off with a slamming body, on the other side of the coin, an out of shaped body will ruin a girl faster than it will a man.
Posted By: blue6314
I was wondering if people agree or disagree with me on the following about whether there is a different standard for male and female attractiveness..... The one-sentence synopsis is that girls with just okay faces but with hot bodies, nice hair and skin, and who are made up well, are generally considered more attractive than their male equivalents.
Let me flesh this out .... I think that there are females who are often deemed "hot," who do not have pretty faces, because they are able to apply makeup, style their hair, and either workout so they are toned or augment their bodies through surgery. The typical example is a female with long blonde hair and a hot body, but the face isn't, let's just say, her best quality. A good example I can think of off the top of my head is a Jennifer Aniston type. Or maybe some of the ladies from the Orange County Housewives. Or if you look at, say, some porn stars - no names come to mind - they provide even better examples. But still, many guys drool over these ladies.
With guys, it seems different to me. To be considered handsome in our society, I think the guy needs a decent face. Then again, there are certain females who really go for muscle-bound guys, or guys with a certain look (say, like a biker) and for them, the face does not matter so much. These guys are deemed attractive, but only, I would say, by a small percentage of girls. Like the Jersey Shore type girls. Actually, Jersey Shore is a perfect example of this. The guys on that show do not have handsome faces, but they are "Guido juice heads," as Snooki puts it, and their Shore counterparts dig them. But most others would not deem them "hot."
But I would venture that a larger percentage of guys think that the female version is hot than vice versa.
Do people agree or disagree? Hobbyists - what is more important for you in a lady? Providers - how about for you?
