Now then
while Megan Fox is undoubtedly beautiful, and I can't deny that, she doesn't do it for me. I think it's more a question of attainability - the women I find most attractive (note, not beautiful - there's a difference) are those which I think could feasibly be an achievable sexual partner for me.

Yes, Britney, Angelina et al are classic beauties. But in terms of who I 'fancy', I can think of a lot of girls I know who turn me on far more, simply because I think that (disregarding the fact that I am not 'on the market' just now) they could in principle be enticed to my bedroom.

Edit - I've just read Pooflake's post above, and actually I find a lot of the un-made-up photos of these women more attractive than the 'glamorous' pics.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:05, 1 reply)

this is classic natural selection though
People rarely 'punch above their weight' studies have shown that people can match individuals to their partners from photographs by comparable levels of 'attractiveness'

As humans we can subvert this with other qualities we can find appealing in a mate. Status, personality etc.

The funny/successful/intelligent ugly bloke with the stunning girl who genuinely loves him is commonplace. Looks are clearly not everything. Women are better at spotting potential good qualities other than simply looks in men. They need a provider who will stick around.

Men are across the board more simplistic in this. They are programmed by nature to impregnate as many females as they can. And if required - fuck off to the next one.

Socially unacceptable and morally reprehensible but a biological truth nevertheless
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:19, closed)

Socially unacceptable here and now,
but it wasn't that long ago it was considered de rigeur to have another house for the mistress.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:31, closed)

It might
be a biological truth. But people put a deal too much emphasis on what we supposedly have in our genes and how it governs our behaviour. Thus the human v animal debate.

And I genuinely don't find Megan Fox attractive. Even in a purely asthetic sense. But that's because she looks like faintly dusty plastic to me. However put me in the same room as Jennifer Connelly and my knees would probably wobble.

If it applies to men, surely it should apply to women? Scientists tell us the perfect type of man to make us go wobbley at the knees- tall, beefy etc, a great provider, and yet loads of my friends are far more attracted to thin non muscular people. To the genuine extent of not seeing anything special about the men who should by rights be making us swoon
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:40, closed)

i get the megan, jennifer twos up then
kewel
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:20, closed)