First  Prev  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next  Last
Which type of body do girls like?
35282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New York City
Offline
Posted 8/13/12

Winterfells wrote:


funnyginsan wrote:

Most agree Gerard Butler is sexy though.


That dude explodes testosterone, lol.



wtf


Haha too much to handle

But yeah I think it varies from girl to girl..its hard to place a standard or common pattern of body type a girl would prefer in a guy, some like them like teddy bears, some like them quite toned and cut..and some that in that in between point...of course I'm speaking from an observational/guys point of view..It'd be the same if you asked a guy this question in regards to a girl, or preferences between individuals attracted to the same sex.
7669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Look up.
Offline
Posted 8/13/12

JustineKo2 wrote:


FryingGuy wrote:


otaku1225 wrote:

Of course it depends on the girl. Personally, I like all body types.


FryingGuy wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that I don't care anymore. So long as she isn't dumb as a brick and full of herself.


I think you misread the question.


Nah, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Life's too short to be picky about body shape. Unless I'm suddenly a girl.
Get a clue. What's with so many people misreading the question?

Here's another question for you, can you retype the question in your next post and then answer it the same as you answered it in your previous post??



Alright I concede. I misread the question. I apologize. Hang the banners of shame in my hall of idiocy and let all know I was too tired last night to pay too much attention to the title.
71677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 8/13/12


Hmmm... well that was a well written interesting post but I think it was a little misguided by modern feminism.

Aside from the fact that Anthropology teaches us that societies vary in a variety of ruling structures since the beginning of human history (some were, in fact, matriarchal in nature but a lot of others weren't), i'd like to just point out simple logic.

It really is a misgiving to construe marriage as being perpetrated by women. Even before Christianity came along there WERE marriage contracts and most were for trading property to get a mate. (For ex: I give you 10 cows, you give me a female companion for my son so I have heirs) Or, in other cases, two families agree to marry X daughter with Y son even before they have reached maturity (take India and parts of olden Japan for example) to bring both families closer together creating a stronger unit. That is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the different forms of marriage (which is funny because of the whole "sanctity of marriage" debate)

I also think misconstruing the increase in single mothers to fit a feminist agenda is a bad idea. There are lots of factors that play into the increase including a lack of education on sex. For example: Man & Woman want sex - they have sex without protection - Man gets woman knocked up - man freaks out and leaves - woman raises children. I've heard a LOT of different theories on why this is happening but to believe it is somehow a magnificent thing for the retaking of womens pride has to be on the "crazier" side of things (unless women getting all the responsibility of raising a child while men do whatever the hell they want is suddenly empowering and a good thing) . I will say I am glad that if a woman is unhappy in a marriage she now has the right to take her leave of things .... not so sure if I should be glad she gets to take half of the mans stuff. That used to make a lot of sense to me since women simply didn't have the opportunities available to them to make a great living on their own. Luckily though, the trend is slowly changing where women make just as much as the man (if not more) so maybe that will change.

Look, I have no problem with early feminism (since I think it did a shit load of good things like giving the right for women to vote, taking on women's abuse AND giving them control of their sexuality) and there are many problems today that women face which should simply not be there (wage inequality for the same job, the glass ceiling effect, the government trying to dictate access to affordable birth control) but at the end of the day I am for equalism and modern feminism nowadays reeks of what I view as reverse chauvinism. When I heard/read of feminism it used to be a good thing. It used to mean working against social inequality and giving women respect. Nowadays when I see it all I can think is "here comes the ball bashing" (that's humor) It really is depressing for a modern man to see this. The smart women with the most interesting personalities now have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to equality in the sexes. Somehow I am supposed to open the doors, pull out the chair, pay for the dinner, pay for the movie and then at the end of the day hear how a simple kiss goodnight is somehow an act of aggression on my part to exert my sexual "control" over her. How in the hell is this equal again?

The belief that somehow if women ruled the world there would be no wars and return a sense of logic to the world is also ... well, just plain wrong. Women can be just as petty, shallow and headstrong as men are. (at their worst of course) I mean, just look at the two candidates back in 2008. Sarah Palin (gun toting conservative, flag waving, "Protect our freedom" idiot) VS Hillary Clinton (Power hungry, manipulative, democrat). I have a feeling that these two people wouldn't get along at all regardless of any false idea of "sisterhood" just based on their differing philosophies on government. I'd like to point out that I also have an equally negative view of the men in politics as well (although that should be obvious and not need to be stated in the first place).


13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/13/12 , edited 8/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:



Hmmm... well that was a well written interesting post but I think it was a little misguided by modern feminism.

Aside from the fact that Anthropology teaches us that societies vary in a variety of ruling structures since the beginning of human history (some were, in fact, matriarchal in nature but a lot of others weren't), i'd like to just point out simple logic.

True, but are you comparing societies to societies? I was comparing us to the matriarchal primate troops we came from. We did all come from an originally female dominated species. In terms of the timeline of our species, we've only just recently undergone a role reversal.



It really is a misgiving to construe marriage as being perpetrated by women.

Agreed. That's why I pointed out that the marriage contract was perpetrated by men in my 2nd sentence.


I also think misconstruing the increase in single mothers to fit a feminist agenda is a bad idea.

Agreed. I would never misconstrue single mothers as all being single mothers by choice, or the crazy notion that feminists even have an agenda beyond wanting social equality and the equal rights they well and truly deserve. Instead it is simply a piece of evidence showing that after tenthousand years of male dominated households, women in great numbers now incontestably hold that status. Instead of simply asserting that there are plenty of marriages and relationships where females hold dominance, it's easier to just point to families where the male isn't even in the house, much less the head of that household.



Look, I have no problem with early feminism (since I think it did a shit load of good things like giving the right for women to vote, taking on women's abuse AND giving them control of their sexuality) and there are many problems today that women face which should simply not be there (wage inequality for the same job, the glass ceiling effect, the government trying to dictate access to affordable birth control) but at the end of the day I am for equalism and modern feminism nowadays reeks of what I view as reverse chauvinism.

We do have cause to fear total equality, simply because it would mean a huge percentage of men would be utterly excluded from a chance at entering the gene pool. But that does not in any way mean we should promote inequality.


When I heard/read of feminism it used to be a good thing. It used to mean working against social inequality and giving women respect.

It still is a good thing. Regardless of how people choose to spin it, or choose to promote it. Ethically, there is no other standpoint one can hold without being guilty of personal bias.



The belief that somehow if women ruled the world there would be no wars and return a sense of logic to the world is also ... well, just plain wrong.

Agreed. However there is a fantastic amount of evidence showing that the male drive to mate is the main instigator. We went from being men born to fight other men for breeding rights, to men born to fight other men for breeding rights in a world of marriage contracts, civil discourse, negotiation and trade. We're primed for murder, but our setting has fundamentally changed. It is that root desire [IN MEN] which is often cited and blamed for our long history of warmongering and drum beating.



Women can be just as petty, shallow and headstrong as men are. (at their worst of course) I mean, just look at the two candidates back in 2008. Sarah Palin (gun toting conservative, flag waving, "Protect our freedom" idiot) VS Hillary Clinton (Power hungry, manipulative, democrat). I have a feeling that these two people wouldn't get along at all regardless of any false idea of "sisterhood" just based on their differing philosophies on government. I'd like to point out that I also have an equally negative view of the men in politics as well (although that should be obvious and not need to be stated in the first place).

Two things, firstly, I really need to point out again, we are in fact primates. And secondly, that's perfectly normal behavior for females which come from matriarchal species, because it's normal for them to have brutal physical contests for leadership status. If anything it simply counts as more evidence that they're born for leadership roles.

71677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 8/13/12

AshRandom wrote:

True, but are you comparing societies to societies? I was comparing us to the matriarchal primate troops we came from. We did all come from an originally female dominated species. In terms of the timeline of our species, we've only just recently undergone a role reversal.


Based on what evidence? The reason we can study cultures is due to the amount of archeological evidence provided and even then a lot of the time it's just very good guess work. So you are basically saying that throughout the whole world, us as a species were matriarchal in nature? I've never even heard of that much less seen any good evidence to support it.
I will say other animals who share much of our genetic nature have mostly been patriarchal in nature and more cultures throughout history have been that way than matriarchal.
Just looking at chimps, gorillas and oragutans are mostly patriarchal in nature. Only Bonobos are matriarchal.



Agreed. I would never misconstrue single mothers as all being single mothers by choice, or the crazy notion that feminists even have an agenda beyond wanting social equality and the equal rights they well and truly deserve. Instead it is simply a piece of evidence showing that after tenthousand years of male dominated households, women in great numbers now incontestably hold that status. Instead of simply asserting that there are plenty of marriages and relationships where females hold dominance, it's easier to just point to families where the male isn't even in the house, much less the head of that household.

Incontestably where? In the USA? In China? In Africa? I guess we'd have to get down to the nitty gritty of what you consider "Dominant".
Me personally, I don't even like the language to begin with. The very notion that a couple has a dominant figure and a subservient one on social terms (outside of the bedroom (that's a bdsm joke btw) ) just annoys me. The thing that I have noticed about couples that last the longest is they compliment each other. It would be like saying a housewife who takes care of her kids at home is somehow subservient when she may be doing a much more important task than the provider. Let's put that on the other foot. A stay at home dad taking care of his children may be doing something much more important than simply providing. They would be nurturing.
Not only that, it breaks everything down about a relationship into some twisted power struggle.
And yes, I don't think there is some mass conspiracy by a feminist agenda to somehow make men less than them .... I do think there is a nasty bi-product to all of this though that CAN hinder relationships .... especially if you are feeling persecuted just by being with a man.




We do have cause to fear total equality, simply because it would mean a huge percentage of men would be utterly excluded from a chance at entering the gene pool. But that does not in any way mean we should promote inequality.

Well just looking at the numbers this may be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio

However it really doesn't take into account the variety of human relationships that occur. For instant, homosexuality or even couples who choose not to reproduce. What about a man marrying a woman who already has kids? What if they choose not to have any? Has all of human relationships really boiled down to "How do I pass on my genes?" I don't think it has even if it may be an important factor.



It still is a good thing. Regardless of how people choose to spin it, or choose to promote it. Ethically, there is no other standpoint one can hold without being guilty of personal bias.


I hold to my position of equalism and women and men should teach this kind of un-biased philosophy in classes. It promotes women to the status they deserve without the demonization of men that so can come with modern feminism (although being a modern feminist doesn't necessarily mean you will hate men)
It's similar to egalitarianism if you want to read on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalism
I'm sorry but I just think that feminism has really lost it's path and I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this one.




Agreed. However there is a fantastic amount of evidence showing that the male drive to mate is the main instigator. We went from being men born to fight other men for breeding rights, to men born to fight other men for breeding rights in a world of marriage contracts, civil discourse, negotiation and trade. We're primed for murder, but our setting has fundamentally changed. It is that root desire [IN MEN] which is often cited and blamed for our long history of warmongering and drum beating.


I'm sorry I just don't buy this at all and the thought is bordering on slightly offensive. Complex national politics, greed, and the desire to expand territory doesn't boil down to "horny dudes" regardless of whatever these pseudo-scientific theories say.
And I also don't believe there is a "fantastic amount of evidence" for it either. I studied wars throughout history and the reasons for them are complex. They can't be boiled down to hormones.
I will say that I think humans are naturally drawn to "CONFLICT" not murder or warmongering. This one is just personal preference. I don't think we as a species would have survived if we were all just naturally violent. Conflict however inspires competition, debate ect ect so that makes more sense to me.



Two things, firstly, I really need to point out again, we are in fact primates. And secondly, that's perfectly normal behavior for females which come from matriarchal species, because it's normal for them to have brutal physical contests for leadership status. If anything it simply counts as more evidence that they're born for leadership roles.


Yes we are primates ..... with higher level thinking and functioning than the others. Again, I'm not buying it. Individuals are leaders not a sector of a whole population (women vs men). If anything I think women would be just as incompetent as men in politics (since I hate most politicians). I've heard these arguments before and they didn't make much sense to me. It's basically discarding any progress we have made as a race. Ok let me just show you your argument except reversed.
We are primates - it's normal for men to behave that way if they come from a patriarchy - Men are born for leadership roles.
see how this doesn't make sense now?

Anyways, this was kind of fun to be honest and it got me to think and revisit things I haven't in a long time. You seem pretty cool as well and I hope you have a great day I just can't type these long ass posts anymore T_T HAHA I've kind of got other things on my mind right now
http://io9.com/5933966/wikileaks-reveals-trapwire-a-government-spy-network-that-uses-ordinary-surveillance-cameras
That and I seriously need to get back to watching anime
Again, thanks - I haven't had one of these conversations in a while.
8455 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/13/12

iCynanKirax3 wrote:

Something like the pics below and i also like it when guys have the v shape thing going down lol







I also prefer skin color to be somthing like the pic and he definatly have to be tall :D


good god. you trying to take out someone's eye with those nipples? U.U
Posted 8/13/12
You know last I saw women here didn't really think much about how a guy looks, I think there was a predominance on: Personality and Outlook on life, I think the general consensus was?
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:
Based on what evidence? [....] Just looking at chimps, gorillas and oragutans are mostly patriarchal in nature. Only Bonobos are matriarchal.

Based originally more on inference and evaluation of humans, than any direct evidence, but as of 2011 there finally is some direct genetic evidence, if you're a stickler for empirical data (like I am). Oddly enough you nearly hit on it, the proof is that we're more like bonobos than chimps. There's a genetics paper called "A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates" it indicates that chimps and bonobos are equally related to the common ancestor they share with humans. But here's the fun part: the genetic codes of bonobos have undergone far fewer changes than those of chimps, which means that bonobos are far more closely related to humans than chimpanzees are.


Incontestably where?

Oh dear. Not in a place, incontestable as a piece of data. As a scientist, I was thinking of it in terms of evaluation of the evidence. It's hard to find numbers to count and compare when you're talking about the exact same set of shared male-female households. So including them in the set of data is difficult to get away with, but purely single parent households amount to ones where the question of who runs the household is a polar question.


Well just looking at the numbers this may be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio

However it really doesn't take into account the variety of human relationships that occur. For instant, homosexuality or even couples who choose not to reproduce. What about a man marrying a woman who already has kids? What if they choose not to have any? Has all of human relationships really boiled down to "How do I pass on my genes?" I don't think it has even if it may be an important factor.

Well, technically it is only from a purely objective viewpoint that a relationship boils down to that alone, and none of us experience life that way. But that doesn't have much to do with the assertion that most males are highly undesirable. And that a few males are so extremely desirable, the entire herd would excitedly breed with them at the exclusion of all others. This is a mammalian observation, not a specifically human one. Conclusion remains the same though. Without social pressures and taboos, male-female relationships would be remarkably different. In fact we've already seen evidence of that in recent history. As the taboo about divorce fell away, marriages across the western world began to dissolve en mass. And though the divorce rate has declined slightly, the marriage rate has dramatically declined. Without social pressures women are far less inclined to stay married, or even get married.


I hold to my position of equalism and women and men should teach this kind of un-biased philosophy in classes. It promotes women to the status they deserve without the demonization of men that so can come with modern feminism (although being a modern feminist doesn't necessarily mean you will hate men)
It's similar to egalitarianism if you want to read on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalism
I'm sorry but I just think that feminism has really lost it's path and I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this one.

If the egalitarian doctrine you hold to maintains that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status -- I think that would please all feminists everywhere. Unless of course you're right and there's some kind of feminist conspiracy to overreach equality and completely denigrate and dominate all men..... hmmm, sounds a bit matriarchal, doesn't it?


I'm sorry I just don't buy this at all and the thought is bordering on slightly offensive. Complex national politics, greed, and the desire to expand territory doesn't boil down to "horny dudes" regardless of whatever these pseudo-scientific theories say.
And I also don't believe there is a "fantastic amount of evidence" for it either. I studied wars throughout history and the reasons for them are complex. They can't be boiled down to hormones.
I will say that I think humans are naturally drawn to "CONFLICT" not murder or warmongering. This one is just personal preference. I don't think we as a species would have survived if we were all just naturally violent. Conflict however inspires competition, debate ect ect so that makes more sense to me.

You hit on a good point. But to knock it down all one needs to do is tie the side-effects of our currently male dominated societies to the factors which lead to war. Not hard since male domination of women is what has historically lead to a fantastic amount of overpopulation. Matriarchal species are rarely full of females who all get pregnant, often it is only the dominant females who carry a pregnancy through to childbirth. Dividing up our women, one to a man, has resulted in us living in an artificially crowded, artificially tense, and artificially resource hungry world which wouldn't exist otherwise.

And not to be a pain, but you can't distill something as complex as the genetic and evolutionary factors which bred men to be what they are today down to: "horny dudes." Males of all species are horny, so that's far too broad of a statement to hold any value. Science is talking about the males of the various species which have a social dynamic in which they're forced to fight other males for breeding rights and the kinds of vicious, murderous attitudes they instinctually develop for males of their own species. Herbivores might make for the most extremely obvious of examples. Let's take white tail deer: they don't go out of their way to murder males of all species, they only attack their own kind, then they go back to eating plants. Are you starting to see the connection between male instincts and war? You don't even have to be a meat eater to develop the instinct which tells you to attack and kill your own kind.


Again, thanks - I haven't had one of these conversations in a while.

Sure, same here. Actually, it hasn't just been a while, I outright never have conversations like this. I lecture to students and then I generally just placate everyone else in my life. Cheers! xD
42150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / North Cali
Offline
Posted 8/14/12
I'm mostly attracted to the lean, muscular physique in men, sort of like the washboard abs thing. Good example is Choi Siwon from Super Junior. I love his body type, or Andy Whitmore who played the original Spartacus in Spartacus: Blood and Sand. I don't consciously have a type, but my friends tell me I like Asians the most ha ha, or guys with long hair.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 9/26/12

bmeadows0923 wrote:

I'm mostly attracted to the lean, muscular physique in men, sort of like the washboard abs thing.


Sounds like my body type.
10182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 9/26/12
What's wrong with muscles? :p
I mean, girls... You can't possibly say no to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhNkaWdcovw 1:14+

(nohomo)
42150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / North Cali
Offline
Posted 9/26/12
Very cool.
Posted 9/26/12
Personally, I can find these body types attractive:

As you can see they are different. I think how the person carries themselves and their confidence (but not arrogance, these two can be confused) is what makes a male attractive to me. Guys who are overly muscly (body builders) scare me/intimidate me though.
4330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / HK
Offline
Posted 9/27/12
I honestly don't care... well I do a little, as long as the guy doesn't look short and frail... I just want him to look like he can protect me. Not run away and leave me in danger.
Posted 9/28/12
Carbo's body.
First  Prev  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.