Let me try that again: When you buy a laptop, which is more important, the brightness of the screen or the resolution of the screen?
That’s sort of like the question about guys, because of course you care about both the brightness and the resolution, and either one without the other isn’t really going to be satisfying. And while you care about the screen, and it might even draw your eye at the shop, it’s not very high on the list of features you are probably shopping for.
I did mean ant hill. And yeah, I enjoy watching ants, but I’m probably weird that way. I gave a better comparison.
His skull?
Because the OP raised physical attraction.
Which do you like to do more: marathon running or ballroom dancing? Just answer the question, it does not matter whether you do either.
I like friendly smiles but not like weirdly-a-bit-too-friendly smiles. And that’s all I really care about. I am not sexually attracted to bodies anyway, and I have never been the type to look at celebrities and rate them by their bodies, it’s usually by face. One of my jobs is rating men’s profile pics for dating sites to help them choose wisely. Almost all are head shots so what you see first on at least that dating site is the face, and I guess after that they can have other pics but it starts with a good head shot.
See here’s the thing, puzzlegal, you answered the question:
Then you have to go on this lecture about how women just aren’t like that. But nobody asked how you choose the perfect guy. Most guys wouldn’t want to date a beautiful woman who was some big jerk either.
no, just a ridiculous either/or question which is based on a false premise.
The false premise being that women have any physical preferences?
No.
The false premise being that women rate men in the same ways men rate women, or at least, in the ways men can put in the same boxes that they use.
We just don’t. That’s why the question is so “frustrating” for men. What interests women is generally the inner man or at least, the gestalt of the whole person. Not quantifiable.
No one asked about rating men.
Yeah, because it’s an annoying an off-point question. And because guys kept asking, “why aren’t women answering this?” So I answered the original question, but I ALSO answered “why are you all fighting the hypothetical and not just answering the question?”
It’s not just that gals don’t want to date jerks. No one wants to date jerks. It’s that (as best I as I can tell) guys are initially attracted by physical appearance. Guys sometimes find it hard to even understand that “attractive” isn’t the same thing as “looks good”. And so they ask women annoying questions.
I have known more than a few women who would never date a shorter man, certainly not one shorter than themselves. Are they outliers or does that represent something other than judging on physical appearance?
I don’t think they are outliers, but I don’t think that preference is relevant to this question, unless you read “body” very broadly.
A man’s height is less relevant to the discussion ofphysical attraction than strawberries and anthills? Ooookay then.
His second face! Yes, I know.
nm
If he’s in his natural skin, not tatted up, body modded or excessivley groomed.
hair type length or baldness being equal.
wait what’s the question where’ s the poll!
I thought we were supposed to use just a photo to determine the level of attractiveness? Height is comparative- I can’t tell how tall a man is by a photo of his body or of his face.
In the example of would i rather page through a book of lovely bodies or lovely faces- I suppose the book of faces, those would show individuality best. Still photos of still bodies doesn’t sound very interesting, though bodies in motion are a different story. Ultimately it comes down to my mood. Either way, that book sounds rather boring.
Nope. Later posters decided to discuss a book of faces or bodies but that was not in the OP and is frankly really weird. Guys don’t buy magazines or books of just bodies or faces. A more reasonable way to look at it as people watching on the beach or the park.