Muscle guys get more sex... is this really a surprise?

People with legs are more likely to walk than people without.

If this study is true it means that women would rather fuck Jake Steinfeld than me. Dear God, I've been living a lie!

Well D'uhhhhhhh

... and Real Dolls love me for who I am.

Apparently, they didn't select the women for the study from the audience of an indie-rock show.

While I like my men in decent physical shape, I am not attracted to muscular men. I find a pronounced six-pack gross. Guitarist/drummer biceps are alright with me. Then again, I seem to have the recessive gene that draws me irrevocably to lovely geeky boys, who are not generally known for being ripped.

The weird thing is, in that picture the deceased appears to be doing some sort of reverse cowgirl position.

And yeah, they really devoted actual science time to this? Listen, I'm a pretty skinny guy who barely makes any effort and on my best days can only become toned. I know the score, and I think I naturally tend to hate on muscular people a little for genetic, Animal Planet reasons. At the same time, I also can't stand the skinny jeans/anime hair thing that a lot of the geek youth are embracing these days. Can't a man be a man without being on steroids or acting like a woman?

I like that "three" is the benchmark for being able to have a lot of partners. Something tells me these scientists are really, really not muscular.

What he forgot to write was that it's three at the same time.

I think the Reuters reporter highlighted the wrong aspect of the study. Without having read the study itself, based on the quote above I'm assuming the significant finding is that women prefer chisled men because of biological determinants. Though based on what's reported in this article, I don't see how the researchers can conclude that just by asking women who they preferred.

"Water is wet and women have secrets."

That's a good point. Just about everyone, male or female, is going to prefer an in-shape person to an out-of-shape person, all else being equal. But all else is never equal. Which is why god invented alcohol.

Actually, a lot of people prefer out of shape people. They've all been dead for 500 years, but that's beside the point.

Technically, aren't people who are deathly skinny or terrifyingly muscular also out of shape? I mean, if we're taking "in shape" to literally mean a body of appropriate mass and proportion.

Yeah, definitely. My point is that if you show someone two photos, one of a trim, toned person, and one of an average-to-pudgy person, and ask who they'd rather sleep with (with no other information), nearly everyone would choose the fit person. Taking personality out of the equation really skews the results, I think.

Right - muscular guys probably have some shared personality traits, too, and that might be a big factor in the attraction. Or, alternately, muscular guys (being concerned about appearances) might be more inclined to inflate their numbers when it comes to sexual history. I suppose the latter sort of scenario (that a certain demographic is more inclined to lie) is always a potential limitation in taking surveys.

No, choose a side!

True. Considering how many people are overweight (according to the BMI fascists anyway), maybe the average should dictate just what "in shape" is.

Also, research was temporarily stymied when the scientist nerds went to interview a particularly attractive woman, but got nervous and scared when they accidentally made eye contact and just told her what time it was even though she hadn't asked, and then walked off dejectedly.

Ever see that Undeclared episode where Monica Keena's character realizes she's gained weight when the geeks can actually speak to her? Her triumphant moment at the end is that she loses the weight and the geeks go right back to being intimidated.

She's kind of a bitch.

The problem with having using averages to dictate what it means to be "in shape" is that it's a perversion of the concept. Let's say that a male who is, by conventional definition, 15% body fat and able to run 2.5 miles at a stretch is considered to be in shape (which is probably reasonable, if not a bit generous). That probably puts the guy in the top 15% of the country in terms of physical fitness, even though in terms of what his body is most likely capable of, he's really not going at peak performance or anything.

Simply for health reasons, I think it's one of those terms that we don't want to adjust in order to make people feel better.

Actually, leaving out personality doesn't skew the results, since the study is just based on muscularity/fitness. You have to assume that everything else is equal between the two choices - personality, resources, etc. - and then see who women find more sexually attractive.

Generally, unfit people are more likely to be unhealthy*, because they are more likely to have less healthy genetic traits; the fit people are more desirable because the subconscious/animalistic parts of the women's brains tell them that the fit dudes will give them superior genes, and thus superior offspring.

While women generally marry men based on status/long-term resources, they have flings with fit, good-looking men because they subconsciously want those good genes, even if they don't consciously want kids. Similarly, men are constantly attracted to other women because they have the subconscious drive to spread their genes, even if they don't consciously want or care about children.

* We're talking likelihood, not equivalence. Fit =/= health, but in general, healthy people are more likely to be fit and good-looking. The drive to choose a suitable mate for reproduction, and the behaviors that aid in mate selection, are far older than speech, personality, etc.

Good idea. I'm a bit overweight, but I also have a big frame.(With no fat on me I'd be about 240-250.) Anyway Im 6'2'' and weigh about 300. When people guess my weight they usually say about 230, but according to the BMI I'm morbidly obese.

They missed out the second part of the article:

"Fortunately, there is hope! With the new Reuters (TM) Super-Brawny Body-System..."

in other news, women tend to find rich men more attractive than poor men.

I find shit like this really unattractive:

However, muscles are very good in sane amounts, I've been known to go all gooey in the knees for guys with nice biceps and abs.

I feel your pain - at 5'9" and 225 lbs, I am hardly svelte or in shape, but the BMI charts have me at severely overweight.

Um, no, not quite.

If all this data is accurate I'd like to know how this became a #1 best seller.

Kinda the same here. I'm shorter than that (5'9" on a good day). And I'm certainly not in shape and could stand to lose a few (kind of Seth Rogen-ish physique), I refuse to believe I'm "obese", as the BMI would have me. Obese is people who can't buy clothes at regular stores and have to go to "big and tall" stores. Obese is having to get two seats on a plane. I have a friend who's the same height as me, but if we were both stripped of all our flesh, his skeleton could still wear my skeleton like Ripley in the power loader. Why should we be judged on the same terms?

I read a study not that long ago that discovered men like boobs.
WTF??????????????????

Did they look like this?

Yes.
Yes they did.

It's the objective sociological data farming that made a man out of Mac!™

Am I crazy, or does it kinda look like Ziggy?

What am I looking at there, and why did it wink at me?

Edit: My joke sucked. Hence, it disappears.

Man, Krang's really let himself go.

This is actually a pretty interesting phenomenon in the US and one of the big reasons why the obesity epidemic is only getting worse. People are becoming more comfortable with being overweight and find ways to justify their own weight.

I've just recently moved my BMI to below the obese range, even though I never looked like one of the giant fat people usually associated with obesity. Thing is, I thought - like KaPaBle - that if I could ever get down to 245, I'd be nearly without fat at all, as I've always had a big frame and carried weight well. Well, the fat is still around, though in significantly less quantities than before. For someone 6'2, you'd have to have the bone structure of the elephant man, or be built like a bodybuilder to be 240 and still not have fat. Your skeleton isn't as big as you think it is.

FYI, I'm not saying you're a fat guy, either, Slade. I'm just using your post to point out something that a lot of people are doing.

Yeah, I'm 6'10, and I'm skinny, but not emaciated-skinny. I don't weight anywhere near 240.

Case in point: Greg Oden is 7'0'' and frankly, pretty bulky for a tall guy, and he's only at 280.

Actually that pic looks like a Mr. Saturn that had melted.

And if you don't remember what Mr. Saturn looked like. It was this:

There's justification and there's fact - I don't like flying because I don't fit in airplane seats. My butt gets in with plenty of room, my SHOULDERS are too damn wide.

I'm not saying I shouldn't lose 30-40 lbs, I'm just saying I hardly qualify as "obese."

I'm 6' 2'' and 180 and I still wish to lose some of the fat around my stomach area.

No, obese is having negative health effects. At 50 pounds of excess fat, you definitely get negative health effects. You don't have to be morbidly, incredibly obese (two seats on a plane, etc) to see health effects.

BMI does require adjustment for frame in that there are some people who are broader, thicker boned, with more muscle. However, the general rule still applies of 50 pounds over the "ideal" weight being obese.

Eating correctly - both in quantity and quality - and exercising is the key to fitness. Obviously, people who are obese should also have their doctor check to see if they have other health issues (diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, as well as any other endocrine disorders, like thyroid or cortisol problems) which may also be affecting or affected by their obesity, formulate a plan to gradually increase their physical fitness through exercise, and ideally should work with a dietician to formulate realistic meal plans they can actually accomplish.

I'm 6'1 and 180 (so just about where Patrick's at) and I fear that I look like a famine victim. I'm generally quite thin in the upper body, but have huge thighs and some flab around the stomach. I'm pretty sure that at that point it's just a matter of getting a little exercise to firm things up. Also, for the record, I think it is better to be ever so slightly overweight than noticably underweight, from an aesthetic standpoint.

Also, by they way, the "spare tire" of having midline weight without other body fat (or in disproportionate excess to other body fat) is typically a hallmark of a high sugar diet. Cut the carbs and your waistline will thank you, as will your pancreas (as you reduce your diabetes risk).

Thanks for the tip. I do like me some sugar. I also attribute at least some of it to the beer weight from a few years of college. I'm already cutting down on that, and I walk everywhere, so hopefully that will help.

You gotta get self-esteem somewhere. *sigh*

Uh, I mean...BEEEEFCAAAAKE!

Believe me, I know what you mean. I swim in my sportcoats because in order to find one wide enough for my shoulders I need a coat made for a really tall, really fat man. It's not comfortable on planes for me, either.

Again, I'm not saying you're obese. I'm just pointing out an attitude that's becoming very prevalent among US consumers. As the rate of obesity is going up, the rate of concern about it is dropping considerably. We're becoming comfortable with it. From a social prospective, this is a fantastic thing. I think it's great that more people are becoming comfortable with not having a model's body. From a public health perspective, however, it's a disaster.

Buncha fatties in this thread.

I can't really argue with that - I just think that some of the height/weight standards are a bit out of whack. If you're a big, broad guy, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Yeah, strap this on your fatty, Blain.