attractive/unattractive physical features in men

Page 3 of 9 [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

25 Apr 2012, 7:11 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Actually, the question is a fail. By and large, although exceptions may exist, women do not pick men based on physical features.



Sorry, but pull the other one, it's got bells on.



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

25 Apr 2012, 7:19 pm

I would date a shorter guy if my height didn't bug him. It's been my experience that a portion of shorter guys feel emasculated or something and start throwing little digs at my appearance and getting annoyed when I wear heels. And that attitude is not cute.
I'm just shy of 6' which makes it a little challenging to date guys much taller than me (also to buy jeans)
Though my current S.O. is around 6'5" (we promise not to destroy Tokyo)
Good hands, broad shoulders, kind face, and good hygiene are all preferable.

I'm usually not very attracted to someone physically until I know them personally. I can look at a hot guy (let's say a Michael Fassbender or an Alexander Skarsgard) and see that they're hot, but I don't have the physical reaction to seeing them that I would at seeing a crush or S.O.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

25 Apr 2012, 7:24 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
blue_bean wrote:
Attractive: Facial hair (purely preferential), smarts, inner-strength, good principles and morals, stable.

Unattractive: Tattoos (I could date someone with them but I'm repelled by guys that flaunt them like they've got nothing else), materiality, smaller waists than me, pretentiousness, ego's, emotional fragility/weakness.


All in bold are not physical features.

Fail.

You'll be thrown to the crocodiles.


Actually, the question is a fail. By and large, although exceptions may exist, women do not pick men based on physical features.

Not the ones a guy is born with, anyway. Things like haircuts and clothing choices enter the picture because they tell you something about who the guy is, and who he is, inside, is THE most important feature.


You can't make a generalization about a whole gender and be correct. People just aren't standardized that way.

Image

If you personally don't put much stock in physical appearance that's fine, express your personal opinion, but you don't get to speak for all women.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

25 Apr 2012, 7:32 pm

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:

If you personally don't put much stock in physical appearance that's fine, express your personal opinion, but you don't get to speak for all women.


And didn't I already put that qualifier in there? I did not say ALL.

But given that I've known at least a few thousand women over my lifetime and had just as many conversations with other women about men, I do think I've got a pretty idea as to what MOST think.

Just read this thread: most of the comments are NOT about innate physical features, and you will note I ALSO limited my comment to the types of things men are BORN with, because I know that MOST women, as far as I can tell, DO care about things like grooming.

Also ... I chose the words "do not pick by" on purpose, because it isn't like most women don't notice physical features or have some preferences, but I think it is important for the men who read this thread to understand the difference: most women don't PICK based on those; it is the other stuff that is USUALLY the deal maker or breaker.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Apr 2012, 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

25 Apr 2012, 7:50 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:

If you personally don't put much stock in physical appearance that's fine, express your personal opinion, but you don't get to speak for all women.


And didn't I already put that qualifier in there? I did not say ALL.

But given that I've known at least a thousand women over my lifetime and had just as many conversations with other women about men, I do think I've got a pretty idea as to what MOST think.

Just read this thread: most of the comments are NOT about innate physical features, and you will note I ALSO limited my comment to the types of things men are BORN with, because I know that MOST women, as far as I can tell, DO care about things like grooming.

Also ... I chose the words "do not pick by" on purpose, because it isn't like most women don't notice physical features or have some preferences, but I think it is important for the men who read this thread to understand the difference: most women don't PICK based on those; it is the other stuff that is USUALLY the deal maker or breaker.


1000 is nowhere near most of the 3635000000 women there are in the world. You don't get to speak for all, most, or even many, just you.
Look at the thread about female appearance there are a lot of non-physical things mentioned there too. People like all kinds of things about their partners, if anyone was really exclusively interested in looks they'd get a real doll and be done with it.
Don't get all defensive and start riding the caps lock because I pointed out you overstepped. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm trying to be helpful so you don't make assertions that are impossible to back up or just aren't true.
If you replace "most women" with "me" or even "many women I know seem too" you would be more right.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


Bun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,356

25 Apr 2012, 7:53 pm

^ *applause*


_________________
Double X and proud of it / male pronouns : he, him, his


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

25 Apr 2012, 8:22 pm

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:

If you personally don't put much stock in physical appearance that's fine, express your personal opinion, but you don't get to speak for all women.


And didn't I already put that qualifier in there? I did not say ALL.

But given that I've known at least a few thousand women over my lifetime and had just as many conversations with other women about men, I do think I've got a pretty idea as to what MOST think.

Just read this thread: most of the comments are NOT about innate physical features, and you will note I ALSO limited my comment to the types of things men are BORN with, because I know that MOST women, as far as I can tell, DO care about things like grooming.

Also ... I chose the words "do not pick by" on purpose, because it isn't like most women don't notice physical features or have some preferences, but I think it is important for the men who read this thread to understand the difference: most women don't PICK based on those; it is the other stuff that is USUALLY the deal maker or breaker.


1000 is nowhere near most of the 3635000000 women there are in the world. You don't get to speak for all, most, or even many, just you.
Look at the thread about female appearance there are a lot of non-physical things mentioned there too. People like all kinds of things about their partners, if anyone was really exclusively interested in looks they'd get a real doll and be done with it.
Don't get all defensive and start riding the caps lock because I pointed out you overstepped. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm trying to be helpful so you don't make assertions that are impossible to back up or just aren't true.
If you replace "most women" with "me" or even "many women I know seem too" you would be more right.


And you are forgetting the context in which I originally posted: to someone being snarky and who probably started this thread for dubious reasons.

But, honestly, I'm puzzled. I've never seen a woman defend so strongly what I've always seen as a male myth that most women are superficial in selecting who to date. And I don't think most women are that superficial. I'll stand by it. You are correcting me for claiming that most women aren't so superficial as to place huge amounts of significance on innate physical appearance in choosing who to date, which means you take issue with the concept ... and I don't get it.

Still ....

Here is my edit to the first post, and I've already made it: "In my experience ...."

(ps - I had meant to say a "few" thousand, which is actually a statistically relevant sample, although it will skew due to my age and social circles.)


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Apr 2012, 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nebrets
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 842
Location: Texas

25 Apr 2012, 9:03 pm

ZX_SpectrumDisorder wrote:
Girls, could you go out with a guy shorter than you?


So long as it is not too much shorter, as I am already on the short side. So a qualified yes.


_________________
__ /(. . )


nebrets
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 842
Location: Texas

25 Apr 2012, 9:25 pm

HisDivineMajesty wrote:
Unfortunately, I seem to meet more negative criteria than positive ones. :P


Well the good news is that the most frequently cited things are things you can do/change even if they are difficult. Bathe daily and hit the gym (or other diet and or exercise activity) often enough to not be fat, but not so often that you are have the excessive muscle bulk/definition of a body builder on steroids. Most of the other physical stuff seems to vary from person to person.


Side note: The_Face_of_Boo, do you actually raise crocodiles? If so that is cool.


_________________
__ /(. . )


DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

25 Apr 2012, 10:08 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:

If you personally don't put much stock in physical appearance that's fine, express your personal opinion, but you don't get to speak for all women.


And didn't I already put that qualifier in there? I did not say ALL.

But given that I've known at least a few thousand women over my lifetime and had just as many conversations with other women about men, I do think I've got a pretty idea as to what MOST think.

Just read this thread: most of the comments are NOT about innate physical features, and you will note I ALSO limited my comment to the types of things men are BORN with, because I know that MOST women, as far as I can tell, DO care about things like grooming.

Also ... I chose the words "do not pick by" on purpose, because it isn't like most women don't notice physical features or have some preferences, but I think it is important for the men who read this thread to understand the difference: most women don't PICK based on those; it is the other stuff that is USUALLY the deal maker or breaker.


1000 is nowhere near most of the 3635000000 women there are in the world. You don't get to speak for all, most, or even many, just you.
Look at the thread about female appearance there are a lot of non-physical things mentioned there too. People like all kinds of things about their partners, if anyone was really exclusively interested in looks they'd get a real doll and be done with it.
Don't get all defensive and start riding the caps lock because I pointed out you overstepped. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm trying to be helpful so you don't make assertions that are impossible to back up or just aren't true.
If you replace "most women" with "me" or even "many women I know seem too" you would be more right.


And you are forgetting the context in which I originally posted: to someone being snarky and who probably started this thread for dubious reasons.

But, honestly, I'm puzzled. I've never seen a woman defend so strongly what I've always seen as a male myth that most women are superficial in selecting who to date. And I don't think most women are that superficial. I'll stand by it. You are correcting me for claiming that most women aren't so superficial as to place huge amounts of significance on innate physical appearance in choosing who to date, which means you take issue with the concept ... and I don't get it.

Still ....

Here is my edit to the first post, and I've already made it: "In my experience ...."

(ps - I had meant to say a "few" thousand, which is actually a statistically relevant sample, although it will skew due to my age and social circles.)


I did see that you were responding to snark, but for the standards of that poster it was relatively harmless and goofy. I suspect he started this thread to undercut criticism of the female thread but since the mods seem to be cool with both of them I'm not going to get into that argument with the originator of either thread.
I see it as more misogynistic to deny women their individuality and speak of them in group terms.
Not to mention that the idea that women aren't interested in aesthetics is a defense MRA's use when they try to claim that men are only attracted to hot women and hot women should be content with someone who is nice enough regardless of what they look like. It's the line of thinking that women shouldn't be just as interested in looks as men are that leads to women who express their standards or reject men they find physically unattractive (well within their rights) to being labeled superficial. Some people care about looks, physical attraction can be important to sexual relationships regardless of gender.
Don't put words in my mouth I'm correcting you for making a claim that *most* women are *anything* based on only your personal experience. That kind of statement is inherently false no matter what you are asserting.
I comment any time I see these kinds of generalizations (likely to the annoyance of many regular posters here), so again it's not about you or what you said, it's how you said it.
I appreciate that you made an edit.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Apr 2012, 10:19 pm

bumble wrote:
Don't really rate attractiveness on physical features :P

When I read a book I am more interested in the content than the cover....

Substance!

^^^this.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Bloom
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 332
Location: On the OTHER Wrong Planet. The nicer one...

25 Apr 2012, 10:23 pm

Hmmm! Interesting topic! I like that it does not say "What features are REQUIRED or DEAL BREAKERS for dating." :P So I'll play! :D

I find these features (most) attractive:

Swimmers build. Too much bulk is just scary... though I have recently found a couple of muscly guys physically appealing for some reason.
I find I have little preference for eye colour, though contrasting, deep eyes are very appealing. Dark colours, for instance.
Taller than I is a preference, for sure. I'm 180cm, so it's pretty hard to find taller men.
Soft lips!
Working hands >.>
Facial hair!
Body hair!
mmm.... body hair... Actually, nothing is more attractive than chest hair :P
Foreskin.

I'll not mention unattractive. I find most "unattractive" things can be overcome. I will say that foul odors, tastes, sounds, and verbiage will always be a dealbreaker, sadly. Of course, most of that can be fixed... :P But I hate the idea of "fixing" someone if they don't think they need to be fixeded! :D

Of course, I was ONCE caught putting Rogaine on my guys chest while he was sleeping.... :P

ONCE!

I Swear... :P



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Apr 2012, 10:54 pm

rabbittss wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:

Actually, the question is a fail. By and large, although exceptions may exist, women do not pick men based on physical features.



Sorry, but pull the other one, it's got bells on.

that's what studies demonstrate, but it's not universal among all women.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Apr 2012, 11:10 pm

i don't really think most people of either gender PICK people based on physical appearance, in the sense that they will only date people with certain exact characteristics each and every time. i know that such people do exist, but it doesn't seem to be the majority. i think there are general "types" that a person may gravitate towards but it is rarely cut and dried.


EDIT: i moved the off-topic photo discussion to one of the picture threads:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt1097.html


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


ZX_SpectrumDisorder
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,608
Location: Ireland

26 Apr 2012, 4:03 am

Speaking for myself, appearance is a factor, but it's a part of the attraction required to make me pursue another as a romantic partner.
I've been out with girls that I considered very physically attractive, but the substance just wasn't there, so I ended the relationship. Unfortunately, I've known girls I haven't been physically attracted to, but have the other qualities and they've been friend-zoned. I don't think I'm alone in that.



all_white
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,142
Location: Scotland

26 Apr 2012, 6:08 am

Bloom wrote:
mmm.... body hair... Actually, nothing is more attractive than chest hair :P


8O

I hate chest hair.

Nothing worse than being prickled when you're trying to have a cuddle.