- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,496
So at one time or other, I've asked every girl I've dated how she views men sexually, with particular regard to body type. Collating the responses in my mind, I think I have a pretty good model that applies not to all women, but a fair majority, in terms of what they look for and what they avoid. What's interesting is that there has to be a balance of weight and muscularity, with each having an optimum level, and an excess of one over the other being deleterious.
I'll list it in ascending order, from worst (0) to best (6).
0. Obese. (Presumably the evolutionary explanation is that the man is generally unhealthy and unfit to protect/defend her.)
1. Scrawny. (Not enough body-weight to protect her.)
2. Weak and plump "suburban-dad" body. (Unfit, but potentially able to use body-weight for defense purposes.)
3. Generally well-built and muscular, getting a little chubby in places. Very common among men who played competitive sports in teenage/college years and then became a little lazy and too fond of the knife and fork. As a result, developed decent shoulders and chest, and definitely capable of a narrow waist as long as not inactive and/or overfed. (Perfectly able to defend her in a pinch from all but the fittest attackers.)
4. Compact and muscular, "martial arts" body. (Very powerful defender, hampered only by lack of body-weight in the face of an overwhelmingly dominating attacker.)
5. Bulky and muscular, "gym body". (Very good, almost unbeatable defender. Occasionally may experience lack of agility due to bulk.)
6. Lean and muscular, "swimmer's body". (Perfect combination of powerful and sexy.)
The scale is not linear, in my view, and the difference between 2 and 3 is huge, so much so that someone currently in 2 should do everything possible to work on physique, while if already in 3, time is better spent working on game... with good game a 3 is quite capable of attracting many, many women.
It also gives an idea of how to use natural advantages, i.e. if one is currently at 1 (scrawny) the best is presumably to work on strength and aim for 4, choosing diet carefully so that the weight gain does not tend toward 2 or, worse, 0.
If one is at 3 one can either try to bulk up toward 5 (again carefully, to avoid 0) or, much better, slim down and work on whole-body exercise to get toward 6 (ideal and probably easier in fact).
If one is at 0 the priority is to lose weight, if done successfully then 3 may be readily achievable depending on history.
Interested to hear who agrees/disagrees and what your comments/criticisms/edits would be in terms of sequence and also how universally applicable it is (preferences vary to some degree). For example I definitely know some women who actually prefer 3 to 4, and I've read here and elsewhere that some prefer 5 to 6 although I've never heard any woman actually express that personally.
-Marty
I'll list it in ascending order, from worst (0) to best (6).
0. Obese. (Presumably the evolutionary explanation is that the man is generally unhealthy and unfit to protect/defend her.)
1. Scrawny. (Not enough body-weight to protect her.)
2. Weak and plump "suburban-dad" body. (Unfit, but potentially able to use body-weight for defense purposes.)
3. Generally well-built and muscular, getting a little chubby in places. Very common among men who played competitive sports in teenage/college years and then became a little lazy and too fond of the knife and fork. As a result, developed decent shoulders and chest, and definitely capable of a narrow waist as long as not inactive and/or overfed. (Perfectly able to defend her in a pinch from all but the fittest attackers.)
4. Compact and muscular, "martial arts" body. (Very powerful defender, hampered only by lack of body-weight in the face of an overwhelmingly dominating attacker.)
5. Bulky and muscular, "gym body". (Very good, almost unbeatable defender. Occasionally may experience lack of agility due to bulk.)
6. Lean and muscular, "swimmer's body". (Perfect combination of powerful and sexy.)
The scale is not linear, in my view, and the difference between 2 and 3 is huge, so much so that someone currently in 2 should do everything possible to work on physique, while if already in 3, time is better spent working on game... with good game a 3 is quite capable of attracting many, many women.
It also gives an idea of how to use natural advantages, i.e. if one is currently at 1 (scrawny) the best is presumably to work on strength and aim for 4, choosing diet carefully so that the weight gain does not tend toward 2 or, worse, 0.
If one is at 3 one can either try to bulk up toward 5 (again carefully, to avoid 0) or, much better, slim down and work on whole-body exercise to get toward 6 (ideal and probably easier in fact).
If one is at 0 the priority is to lose weight, if done successfully then 3 may be readily achievable depending on history.
Interested to hear who agrees/disagrees and what your comments/criticisms/edits would be in terms of sequence and also how universally applicable it is (preferences vary to some degree). For example I definitely know some women who actually prefer 3 to 4, and I've read here and elsewhere that some prefer 5 to 6 although I've never heard any woman actually express that personally.
-Marty
