I (bi female) prefer female bodies and feminine men so up until this thread I could have believed that everyone agreed women were prettier. As a lot of people have pointed out, it's partially because most people would rather snuggle with the big eyed, rounded cute person with the babyface, but in the case of the less pretty and more 'handsome' women (usually older and more confident than cute) they still tend to win because they have curves, and curves are nicer on the eyes than male rectangular bodies.
Hence Hogath's line of beauty http://raggedclothcafe.com/2008/02/21/hogarths-line-of-beauty/ which is a curve that he reckoned was the basis of all great art. (Although he was a -presumably- straight male, so perhaps he was biased.)
LilithSlave said:
It escapes me. Fat on the chest? Ok. Fat on the tummy? Not ok. Huh? What's the difference?
Body fashions change. I think someone already pointed out that in cultures where food is scarcer, fat is a sign of fertility and wealth. However in first world countries where food is plentiful, thinness is hard to attain so is seen as special.
The attraction to a culture's body fashion - obviously not hard wired into our animal instincts if they change across cultures and times - is a case of trying to gain social capital. By that I mean, people looking for the things that are fashionable over what they'd otherwise be attracted to in order to be seen as more successful when they find a fashionable mate.
Blind people may be more or less attracted to someone just from knowing if they're seen by others as attractive or not, even though it makes little difference to them (although it could be argued that their mate's attractiveness will have an affect on the social success of their offspring, should they chose to have any.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8069993.stm
JDLY said:
Large breast (while I think are overrated, I prefer small and perky) are a biological signal that an individual has plenty to provide to any offspring.
Another example of people thinking they're hard wired into finding the fashionable body attractive. Large breasts make no more milk than small breasts, they merely take longer to fill up http://breastfeedingbasics.info/do-big-breasts-make-more-milk and the con of them is that they're more awkward to feed children with without smothering them (this I've heard from mothers I know comparing experiences and, yes, babies have been smothered from feeding before http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/mum-smothers-baby-while-breastfeeding-on-jet/story-e6frfq80-1225805936317 ).
And for the woman herself, big boobs are more likely to lead to back problems. Neither are really better than the other and small boobs have been the ideal in times past. (See the Middle Ages, where the perfect breasts were said to be the size of apples http://www.montanakaimin.com/opinion/nobody-s-right-adore-me-1.2690014#.TtPK2rIr27s and just a century ago when it was fashionable amongst Flapper women to flatten their breasts by wrapping fabric around their chests http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/ahas/flappers_overview.html .)
Alphonse_Lamperouge said:
bisexuality strikes me as selfish. what, 3.5 billion possible sexual partners isnt enough for you? its gotta be the full 7 billion? might as well be Agnostic too
Heck yeah, 7 billion potential partners and God AND Science have got my back. You should try it!
