What do women look for in a male body?

Post Reply New Topic

No, this is what I call total honesty with self.

and I respect that.

^ Maybe she's still lying and really meant 40/60

(btw this is not meant to be a slight against MmeLePen, just attempting to make a point.)

Though you may not believe me - I can honestly say that my original dating model looked more like 80/20 personality/looks. I definately regret buying into the 'looks are not important' BS and now my model looks a little more like 55/45.

twoshots: I actuallly AGREE with you that women tend to more concerned with high-status correlates as well as specific personality traits that suggest genetic health and that looks are secondary. But I DO maintain that the one aspect of a mans physical appearance that women do desire in men is tallness. Men judge women by their weight and women judge men by their height.
I think women tend to size men up based on certain physical and mental abilities like athletic ability, social adeptivity, AND creativity. Musical and artistic talent seems to be Very attractive to women, particularly the former. Thats why a lot of young men who can play an instrument get into bands so they can get girls. An anology of this in the animal world is the mating calls of songbirds in springtime.

So I may not be the ideal girl to choose to answer such a question but I think the answer is fairly obvious so I will give my response to: "What do women look for in a male body?"

Answer: Vital organs. ...at least I would hope they do.

I also do believe what, what I hardly believe are idealistic statements such like "personality conquers all" or "when personality is good nothing else matters" , it doesn't and it can't be unless if the person is asexual.

I have heard a number of times over the years that scars on a mans face can give him character. Even something like an eye patch, or a missing tooth!

Any ladies out there care to elaborate how scars on a mans face will give him more character? ...and how that might make him more attractive... or at least more interesting.

I'm curious to understand this better.

My guess would be that every scar has an interesting story behind it. Some are incredibly stupid, while others can be very fascinating, but the point is that something had to happen to make that scar appear...

^I think you are on the right track, but I also think scars show women that we're adventurous, rugged, etc..... If you tell a woman that you got a scar from bullfighting or something(as long as you actually did), she's going to think "wow, this guy isn't a p****". She might also think "wow, this guy is stupid" but she probably isn't into scars anyhow. Then again, maybe I just watch too much TV.....

I know you aren't talking about my post alone, but I have to point out: I didn't say that men "must" have this feature, and "must" have that one. The original post was asking about physical traits women find attractive, so I answered the question! I did feel, though, that I had to let iddqd know that for myself and my circle of friends, it is DEFINITELY the personality that ranks over the physical when it comes to deciding how attracted we are to a man. Okay, maybe it's a cliché to say it, but jeez - it's because (for me, anyway!) it really is true.

And for the record, I've never been with a man with a six-pack, I've only once been with one who was taller than me (and not by much!), and all of 'em you could pinch an inch on their "love-handles". So there you go - of course I have my theoretical physical preferences, which is what the thread was asking for, but in practice, as long as the guy is healthy, when it comes to the physical, I don't follow them. I'm sure there are women out there who are brutal about choosing their prospective partners based appearance (as there are definitely men!) but trust me, there are lots of women who aren't.

Ok whatever.

But a chemistry can't be initiated withpit any physical attraction , so if a guy doesn't have any physical feature that you find it attractive then no chemistry can take place ,so personality alone can't be enough to determine how attracted you for a man.

As long you have a theoretical physical preferences then you subconsciously would seek for these preferences , again that's not something wrong , it's just human nature.

Last edited by LePetitPrince on 25 Feb 2009, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

The point you're making sounds like one I would have considered, just taking "human nature" to be the way I feel about girls. Most of what initially attracts me to women is purely physical, whether we click can seal the deal for me wanting to pursue a relationship but that's the second step. I'm guessing it's a pretty "male" way to think.

But what about people who get to know each other online? You can connect with someone and definitely feel attraction to them and have no clue as to what they look like. That's when personality comes first, looks come second.

I've never had a really serious internet crush on any girl/woman who didn't give a good impression (with clear, face-on pictures) of what they looked like, and I doubt I ever will.

I completely disagree with this statement. I was attracted to my husband for personality alone. I do not find him physically attractive in the least. But I was physically attracted and turned on by him based on the fact that I loved him for his (perceived at the time) personality. I made a conscious decision to love him even though I find him physically unattractive because I did not believe that looks mattered at all. If his personality had held up to my expectations, I probably would not regret my descision.

Simple, online love is based on fantasies, on illusion, no real chemistry can be established via online communication only.

^ Actually, I can agree with that.