Women are genetically wired to be attracted to high-status males, whereas men are wired to be attracted to beauty, or more specifically, cues to fertility.

…which is complete and total bullshit. This kind of reasoning denies women’s ability to be turned on by hotness for hotness’ sake.

Will Smith and Johnny Depp… yum. Thanks, the comments here have been really useful and timely for me, thinking about what level of objectification I’m OK with in my own relationships.

now back in cavewoman days status meant tall men with large muscles, chartacteristics that today are only peripheral to high status. so there’s a disconnect. humor or wit (a sign of intelligence) however, seems to be a constant…which is probably Quadaffi’s problem.

Allow me to correct your approach. This guy was listed in Forbes magazine for having made $80 million in the past year. See how much hotter he is, once you have that vital information?

also, congrats to jack for being a sexist jackASS. begone, troll. you’re not even trying to concern troll, just being a whiny sexist. how boring.

zacky vengeance: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/diamonddust1414/Nothing%20More%20Than%20Fiction/ZackyVengeance.jpg

frank iero (he’s all of like 5′4″): http://mcraddiction05.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/frank.jpg

travis mccoy: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/474957903_1760e1f3bc.jpg

william beckett: http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs15/300W/i/2007/010/2/c/William_Beckett_by_b0pp.jpg

anyone else with me?

Not if you go by porn, which is aimed at men…and for all its problems offers a huge degree of variety, especially in comparison to Madison Avenue.

Now fashion magazines are not aimed at men and have taken a peculiar twist beginning in the 60’s. Personally I blame gay men and their artistic/aesthetic influence. After all, you see models essentially devoid of breasts and hips, two things straight men are genetically wired to lust, thopugh social construction and individual varience may trump that. Its a desexualized version of the female form, representing what many gay men would find attractive in a woman if they found women attractive.

And of course in demonstrating that a woman does indeed get to have “the gaze,” Jill is treated to suggestions that she might want to post pictures of guys she doesn’t find attractive. Why? She isn’t claiming these selections are uninfluenced at all by popular standards. But she does have the right to find attractive who she finds attractive. Why the need to compromise on that? The whole point is that women, too, aren’t free of visual “vice” and aren’t perfect in our choices as to what to objectify.

Margalis says: “There is a difference between thinking to oneself that only certain types of people (thin) are attractive and sharing that with the world while soliciting agreement.”

I would argue that the bodyfat percentages of the men displayed vary by 20%, so already we’re looking at a much wider variety than the group of women whom many men would canvas. (I must admit that were I to ever put together a male calendar, there would not even be this level of variance.) Additionally, I don’t see anywhere in the post any kind of solicitation of agreement about acceptable bodyfat percentage for men. This is just one woman’s opinion. We all know that men have other ways, culturally, of substituting other characteristics besides physical ones that will aid their marketability. We as women do not.

But the point of the post is not (correct me if I am wrong) to set forth a depiction of what the “perfect feminist (hetero version)” would find attractive in a man, but what this particular feminist finds attractive. Which effectively trounces arguments that women are alone in being the “sex class.” Injecting all kinds of other things the post “should do” is uncomfortably similar to what women are expected to do in general: make compromises men don’t have to make, while backwards and in heels.

Personally, I’m glad the post didn’t compromise.