I don't mind a little pudge, personally. I don't find emaciated sacks of skin and bones to be all that attractive-nor do I find musle men with 20" biceps to be particularly tempting. Eating disorders (even moderate anorexia) for reasons other than good health is a sign of mental health problems, and a real indicator of an insecure and/or superficial mentality... I find healthy medium-build to (naturally) slim guys to be the better deal-both inside and out.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Muscles vs Skinny
Date: 2008/02/21 00:39
By: BoyWithManyMasks
Status:
Short, skinny and defined is awesome. I can't stand the huge, bodybuilder frames with pecs that stick out like a ruler's length.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Muscles vs Skinny
Date: 2008/03/27 01:10
By: RobStewart
Status:
For me there are just so many variables when considering which be the better! Effectively I'd go for muscles over skin'n'bone - ribs are unattractive. Yet bizarrely this only extends to guys with a pale complexion. By that I mean tanned skinny guys are far hotter than pale skinny guys, and in the majority of cases I'd go for a tanned skinny over a tanned muscle man. HOWEVER, put a Mediterranean boney boy up against an well toned and hunky untanned dude, I guess I'd have to go for the latter. BUT, big muscles (as in so big veins popping out in unexpected places) are a HUUUUGE turn off, and thus inspite of skin complexion I'd prefer a skinny guy.
ANYWAY, I'll stop being greedy taking up so much forum space now!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
