USCGAviator Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 You know, I just really haven't found that to be true. It's not like I'm looking around thinking, "Where are all the tall men?" or even "All the good guys are short!" or having difficulty finding a great, tall guy to date. You know, when it comes to physical attraction, "preferences" really isn't a good word to use. I can't help that I'm just not physically attracted to short men. It's not that I prefer a man to be tall, it's that I truly am not personally physically attracted to short men. It's not a preference, like "I prefer if he lives closer, or I prefer if he pays, or I prefer if he is active, or I prefer that he enjoys to travel." You're either attracted, or you're not. I really don't think physical attraction can be controlled. True^ We all look through different windows.
aj22one Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 You know, I just really haven't found that to be true. It's not like I'm looking around thinking, "Where are all the tall men?" or even "All the good guys are short!" or having difficulty finding a great, tall guy to date. You know, when it comes to physical attraction, "preferences" really isn't a good word to use. I can't help that I'm just not physically attracted to short men. It's not that I prefer a man to be tall, it's that I truly am not personally physically attracted to short men. It's not a preference, like "I prefer if he lives closer, or I prefer if he pays, or I prefer if he is active, or I prefer that he enjoys to travel." You're either attracted, or you're not. I really don't think physical attraction can be controlled. I think that's fair. Being a shade over 6 feet tall I've never had anybody turn me down because I was too short (at least to the best of my knowledge) so this really isn't personal for me about height. What I was talkin about was that I'm attracted to Indian and Middle Eastern women. Just am. Don't know why. Always have been. Maybe it's their look, maybe the "exotic" thing I don't know. However, lots of these women aren't open to dating or dating outside their culture so I get turned down a lot. However, the times that I don't get turned down (like with my current gf) make the whole thing worth it. You can't help that you're not attracted to short men and I can't help it that I'm only attracted to "brown chicks". I think the world is a better place because we both get to do our own thing. Cool?
Star Gazer Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 You can't help that you're not attracted to short men and I can't help it that I'm only attracted to "brown chicks". I think the world is a better place because we both get to do our own thing. Cool? For sure.
mesmerized Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I have to love his body...Sex is soooo much better when the guy has a good body and face. I could never date an overweight or a very thin guy, I just can't.
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 ^I have to admit thats part of my reasoning to. Im way more into love making when I love every inch of a girls body.
threebyfate Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 My only physical preference that hasn't been somewhat malleable over the years, would be thin or lean. Haven't ever been able to garner sexual interest in heavy or stocky body types. Also important as it relates to the physical, is a healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise. As must be obvious, the two tie into each other.
Els Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I have a huge gripe about people immediately associating 'fit' with 'thin'. If your intention is to get a very 'fit' girl, you may not necessarily feel 'more like a man' around her, because a 'fit' girl could still be larger than you, especially if she is into muscle building, or taller. She could even be stronger than you - but many men don't want that. So really, if you mean slim/small, say slim/small. There is no shame in that. Personally, I have very few physical requirements, they are probably limited to not obese and takes good care of hygiene. So no, I don't feel inclined to renege on them. 1
Ruby Slippers Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I have a huge gripe about people immediately associating 'fit' with 'thin'. I agree. I've known some thin women who eat a lot of junk food and can't walk up a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing. They're naturally thin, probably due to high metabolism or body type, but totally out of shape. I'm tall and even when I worked out intensely for a minimum of 4 hours a day (competitive athlete), I've never been skinny -- just trim and toned. As for the question, I'm attracted to many different kinds of guys. I see the whole person. 1
gaius Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I don't have an explicit criteria. I'm attracted to a guy or I'm not. If past crushes are any indications, I like my men in all shapes and sizes, although fit and tall seems to be a theme. It should be noted that my biggest crush ever was on a guy shorter than me, who wasn't really good looking by traditional standards. I just really liked his shy-yet-sweet attitude. So the answer is no, I'm not adamant about physical standards. Did you ever end up going out with him? I have physical standards I prefer but I wouldn't say I'm adamant about them. There have been compromises in the past.
Kamille Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Did you ever end up going out with him? Nope! This was a guy I crushed on was I was 18 and very geeky. I've had many crushes on men who were shorter than me (I'm 5'8). None of them ever really worked out. I dated another guy who was shorter and he ended up suggesting a FWB arrangement after 3 dates because he had a crush on another woman (who is shorter than me). Maybe these men prefer women who are shorter than them? I never thought about it like that - really, I just thought our personalities didn't mesh. 1
EasyHeart Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I don't think I have a physical type. As I think about the women I've dated over the past few years, they range in height from 5'2" to 6'0"; blondes, redheads & brunettes (though not all necessarily natural!); long hair, short hair, straight and curly. All of them were relatively fit, but some where on the thin/petite side, others had a more athletic build. Ages ranged from 23-48. I do confess to having a bit of a freckle fetish. I like women with a few freckles on their noses. I have no idea why. Please don't judge me. I know I'm a freak.
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I have a huge gripe about people immediately associating 'fit' with 'thin'. If your intention is to get a very 'fit' girl, you may not necessarily feel 'more like a man' around her, because a 'fit' girl could still be larger than you, especially if she is into muscle building, or taller. She could even be stronger than you - but many men don't want that. So really, if you mean slim/small, say slim/small. There is no shame in that. Personally, I have very few physical requirements, they are probably limited to not obese and takes good care of hygiene. So no, I don't feel inclined to renege on them. Obviously I was talking about the typical fit and slim gym bunny. Not a girl who focuses solely on muscle building. Those chicks are few and far between. Not saying I hate chicks who have any muscle because I def like Jillian Michaels body. I just dont dig female body builders. A typical gym girl whos working on keeping off fat and toning her muscles is not gonna be bigger than me. If I could find a chick like Jillian...thatd be perfect lol...plus she could train me in the gym as well. Edited February 25, 2012 by kaylan
Els Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I agree. I've known some thin women who eat a lot of junk food and can't walk up a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing. They're naturally thin, probably due to high metabolism or body type, but totally out of shape. I'm tall and even when I worked out intensely for a minimum of 4 hours a day (competitive athlete), I've never been skinny -- just trim and toned. As for the question, I'm attracted to many different kinds of guys. I see the whole person. Yep. On the other hand, when I was in my teens, I was 105 lbs and could barely run up a flight of stairs. I've gotten a lot fitter now since I started doing outdoorsy stuff like hiking, but ironically bigger, as my weight went up by 15 lbs. Obviously I was talking about the typical fit and slim gym bunny. Not a girl who focuses solely on muscle building. Those chicks are few and far between. Not saying I hate chicks who have any muscle because I def like Jillian Michaels body. I just dont dig female body builders. A typical gym girl whos working on keeping off fat and toning her muscles is not gonna be bigger than me. If I could find a chick like Jillian...thatd be perfect lol...plus she could train me in the gym as well. I guess I just don't see why not say what you mean. 'Fitness' refers to degree of physical ability and athleticism, and is not directly related to physical size or slimness. Not all 'fit' women are small, and not all small women are fit, although I'm sure many women are both. But if you actually want 'small', why not say 'small'? For example, would you prefer a 5'3" 110 lbs girl who doesn't really exercise, or a 6' 160 lbs girl who does daily martial arts training and professional sports? The latter would be the 'fitter' one by far, but based on what you say, I'd assume you would prefer the former. No harm in that, but I do believe in calling a spade a spade.
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I guess I just don't see why not say what you mean. 'Fitness' refers to degree of physical ability and athleticism, and is not directly related to physical size or slimness. Not all 'fit' women are small, and not all small women are fit, although I'm sure many women are both. But if you actually want 'small', why not say 'small'? For example, would you prefer a 5'3" 110 lbs girl who doesn't really exercise, or a 6' 160 lbs girl who does daily martial arts training and professional sports? The latter would be the 'fitter' one by far, but based on what you say, I'd assume you would prefer the former. No harm in that, but I do believe in calling a spade a spade. Are we really gonna get into this? When men use the word fit, most people will think slender, toned, and curvy gym bunny. When women use the word fit, most people will think of a guy whos got a v shaped torse, nice shoulders, some muscle, and whos toned somewhat. I actually want someone whos fit, but also want her to not be bigger than me. Im 5'9 so I wouldnt go for a 6'0 tall chick, outside of a fun romp maybe. So any chick whos around my height and under, and also works out, is ideal. Ill go for a naturally slim gal who doesnt presently work out, but you can bet all the money in the world that Im gonna try and make her my workout buddy. Edited February 25, 2012 by kaylan
Engadget Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 No, and personally don't understand people who are. I can date short girls, tall girls, skinny girls, fat girls, white girls, black girls, etc. People who are like "He/She has to be X tall" creep me out. Why so specific? There's things I'm not a fan of, girls over 6' tall for example but it isn't a 100% no-go. I tend to like thick/fat girls over skinny, but once again it doesn't disqualify anyone. 1
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 No, and personally don't understand people who are. I can date short girls, tall girls, skinny girls, fat girls, white girls, black girls, etc. People who are like "He/She has to be X tall" creep me out. Why so specific? There's things I'm not a fan of, girls over 6' tall for example but it isn't a 100% no-go. I tend to like thick/fat girls over skinny, but once again it doesn't disqualify anyone. Im only specific about body type. Cant help what im most attracted to. Race doesnt matter to me. Neither does hair color, eye color, etc. Height doesnt matter as long as the girl isnt much taller than me.
Engadget Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Im only specific about body type. Cant help what im most attracted to. Race doesnt matter to me. Neither does hair color, eye color, etc. Height doesnt matter as long as the girl isnt much taller than me. Having preferences is fine, but people have like these oddly specific requirements. Must be blonde, must be under 5'5'', must be this, that. It's weird, and I don't get it. If I'm attracted to a girl the preferences go out the window. 1
Els Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Are we really gonna get into this? When men use the word fit, most people will think slender, toned, and curvy gym bunny. When women use the word fit, most people will think of a guy whos got a v shaped torse, nice shoulders, some muscle, and whos toned somewhat. I actually want someone whos fit, but also want her to not be bigger than me. Im 5'9 so I wouldnt go for a 6'0 tall chick, outside of a fun romp maybe. So any chick whos around my height and under, and also works out, is ideal. Ill go for a naturally slim gal who doesnt presently work out, but you can bet all the money in the world that Im gonna try and make her my workout buddy. Well, IMO the fact that 'most people think' doesn't make it technically correct. I suppose it's fair to use wrong terms that are commonly accepted (I just did that with weight instead of mass, for instance), but I'm curious why guys just don't say 'slender' when that is what they REALLY mean (as you have said, you would be fine with the 'naturally slim girl who doesn't work out', so 'slim' is actually what you are aiming for). Is it because there is some sort of social stigma attached to that? It's a bit unfair to the few guys who genuinely do want 'fit' women IMO, because if they are in the minority then it is they who will be misinterpreted, although they are the ones using the term correctly.
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 Well, IMO the fact that 'most people think' doesn't make it technically correct. I suppose it's fair to use wrong terms that are commonly accepted (I just did that with weight instead of mass, for instance), but I'm curious why guys just don't say 'slender' when that is what they REALLY mean. Is it because there is some sort of social stigma attached to that? It's a bit unfair to the few guys who genuinely do want 'fit' women IMO, because if they are in the minority then it is they who will be misinterpreted, although they are the ones using the term correctly. I dont say slender because I dont only mean slender. I say fit because I want a slender, toned, and active girl. People hear the word fit and thats what they think. The term isnt used wrong, its just a bit subjective. However anytime anyone uses the word fit, then mean someone whos not pudgy and whos not a couch potato.
Els Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Let me put it this way. You would be okay with a girl who is slender and small but not active, even though you would try to get her to go to the gym with you later on. You would not be okay with a girl who is technically 'fit' but taller or more muscular than you. In that case, wouldn't it be fair to say that 'slender and small' has priority, to you, over 'fit'? You would prefer a 'fit' girl who is also 'slender and small', but you would still be okay with ALL 'slender and small' girls, regardless of level of fitness, but not all 'fit' girls. Again, that's entirely your prerogative, but it does annoy me slightly how a term that is intended for measure of health has become instead a measure of aesthetics, by common misuse. 1
maybealone Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Anyways, Ive been looking at various threads regarding physical looks and such, and some people talk about compromise and such. Also some of my friends have told me Im way too picky. However, is it really that picky to want a fit girl who Id feel more like a man around? I don't see this as some sort of "I don't like fat chicks" statement like some people might. If being fit is important to you, of course you would prefer a mate that also feels it is important. Just like if being up on current events was important to you, you'd look for someone who felt the same way. Or if a neat house was important to you, you'd probably avoid dating a slob. So no, I don't think you are being picky. You just prefer looking for someone that has common interests. Personally, I like a bit of a beer gut on a guy. A belly that is a little rounded is sooo sexy to me. I have no idea why. But I still want that guy to be active because I am active. And if he is as active as I am, he's going to be pretty fit even if he does have a bit of a beer belly.
Els Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 But I still want that guy to be active because I am active. And if he is as active as I am, he's going to be pretty fit even if he does have a bit of a beer belly. Yep, this is exactly what I mean. People of all shapes and sizes can be 'fit'. Admittedly, most 'fit' people are not medically obese, but they can still be big, small, and anything in between. 1
aj22one Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Again, that's entirely your prerogative, but it does annoy me slightly how a term that is intended for measure of health has become instead a measure of aesthetics, by common misuse. I hear what you're saying, but that's pretty much how language works. "Dollar" was first used as a term to describe a currency with a certain weight in silver. Now it means nothing more than a piece of paper with some numbers and a dead guy's face on it.
Author kaylan Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Let me put it this way. You would be okay with a girl who is slender and small but not active, even though you would try to get her to go to the gym with you later on. You would not be okay with a girl who is technically 'fit' but taller or more muscular than you. In that case, wouldn't it be fair to say that 'slender and small' has priority, to you, over 'fit'? You would prefer a 'fit' girl who is also 'slender and small', but you would still be okay with ALL 'slender and small' girls, regardless of level of fitness, but not all 'fit' girls. Again, that's entirely your prerogative, but it does annoy me slightly how a term that is intended for measure of health has become instead a measure of aesthetics, by common misuse. Fail question. I dont like a girl whos more muscular than me in general. Has nothing to do with her height. If shes more muscular than me, than its overboard, since I have decent musculature as it is. She stops being feminine is shes more muscular than me. If shes fit, but still feminine, then she can be taller and its fine. Id prolly go for her over the slender and small chick who didnt work out. I find the attitude of gym girls attractive in general...but if the slender and smaller girl worked out, then Id def go with her. Like I said, I dont mind chicks with a little bit of lady muscle...but when I think of lady muscle, Im thinking of Jillian Michaels. Women who are more muscular than me are not feminine. Hence they are not attractive to me. Btw, many folks who stay fit do it for aesthetics and health. Edited February 25, 2012 by kaylan
aj22one Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Btw, many folks who stay fit do it for aesthetics and health. Some chicks are skiinny and toned and don't work out. I've seen some of these women. They're "fit" but not "fit", if you know what I mean.
Recommended Posts