I will go with the face, and specifically with the eyes. I like sussing out what’s behind them.
Well, you’ve got a bunch of women rejecting the hypothetical and saying that they don’t tick that way. You seem intent on fighting the feedback.
Count me as another one who couldn’t possibly answer the question as posed.
Sorry, I’m with Ambivalid - I too find it difficult to believe that you and the others who claim otherwise wouldn’t have at least some sense of whether or not a man is physically attractive to you from a photo or seeing him in passing out in public. The hypothetical isn’t about whether or not you’d like the guy, just if he’d catch your eye.
A lot of people can catch the eye for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn’t translate into “physical attraction”
That many women will swipe left on Tinder or other apps (or right, I can’t remember which) would suggest that many women can and do make judgements about a man’s attractiveness without knowing the sound of his voice or his personality.
oh, it’s not an homogenous group where everybody is exactly the same? Who’da thunk it…:rolleyes:
Even though I am extremely picky about what I actually find “attractive” (no matter how handsome a man is in a photo, it will never set my loins aflame the way pretty pictures of women seem to do for many heterosexual men) and like the other women here, personality and lifestyle are huge factors that change the physical attractiveness of a person, I answered the question by imagining this:
If I were handed two books to look at for my viewing pleasure, and one contained nothing but pictures of men’s faces, and the other contained nothing but pictures of men’s bodies, which one would I choose? Imagine a variety of angles and lighting situations, different poses, but all professional glamour shots.
The bodies had it.
For just looking? Probably bodies. But bodies have to be in motion to be attractive, just a still picture is rarely very attractive. And for still pictures, ones that capture motion (the fielder reaching for the ball, say) are much better than ones of guys just standing there.
However, I’ve noticed that every man I’ve ever dated had good eyelashes. They’ve had a variety of body types. So for actual attraction, the face is clearly more important to me. But that’s not what turns my head.
And yeah, I’m kinda here. For about 2 days a month when I’m ovulating, my head might be turned by a pretty guy. The rest of the time? probably not. But I LIKE guys that I like all the time.
That’s because a guy is asking a guy’s question to gals. And it’s not really the right question to ask gals.
this.
But I also agree with Macca that if I had to choose between a book of guys’ bodies, and one of guys’ faces, and I had nothing else available to pass the time, I’d probably pick the book of bodies.
Sorry, women are rarely fetishistic the way men almost always are. A woman wouldn’t ask a question like that of a group of women. Because most women simply don’t look at a guy as purely a physical object. That’s a male thing.
I’ve occasionally seen men I was turned on by simply through seeing them, not talking to them, finding out what they were like. I mean, occasionally enough that I can remember the times it happened over the past fifty years. They were all tall, lean, dark (in both senses of the word), sensitive-looking. I did not detach their faces from their bodies.
The sexiest thing about a guy is his mind. Are you kind, curious, intelligent, a bit strange, and ten other attractive-to-me things? Then if you aren’t too ugly I’ll probably be interested. Maybe even if you are.
I do know a few women who do see men’s looks as the be all and end all of attractiveness, I’ve just never got it. It’s not what I look for. I remember having this conversation with one of those women, in fact; I could look at her guy of the moment and think ‘Yeah, nice body, good looks’ I suppose, but he had the personality of a dead fish (slimy, stinks and got worse the longer you knew him). He held no attractions for me whatsoever. I wasn’t fighting the desire like some men say about hot crazy women, I had no desire to fight. He was just not attractive.
I’m almost never attracted at all to a guy unless I’ve at least started to get to know him in fact, and on the rare occasions I am, it’s body language; I think he looks like a good, fun, easy going guy right from the off (not always right, but there you go). This isn’t a conscious decision not to judge a book by its cover, it’s automatic and always has been.
If I started using Tinder or something like that, I’d be looking at context, signs of a sense of humour, expression, basically how he chose to present himself, because that’s a clue to personality. Aesthetic appreciation and actual attractiveness just really aren’t very closely linked for me. Or for many other women. Look at men’s magazines, full of scantily clad women. Look at women’s magazines, full of (slightly less) scantily clad women.
I suppose I’d rather look at a book of men’s faces than bodies, if only because headless bodies look pretty weird after a while (especially if they’re nude, I don’t like looking at random male genitals, just those of guys I’m involved with).
ETA: it’s not fighting the hypothetical, the question just reads to me like ‘Vegetarians; do you prefer pork or beef?’
I was trying to come up with an example of how the question reads to me as a woman, and the best I could do was, “When you choose what to have for dinner, which is more important, the color or the shape?” It’s not that those attributes play no part in the decision, it’s that they aren’t the ones we would normally think of as significant.
That’s a really good example. And sometimes, the redder strawberries really do look better than the less-red strawberries. But I’m still only interested because they are strawberries. I’m not picking up the gorgeous red beets, because no one will want to eat them.
I want a sample of the strawberries, and of the beets. I don’t care at all what they look like, only how they taste. 
I want to buy the ones that taste better, but the redder ones do LOOK more attractive. (although, back when I bought strawberries by variety at the farmer’s market, I learned that some of the less-red cultivars taste better than some of the redder ones. Earliglo? Yes please!)
Yeah, that’s better. It’s not that I wouldn’t want to date a physically attractive guy, all other things being equal, I’d prefer it. I’ve just yet to be faced with two competing guys with identical personalities, one with a nice face, one with a nice body.
I guess when Fabio was chosen as the cover art for all those romance novels, it’s because the publishers did long interviews with him and knew he was the personality that would move books.
Exactly.
Why cant any of you simply answer which is more aesthetically pleasing without turning it into a question of what women consider to be the nature of “attraction”?
Okay, which do you find more esthetically pleasing, a well formed oak leaf or an active any hill?
I’m sorry but I dont think I’m getting this. Was “any” hill supposed to be ant hill? Even then, who would answer any way other than “well formed oak leaf”? Besides maybe an entymologist? But you may have meant something else…?