Quote from: myloginacct on February 24, 2018, 06:38:24 PMI was specifically talking about physical attractiveness in a 5'5 male. I think Jeff's look beats Priest's and Radcliffe's, in that sense. That's really all.
but they are all under 5-5
Radcliffe should be like 5-3
Quote from: Knik on February 24, 2018, 06:41:36 PM
but they are all under 5-5
Radcliffe should be like 5-3
Why do you believe Radcliffe is 5'3?
Quote from: myloginacct on February 24, 2018, 06:45:10 PMWhy do you believe Radcliffe is 5'3?
http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/3386991/daniel-radcliffe-will-arnett-erin-darke-spoils-opening-night-04/
http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/3386992/daniel-radcliffe-will-arnett-erin-darke-spoils-opening-night-05/
By the way we should stop to compare ourself to celebrities
Quote from: Zeo on February 24, 2018, 03:41:37 PMYea you sound like you're a shredded beefcake with the body of a greek god
Sounds like what I said struck a nerve. If you're that offended by a statement of fact, it just goes to show how true it really is. Uncomfortable truths generally elicit passive-aggressive responses like this from people nowadays.
Quote from: yogobro298 on February 24, 2018, 06:15:26 PMYou're posting pictures of these people,but looks are subjective its just a small piece of the pie.
Money,and status play a role too. Some women would choose Daniel Rad over Jeff just because of his money and status like I said its all subjective.
Absolutely not. There's very little "subjective" about looks. Physical attractiveness is about geometric and biological axioms like angularity, symmetry and sexual dimorphism
https://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347207000565
QuoteFaces and bodies are thought to be signals of mate quality in humans. Most research on attractiveness has focused on faces or bodies separately, whereas our preferences have evolved based on both seen together. [...] For both sexes, face attractiveness predicted overall attractiveness more strongly than did body attractiveness, and this difference was significant in males. [...] A component associated with attractive traits in the male face, and in females both a face and body component, significantly predicted overall attractiveness. Our results validate the assumption that studying faces and bodies separately in the context of mate choice will produce biologically meaningful results and suggest that face and body attractiveness may convey potentially independent signals about an individual's mate quality.
In other words, "body" (where "body" refers to physique) contributes more to female attractiveness ratings by men than it does to male attractiveness ratings for women. In the latter, facial attractiveness was much more highly selected for.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513899000148
QuoteSymmetry may act as a marker of phenotypic and genetic quality and is preferred during mate selection in a variety of species. Measures of human body symmetry correlate with attractiveness, but studies manipulating human face images report a preference for asymmetry. These results may reflect unnatural feature shapes and changes in skin textures introduced by image processing. When the shape of facial features is varied (with skin textures held constant), increasing symmetry of face shape increases ratings of attractiveness for both male and female faces. These findings imply facial symmetry may have a positive impact on mate selection in humans.
Money and status shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as physical traits when speaking of physical attractiveness. Money and status don't increase your attractiveness to women the same way that height and face do. Not even close. Being rich or famous will attract gold diggers and Instagram camwh*res who want to take your money or increase their own status. They don't want you. They want your money/fame. How you could ever be in a relationship with a person that finds you physically repulsive but tolerates you because of what she can get from you monetarily is beyond me.
Quote from: Knik on February 24, 2018, 07:38:17 PMhttp://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/3386991/daniel-radcliffe-will-arnett-erin-darke-spoils-opening-night-04/
http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/3386992/daniel-radcliffe-will-arnett-erin-darke-spoils-opening-night-05/
By the way we should stop to compare ourself to celebrities
His gf is 5'7, so I'd say 5'5 is accurate.
Quote from: myloginacct on February 24, 2018, 08:46:11 PMHis gf is 5'7, so I'd say 5'5 is accurate.
even Rob Paul list him at 5-4, if that guy is 5-5 I will do like Apo and do 8" in each segment
Rob Paul is still too generous, he is 5-3
Quote from: Knik on February 24, 2018, 08:52:25 PMeven Rob Paul list him at 5-4, if that guy is 5-5 I will do like Apo and do 8" in each segment
Rob Paul is still too generous, he is 5-3
I actually believe the 5'5 in his case.
If he is actually 5'3, what does that make his mother?
Quote from: yogobro298 on February 19, 2018, 04:52:46 AMI've always realized tall people never seem to ever get picked on or sized up.It's always the short guys who have to hold their ground or keep their head up per say.
I always thought working out would eliminate this probably,but in some ways the problem kind of grew.Because Tall guys see me as a "threat" not saying im huge or anything I'm far from it.
I really never understood this.
Does anyone else understand where I'm coming from?
It makes perfect sense. For many guys (including myself) when we see an overly shredded guy our instinct is that he's gearing up for a fight. On a primitive level you would only build up that kind of muscle for a fight, not for war or battle as part of a team but rather just yourself against an individual.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
