Post: #51

(09-15-2013 08:13 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  Sometimes I feel like these insecure roidheads are the new 'buck' slaves of our feminized society; superficially strong, internally weak, etc.

You can't come to any other conclusion?

Post: #52

(09-15-2013 09:35 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 08:13 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  Sometimes I feel like these insecure roidheads are the new 'buck' slaves of our feminized society; superficially strong, internally weak, etc.

You can't come to any other conclusion?

I dunno, I might not be totally right, but I think my thesis is closer to the truth than what the roidheads want you the think.

Post: #53

Fair enough. When were you last cycling and why did you stop using roids?

Post: #54

A woman's tastes regarding a man's build are usually a strong indicator of her social class.

Prole women are almost entirely interested in mass. I've heard them disparaging the physiques of elite tennis and soccer players many times - despite these guys being in the top 0.1% of two of the most competitive sports on the planet.
They seek a man who would produce offspring capable of intense physical labour. Note how there is a worship of the supposed nobility of 'working with your hands'.

Upper class women seek athletic men, not strongmen. Lion Of The Blogosphere recently made a fascinating post about the interests listed in the wedding announcements of New York's upper class, tennis and running were predictably commonplace, whereas bodybuilding has been mentioned zero times.
http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.co...crunchers/

All this being said, money and power still wins over all.

Post: #55

(09-15-2013 10:26 AM)Starke Wrote:  A woman's tastes regarding a man's build are usually a strong indicator of her social class.

Prole women are almost entirely interested in mass.

Upper class women seek athletic men, not strongmen.

All this being said, money and power still wins over all.

Very astute points, and there are good reasons for the above, most of which you listed. I wonder if this still applies in the States?

Post: #56

(09-14-2013 03:24 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Just for reference, here is Thor's actor (Christ Hemsworth) at the time of filming:



Representing roughly the ideal physique for women. He is not a roid monster, but he is huge nonetheless. David, Bruce Lee and Houston's grandpa would all be considered really thin (or average at best) to them. Of course, being defined and lean still counts, but in terms of size, they would be overlooked.

This is also not to say that this would mean that they wouldn't get laid, as female preferences don't put so much weight on looks (thank gods), but it would be a penalty for them. I believe this is due to the average western woman becoming more and more dominant and thus requiring an even more dominant guy to be attracted to. Muscles, height, tattoos and etc. are all external indicators of dominance, and the dominance threshold is constantly increasing.

LOL, Hercules has a fupa

Sorry to burst your bubble but this guy is on synthetic hormones.

Post: #57

(09-15-2013 10:11 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Fair enough. When were you last cycling and why did you stop using roids?

?

Post: #58

Power.

Post: #59

(09-15-2013 07:39 AM)kosko Wrote:  Women favor the more lean built look. The Soccer player physique for instance comes to mind. David Beckham looks malnourished to me at times but women cream over his this build, same goes for many other soccer players. This gives you be balance of strength and functionality. IMO the "perfect physique" gives you the balance of both. Men could never get huge back in the day but they could still get strong. It's ideal to look healthy and strong more than huge IMO.

Pretty much. The ideal I see girls constantly harp on about is the "swimmer's body" - long, slender, and toned. The only girls that are attracted to the balloon muscled types are guidettes and other assorted white trash. I think someone with a build like GSP is the upper limit of what girls like - actually a while ago a buddy of mine and me were talking about GSP has the most female-friendly body out of all the big name MMA guys.

I used to show this picture to girls and 100% of them said they were disgusted by Sean Sherk's body:



The most important physical trait that women look for in men is height. There is ABSOLUTELY no question about that. I believe with my entire being that most girls will prefer a tall skinny guy over a average height muscular guy. You'll see it over and over again when girls describe their ideal man when it comes to his physical traits - girls who are like 5'3" asking for guys that are 6 ft or over.

Post: #60

(09-15-2013 12:37 PM)Wutang Wrote:  [quote='kosko' pid='534612' dateline='1379248782']
You'll see it over and over again when girls describe their ideal man when it comes to his physical traits - girls who are like 5'3" asking for guys that are 6 ft or over.

Good point, I think the recent arrival of this demand from women has been a result on their herd mentality on dating websites. They see other women list 6ft as a requirement, so assume it as a basic standard.

I'm 5'11 but if a broad asks, I'm 6'1. None of them have ever questioned it. Yet prior to doing so, in more more honest days, I would say 5'11 and I'd get a 'short' jibe from the lower-class wenches.

Post: #61

(09-15-2013 12:37 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 07:39 AM)kosko Wrote:  Women favor the more lean built look. The Soccer player physique for instance comes to mind. David Beckham looks malnourished to me at times but women cream over his this build, same goes for many other soccer players. This gives you be balance of strength and functionality. IMO the "perfect physique" gives you the balance of both. Men could never get huge back in the day but they could still get strong. It's ideal to look healthy and strong more than huge IMO.

Pretty much. The ideal I see girls constantly harp on about is the "swimmer's body" - long, slender, and toned. The only girls that are attracted to the balloon muscled types are guidettes and other assorted white trash. I think someone with a build like GSP is the upper limit of what girls like - actually a while ago a buddy of mine and me were talking about GSP has the most female-friendly body out of all the big name MMA guys.

I used to show this picture to girls and 100% of them said they were disgusted by Sean Sherk's body:



The most important physical trait that women look for in men is height. There is ABSOLUTELY no question about that. I believe with my entire being that most girls will prefer a tall skinny guy over a average height muscular guy. You'll see it over and over again when girls describe their ideal man when it comes to his physical traits - girls who are like 5'3" asking for guys that are 6 ft or over.

dude i'm 6'2 and i can tell you in my experience being tall helps, i'm not going to lie but it doesnt mean girls open their legs right after they see you, would a tall dude have an advantage over a short guy yea, but this is about having all the advantages possible, look at VK 5'10, 183 he said it himself after the broad touched his abs she melted, but everything came together, build the best version of yourself and minimize your weaknesses.

Post: #62

Too many guys without game responding in this thread. lol at these responses:

Quote:Upper class women seek athletic men, not strongmen.

That's who they marry. Not who they fuck.

Quote:All this being said, money and power still wins over all.

Zero game detected

Quote:I used to show this picture to girls and 100% of them said they were disgusted by Sean Sherk's body

You actually take the opinion of what a woman is attracted to as fact? They'll all tell you they want nice guys. Seriously man time to approach some girls for yourself.

Post: #63

(09-15-2013 12:37 PM)Wutang Wrote:  I used to show this picture to girls and 100% of them said they were disgusted by Sean Sherk's body:

I'd venture to guess that the "disgust" from that picture is probably more from the constipated grimace on Sherk's face than his build.

I've gone back and forth between "slender" and "muscular" multiple times in my 20s (between 170lbs and 200lbs, low body fat at 5'11''). Just had periods where I wasn't focusing as much on lifting/diet due to career, getting injured, etc. But I will pick 200lbs cut any day. You don't know just how powerful it is until you've had girls practically drooling over you at the beach/pool or started getting a ton of obvious approach invites that you weren't getting as your skinnier self.

If you are skinnier/don't lift and pulling the girls you want to pull, hey man, great, that's all that matters. But guys trying to get better with game have it seriously messed up if they are online debating stuff along the lines of "whether girls like the Ronnie Coleman look" and haven't put in at least 2 intense lift sessions this week. Just sayin.

Post: #64

Good Looking Loser likes this thread.

Post: #65

(09-15-2013 02:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Too many guys without game responding in this thread. lol at these responses:

Quote:Upper class women seek athletic men, not strongmen.

That's who they marry. Not who they fuck.

That suggests your experience is limited to women of more common taste. In Europe at least, women of decent stock generally aim for males with a Federer or Beckham type athletic type body more-so than they would a bodybuilder.

Neither look is easy to get, each takes several years of commitment and sensible eating, but they do tend to attract different classes of women.

Post: #66

Because America is always been about more. More money, more freedom, bigger screens on your phones, larger cars, larger boats, longer freeways, bigger meals, larger tits.

Is it the end all be all? No

Will it help having bigger muscles, bigger wallet, nicer car, nicer house, fancier clothes, better food? Of course.

People really need to stop these mental masturbation thread. It truly is paralysis by analysis.

Post: #67

(09-15-2013 02:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Too many guys without game responding in this thread. lol at these responses:

Quote:Upper class women seek athletic men, not strongmen.

That's who they marry. Not who they fuck.

'Athletic' doesn't mean skinny. Athletic, to me, and most people, is like a boxer or something. You're a smart guy, surely you understand what Starke is alluding to?

I think this is the one subject where Americans and Non-Americans are never going to agree on. That said, Beckham get loads of love from women in America for his (fairly unremarkable) body. Yes, probably because it's 'David Beckham' - social proof and all that.

To be honest, I don't even know why I get involved in these kind of threads, I'm in decent shape and I'm happy with that. No complaints from girls, and I'm very nearly happy with the shape I'm in. I'd probably like to be about 10lbs heavier, but still be able to box with the speed and functionality I currently have. I suppose it's a toss-up between what you think looks good, and what you require in terms of functionality. For the record, I'm no Fisto, I just enjoy sparring and training.

Post: #68

(09-14-2013 10:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The benefits the average guy would get from going from skinnyfat to looking like GSP are greater than a fit guy would get from going from GSP's build to Jay Cutler's.

Who is trying to do that, though?

It's 10K a month in drugs and a lifestyle no one here wants to live.

Guys will say, "I don't want to look like Ronnie Coleman." Guess what. None of us could.

And no one is trying to, so it doesn't make a lot of sense when guys use pro bodybuilders as an example in these threads.

(09-14-2013 10:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The average guy can also come close to looking like GSP naturally with a few years of casual weight training,

No, not even close. GSP himself is on gear.

If you look like that after a few years of casual training, congrats, you are in the genetic elite - as in top 1% or so.

Post: #69

^^^I dont doubt that GSP may use gear, but hes 170lbs (185 not water-deprived) and 5'11. That weight/height ratio is very reachable to most people. Maybe not as defined, but def. doable.

Post: #70

(09-15-2013 04:02 PM)DVY Wrote:  ^^^I dont doubt that GSP may use gear, but hes 170lbs and 5'11. That weight/height ratio is very reachable to most people. Maybe not as defined, but def. doable.

That's what he weighs in at.

Fighters cut 15-20 pounds. By fight time he is 190 or so.

And that's at sub 10% bodyfat.

That is an incredible physical specimen and it would take immense dedication to get there (far from "casual training) and some assistance for all but the genetically gifted.

Post: #71

Yeah, my point was that it's stupid to even consider the pro bodybuilder physique in terms of its appeal or lack of appeal to women. Because nobody just picks up a set of weights and accidentally turns into Ronnie Coleman after a few years.

And maybe it's not accurate to say that the 'average' guy can come close to a GSP physique with 'casual' training. But I don't think I'm too far off the mark. Maybe I should say that a semi-athletic guy with a reasonably dedicated diet and lifting routine could come close to that. And even if he doesn't, he'll still look much better carrying the extra muscle anyway.

Basically my main point in this thread is to say that no man can ever go wrong by increasing his muscle mass.

Post: #72

(09-15-2013 11:05 AM)Every10GivesMeA10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 03:24 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Just for reference, here is Thor's actor (Christ Hemsworth) at the time of filming:



Representing roughly the ideal physique for women. He is not a roid monster, but he is huge nonetheless. David, Bruce Lee and Houston's grandpa would all be considered really thin (or average at best) to them. Of course, being defined and lean still counts, but in terms of size, they would be overlooked.

This is also not to say that this would mean that they wouldn't get laid, as female preferences don't put so much weight on looks (thank gods), but it would be a penalty for them. I believe this is due to the average western woman becoming more and more dominant and thus requiring an even more dominant guy to be attracted to. Muscles, height, tattoos and etc. are all external indicators of dominance, and the dominance threshold is constantly increasing.

LOL, Hercules has a fupa

Sorry to burst your bubble but this guy is on synthetic hormones.

I went to see Thor with my girlfriend at the time. The first time Hemsworth came on screen with his shirt off, she leaned forward in her seat, her jaw dropped, her eyes opened wide and she was transfixed. this from a smart educated woman who had told me "I just like guys who are fit, not too muscular."

A look something like Hemsworth's is really about the ideal I think to attract women-he was very jacked but not bodybuilder huge. I don't think you really need quite as much mass as that though to get close to maximizing attraction.

He was definitely using gear to prep for the film

Post: #73

First of all, I would think most guys had learned not to listen to what women claim to be attracted to by now.

Secondly, it's always the same examples given for this so-called ideal 'athletic' body type... Brad Pitt, David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo.

I have some info for you fellas. These guys had women sweating them before they were even seen with their shirts off. If you have model-esque looks, you just need to not be fat. Think the aforementioned guys and others like Clooney, DiCaprio, Depp, etc. These guys get (female) attention for their face.

But then you look at the next class of male celebrities. Channing Tatum, Hugh Jackman, Will Smith, Mark Wahlberg, Gerard Butler. Wow, that's shocking! These guys are all physically bigger for some reason. Why do seemingly average looking guys like Jason Statham and Daniel Craig have women all over their nuts?

Weird how the soccer player and swimmer's physiques are ideal yet women give zero fucks about Lionel Messi or Michael Phelps.

Post: #74

I'll also add this: back when I was bigger into lifting and was more built you know who was mostly commenting on my build? Other men. I would say that for every 5 guys that said something about my physique whether it be "Bro you look like your built", "Do you workout?", "How much do you bench?" and the like I would get one comment from a girl. Muscles is to guys what questionable fashionable choices is for women (ie. ugg boots). We complain about the stupid fashion trends that women jump on and how unattractive it is to men but women aren't wearing high-waisted shorts and getting dumb Skrillex haircuts for men, it's to show off to other women.

And I'm well aware of not listening to women when they talk about how they love sweet, nice guys that make them laugh and the BS behind it all. It's their hamster at work big time. However, when it comes to showing a girl a picture of a guy you are getting their instant reflexive reaction before their hamster has time to kick in and I'll just say that whenever I showed girls pics of Sherk and other guys with his similar build I could see the instant digust on their face.

I also totally agree with what people were saying earlier about more blue collar chicks being attracted to the big muscle types with those who are more upper middle class like the swimmer/track type build. I remember when I was in undergrad a lot of the guys were getting constant tail were tall, clean cut lean types with their popped collar Polo shirts and what not.

Post: #75

(09-15-2013 09:16 PM)Wutang Wrote:  I'll also add this: back when I was bigger into lifting and was more built you know who was mostly commenting on my build? Other men. I would say that for every 5 guys that said something about my physique whether it be "Bro you look like your built", "Do you workout?", "How much do you bench?" and the like I would get one comment from a girl

Be honest.

Did you have an at least 12" drop from your shoulders to your waist?

Or were you like one of those guys at the gym in an Underarmor sleeveless shirt who has been on a "10 year bulk"?

I.e., were you broad shouldered with some definition in your abs or were you "built fat"?