have an attractive hip-to-waist ratio.
Apparently the same research suggested that what women seem to like physically is tall, and broad shouldered, but it wasn’t as strong a predictor as hips-to-waist ratio is for men.
And the woman you choose to spend the rest of your life with, to be the mother of your kids might not necessarily be either of the above.
(Sorry if I gayed up the thread.)
Not a big story, but just that some of the most enjoyable women I’ve had in my bed were not the most stunning women on my arm. They weren’t unattractive, by any means, but I guess I can agree that - on average - the more physically attractive the woman on first sight, the less exciting they were when unwrapped at home. It’s a statistical relationship, so there is noise and exceptions, but I do suspect that the more attractive a woman is, the more she has a tendency to lay there and let the man do all the work. Though one of my most exciting experiences was with someone I thought was stunningly beautiful.
One of my first girlfriends was kinda chubby. Not outright fat, but definitely kinda pudgy, while still being basically pretty. But her skin felt very nice and because she was a little pudgy, there was lots of skin contact when we were busy making noise. With the lights out, you didn’t see much other than her cute face, but you still felt all of her skin. So yes, it was nice, even though I felt a little self conscious when I went out with her because I thought it said “bchad can’t do any better” (and at the time, I most likely couldn’t). These days, I’m less concerned about “what others might think of who I’m with,” and more concerned with whether I’m enjoying my interactions with a woman, though I can’t say that I’ve reached sufficient enlightenment to completely un-care about the rest of the world.
Around the same time I had also been with someone who was stick-thin. Between stick thin and kinda pudgy, with the lights out at night, I’ll take kinda pudgy any day.
Plus Bchad is rocking a BSD so that bedroom sounds like a prno set
@bchad, it’s not just waist-to-hip ratio, it’s bust/waist/hip considered more broadly. Often what is considered most beautiful tends to follow the golden ratio. Golden ratio would suggest measurements about 1.6x/x/1.6x are ideal. Few girls have attained something like 38/23/38, but the girls widely considered to have the best figures are usually close to that. The celebrity I recall who is closest to that was Sofia Loren (who was also all natural). This hour glass shape is well known, but there are also names for other bust/waist/hip measurements, like a pear having a larger hip measurement compared to bust measurement.
I didn’t read the research quoted, but what was quoted to me was hip-to-waist ratio. I specifically noticed that she didn’t mention the bust ratio in there, and maybe that was an oversight on her part, or maybe the research found that the bust was only of secondary importance.
I can see why the golden ratio might be relevant. It seems to come up a lot in nature, seashells, and the like. It could very well be that the golden ratio is sufficiently “natural” as to signify “healthy” in our minds, and that deviations from it are subconsciously interpreted as less healthy and therefore generates less urgency in the limbic system to pursue.
Bust size seems to be super important to most American men, but in other parts of the world it is less so. I definitely like a woman to have enough of a bust that there’s no doubt she’s a woman, but I’ve never been a “bigger is automatically better” kind of guy. A woman that is more pear shaped is generally more attractive to me than a woman is so busty that you wonder how she doesn’t topple over. So I’m not sure from my own experiences if bust size needs to be in that proportion, provided that it’s not super large or super tiny.
One wonders if the broad shoulders that women reportedly looked for are also in the golden ratio.
I don’t like really wide shoulders, or a very built up look in general. As long as his shoulders are not more narrow than mine, which would be difficult to find…
+1
I was going to start a thread about that.
It makes them feel more manly. I asked the question before to a few brothers.
I posted a study about this in another thread a few months ago. Females think men prefer skinnier girls and men think women prefer bulkier men. The reality is the opposite.
Just look at what sells in the market. That’s the best indicator to what people want. Women are curvy and busty (Playboy, SI, Maxim, porn) in material geared towards men. Women are a lot slimmer in women’s magazines.
When it comes to magazines targeted for men, the guys are muscular and bulky. In women’s magazines, the men are more athletic and cut.
The moral of the story: men want more (muscles when it comes to themselves and curves when it comes to women) than what women believe men want… and women prefer less than what men believe women prefer. I wouldn’t be surprised if dick size also applies to the above.
dick size > MD > Phd > everything