Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what you get when you combine social media with science - nonsense. Cosmopolitan magazine influences don't deem natural and sexual selection, Darwin does and human evolution does. Through the natural selection process covering millions of years of human evolution, men are genetically driven to chose females who are most successful in bearing children, thus the tendency to be driven by visual references - large breasts, shapely hips, healthy appearance. Woman are genetically driven by other factors, basically those traits that will keep them and there offspring secure back in the stone age - dominance, masculinity, size and strength. These are not usually visual necessarily (hence the general lack of popularity of woman-focused porn) and yes, as someone pointed out, Mod cut: reference to post which has been deleted..
Now modern social norms may have changed this mix up slightly, but the basics remain from caveman days unchanged, and not too different from animals. Yeah, it's not sexy, but it is what it is. Our preference for sexual partners is a trait developed through human evolution.
This is what you get when you combine social media with science - nonsense. Cosmopolitan magazine influences don't deem natural and sexual selection, Darwin does and human evolution does. Through the natural selection process covering millions of years of human evolution, men are genetically driven to chose females who are most successful in bearing children, thus the tendency to be driven by visual references - large breasts, shapely hips, healthy appearance. Woman are genetically driven by other factors, basically those traits that will keep them and there offspring secure back in the stone age - dominance, masculinity, size and strength. These are not usually visual necessarily (hence the general lack of popularity of woman-focused porn) and yes, as someone pointed out, [snip].
Now modern social norms may have changed this mix up slightly, but the basics remain from caveman days unchanged, and not too different from animals. Yeah, it's not sexy, but it is what it is. Our preference for sexual partners is a trait developed through human evolution.
Silly...just because a slight plurality of women in this study happened to prefer legs (and I'd love to see how the options were actually presented) certainly doesn't mean that legs are IT and nothing else matters. Even physically legs are only a piece of the puzzle. BTW, I couldn't even find the original study to see if was rigorous research or just a puff piece. But hey, as long as we can generalize that all women are the same (and all men too) then we've simplified the world to the point where even the stupidest can understand it.
Yeah, the whole thing seems stupid to me at best. For my entire life, I have been attracted to virtually EVERY type of male physique - short, tall, skinny, muscular, I don't isolate by body part or feature. I probably do most admire a fairly slender guy with toned muscular arms and shoulders, but, stuff like this does not take priority over personality.
'
This guy (I know from his other photos - wish I could find the one of him in compression shorts, out in the desert) has big quads and huge hamstrings, which definitely affect the outline of his upper legs - even in jeans. And to enhance all that beef, he's in the right jeans. His cowboy boots make his calves look even bigger, and the all-important STACK of his jeans, enhances the effect even more.
Not that I'm being critical of men in shorts. Love me some men in shorts.... and speedos... and birthday suits...
But the really, REALLY good news, is that even ELDERLY men can have fantastic legs - every bit as hot-looking as those on younger guys, if they stay in shape.
Do you have Native American ancestry? (Yes, it's possible for your brother to have received a different roll of the genetic dice.)
No, none at all. I have 2 other brothers, both of whom are taller than me; one is 6'2" and the other 6'1", and in all cases, their legs are longer, but by more than 2-3 inches.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(but I'm sure many men would hope that)
