I wonder what women would prefer out of these 2 examples?

Post Reply New Topic

1. a +- 5' 5" narrow shouldered but extremely muscular and ripped guy

or

2. a 6' 3" (or taller) broad shouldered but not muscular and not ripped guy (belly).

This is not enough info to go on. Even if we are judging by looks alone, I'd still need to see his face.

By looks alone, and provided they both have identical personalities and experiences and whatever, I would say height wins in this scenario.

That is, most girls would probably go for the taller one.

I don't like muscles, so the second one.

I'd for the muscular one

Also a large waist to shoulder ratio is more important to me than shoulder width

Neither. I don't like muscles, but 6'3" is just too tall. And I'm speaking from experience here. My ex is 6'4" and flabby.

Neither.

_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone

I kind of have the exact physical description of 2. already (kind of ), but in reality, that is not enough to go on. It depends on other factors. How the person behaves and how their face looks. How they make you feel. Skin, hair, smell, hands and on and on............................................................

Either of those two body types could be attractive, depending upon different circumstances.

What was the idea behind the question?

If I had to pick, I'd go with the first one, because the impracticality of the second one's height is probably the most negative feature.

I suppose you are wondering whether height or muscles are more appealing to a woman. For some reason you added the broad shoulders variable too, which messes it all up a bit, so you wouldn't know if someone picked the second guy for his height or his shoulders.

Hmm...perhaps you are wondering about stereotypically attractive attributes that a man works for, versus those he is born with?

The 5'5 one.

The less boring.

Neither.

Whoops, read that wrong. The tall one with broad shoulders.