From a purely physical standpoint it’s all about the legs. Nice legs are what I like, nice legs also tend to mean nice butt. I’ve seen tall,short, and regular sized women with nice legs. Breasts have a definate size limit for me though. Too big and you’ll just remind me of my mom.
Wife #1: About 5’2, very pretty, small build, long, dark brunette hair, big blue eyes, boobs larger than proportional to otherwise petite size, a butt that would entice John Paul II.
Wife #2: About 5’10, looked remarkably like Lady Diana, light brown short hair, no butt to speak of, no waist, either, again–ample breastage.
Funny thing is…I actually prefer smaller booblets. I guess I have no “type.”
Most attractive feature to me: Good conversationalist, with a sense of humor.
“The deeper the cushion, the sweeter the pushin’, that’s what I said…”
“girl-next-door” type; cute (nice smile) shortish and with extra padding. Smallish breasts. Not the most common combination, as chubby women tend to have extra padding up top, too.
So, who did I marry? Very slender Asian woman. Stunningly gorgeous (a female colleague of mine described my wife to her husband as “the most beatiful woman she’s ever met.”). But she does have smallish breasts. 
I like everything from athletic to pleasingly plump. It’s all in the total package. Little quirks can move you up and down quite a few points on 'occhio’s attractiveness scale.
Smoker? Not in this lifetime, lady.
Stereotypical “Barbie” looks in dress, hair and makeup? Yuck.
Put on jeans and a t-shirt, wash off the makeup, woo mamma.
Just as shallow as those who only date perfect women? In its own way, yeah. But it’s not like a woman who would choose that look really needs or wants my romantic attention, anyway, and I don’t think any less of her as a human being.
No particular order:
5’6, straight dark hair, some meat on her bones and “a tad heavy in the bust”.
5’8-5’10, bleach blonde, slim build. White trash, if you know what I mean.
At least those are the two types that I generally end up with.
But there are lot of other beautiful women out there, expecially some Hispanic and Black women (though none in my town - 98% white).
For me, the body type isn’t as important as the face. Certainly the body type follows the face in that larger women have rounder faces, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
I want someone who doesn’t have to wear a lot of make-up. Someone with nice soft eyebrows that don’t look like they were all plucked out and then drawn in again. An unblemished face is nice and glasses are a HUGE plus. Deep eyes you can get lost in and a smile that seems genuine.
If I’m attracted to her face, I can learn to appreciate the body type. Likewise, the reverse is also true in that the face can make or break even a great body.
YMMV.
I like tall slender women. It might be because that’s what my mother is. I think it also has to do with a fascination of medeival women, both European and Japanese (except for the blackened teeth) like Maid Marion and Genji’s first wife. I find Gwyneth Paltrow very attractive.
DING DING We have a winner! Pretty eyes and a winning smile.
Short and, er, “healthy.” That is, not chubby, but not rail-thin either. Looks like I’m in the minority for preferring short women. In my book, any woman who’s around 5’1’’ is ipso facto marriage material. And it’s not because I’m short; I’m 5’11’’.
Of course, I could never claim that all other women are worthless, since the current object of my affections (unrequited) is probably 5’7’’ to 5’8’’, and athletic.
And a tip o’ the hat to ya’, cornflakes!
If sex seems like it would be complicated; like digging through and holding up rolls of darker complexioned skin around the pubic area - I would not be physically attracted to the individual.
If she looks like a man (you just know it when you see it shrug)
again, no physical attraction.
If she looks pre-pubescant to mid pubescant, no physical attraction. (I imagine that the gap will set the minimum ages for physical attraction at higher physical maturity (for females) as I grow older. Those 15-17 year olds aren’t doing it much for me anymore at all; minus guilty exceptions now and then.) … no physical attraction.
If she has the obvious signs of Ebola, etc… no physical attraction.
If she has the charachteristics of Fetal Alchohol Syndrome and other related inheritances associated with the physical representation of severe mental handicap… no physical attraction.
Other than that; pretty much anything goes…
No, for real!
I am not a fetish person by any stretch of the imagination… If sex seems too physically difficult; too psychologically perverse; too much of disease risk (reasonably, all pretty external stuff)… than physical attraction is a personally observed statistical impossibility. Minus those rather tangible qualities of negation, it’s so easy to find something there and/or not there in the rest of the population; as to make it irrelevant. Having no fetishes or superstitions makes the physical catagory pretty broad for myself.
I’m one of those guys… “There are just lots of hot women everywhere.”
-Justhink
Except for the fact that apparently my breasts are too big ("waaaaah! my breasts are too big! but if I have reduction surgery, then my hips will be too big! waaaaaah!), you guys are all right, y’know?
Kinda like my b/f, whose preferred physical type is “any woman who will have sex with me.”
Bah any woman who can understand my feeble attempts at conversation for more than 10 minutes
And sit through a meal with me and still talk to me afterwords is gold in my book
Ditto. I like a woman with a little meat on her bones. Thin women can be beautiful, but I don’t want to snuggle up next to them…
I once dated a girl who was downright skinny. Sex with her was almost, er, unpleasant.
They’re only too big if they’re disproportionate to the rest of you - so if you had gigantic breasts and a teeny waist, you’d be right out.
Fortunately, no matter whether I’m in a “thin cycle” or a “fat cycle,” my bust measurement is 2" greater than my hip measurement and 10-12" greater than my waist measurement.
They’re very nice breasts, I think.
I think I read somewhere that contrary to what adult film stars’ measurements are (as well as those in high-fashion), the bust measurement usually isn’t more than 10 inches larger than the waist measurement - does this make sense?
(Not saying you’re some kinda mutant, being 10-12 inches larger there! Just wondering if what I read was accurate - and of course, it was probably written to counter all those 44DDD-20-28 women…)
well, seems like you guys enjoy a variety of women, which is good. also most of you like women with some “padding” - all right! now, to let women know they don’t have to weigh 87 pounds to be attractive…
here’s another thing: what do you think of lopsided breasts? are they interesting or disgusting?
-
-
- I’m about 6’2" and some aspects of dating women much shorter than me can be clumsy.
-
- Also, another vote for “healthy”: the number on the scale’s not so much the issue itself, but I like working out and doing outdoors stuff that’s mildly athletic and fat women just can’t keep up and enjoy being there. I’d have supposed that with some encouragement one would have made the effort to change their weight but that has never happened, so I save everybody’s time and skip the fat ones.