I've been wondering this for a while. Some say it is weight, but I'm skeptical, as there are literally no fat female Hollywood sex symbols while there are some short male Hollywood sex symbols. There are no successful fat female strippers, while there are some 5'5-5'8 male strippers that are wildly successful. So, what trait is the female equivalent of height?
Quote from: KiloKAHN on February 17, 2015, 08:19:08 PMI don't believe there is a perfect equivalent.
Neither do I, really.
Only thing I can possibly think of is waist-to-hip ratio being equivalent to height, but then there are always girls with big breasts and horrible waist to hip ratios that are crazy hot to guys, yet not too many 5'3-5'5 guys who can pull that off.
Quote from: KirP1 on February 17, 2015, 10:33:46 PMthere is no equivalent. The only thing that could be similar is if the girl is really short, like 145cm or less
Maybe a short guy is like a really tall girl? Except I don't really care how tall a girl is as long as she is hot (and we are physically capable of having sex).
Quote from: Medium Drink Of Water on February 18, 2015, 12:19:22 AMI think it is weight. The fact that short guys can succeed in Hollywood doesn't matter. Tom Cruise had to stand on a platform in Top Gun to do scenes with Kelly McGillis, but nobody saw that. Few people actually see him in person much less stand next to him. As for male strippers, I bet the customers would prefer a tall stripper all else being equal.
In terms of being invisible to the opposite sex based on physical features, I think it is indeed height for men and weight for women.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact that there are short male sex symbols or short male stripper at all makes me dispute the height = weight claim. After all, even the plus sized models mentioned above aren't mainstream sex symbols--they're niche.
You must be logged in to post a reply.