|
I love guys.
But not nearly all of them; I am very fastidious when it comes to choosing men. Here are seven pictures of guys (one for each day of the week) I find extremely attractive and ultra blazing hot.
As in, brain-wired to stalk them down to sex them kind of attraction.
Ok, here goes. Don't hate or complain, because at least I will explain briefly why I find them attractive.
Those guys all have something in common:
1. Really beautiful eyes. Preferred colour is deep blue. Eye brows not too thick.
2. Short-medium length hair. Preferred colour is brown or reddish brown.
3. Nice subtle smile. Lips not too thin and not too full. White and perfect teeth.
4. Have the right amount of facial and body hair.
5. They have good ancestry. Preferably French.
6. They have bodies of a casual athlete. Muscled, but not so much.
7. Flawless skin.
But most of all, symmetry (or lack of) is very important. It's what everybody notices first.
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
Other points of note:
- good humoured
- sensible
- polite
- clean and tidy
- have enough fashion sense to not look like a dork
- comes from a good family
- goes/went to Oxford/Harvard
- well read
- enjoys to philosophise
- willing to improve and change for me
- selfless
- good communicator
- have money to spare
- has a good sense of the current state of the world
- loves me to death
I'm sure I have more to say, but I think my friends are complaining that I'm "sheriff" on Mafia, and am not giving them any clues. See ya! ♥
 
|
- good humoured
- sensible
- polite
- clean and tidy
- have enough fashion sense to not look like a dork
- comes from a good family
- goes/went to Oxford/Harvard
- well read
- enjoys to philosophise
- willing to improve and change for me
- selfless
- good communicator
- have money to spare
- has a good sense of the current state of the world
- loves me to death
when i started reading this i thought this was a list of qualities the men in the pictures shared. I was like...uh...what until i facepalmed :D
As a straight male, perhaps my opinion isnt the most informed (?) but guy #5 seems the most attractive fo sho'
|
He is very attractive indeed. 
I'm glad that you are secure with your sexuality to state your opinion.
By the way, he's Gaspard Ulliel, a French actor who stars in one of my favourite movies "A Very Long Engagement".
|
On May 22 2011 22:10 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +- good humoured
- sensible
- polite
- clean and tidy
- have enough fashion sense to not look like a dork
- comes from a good family
- goes/went to Oxford/Harvard
- well read
- enjoys to philosophise
- willing to improve and change for me
- selfless
- good communicator
- have money to spare
- has a good sense of the current state of the world
- loves me to death when i started reading this i thought this was a list of qualities the men in the pictures shared. I was like...uh...what until i facepalmed :D As a straight male, perhaps my opinion isnt the most informed (?) but guy #5 seems the most attractive fo sho'
Rofl. So it's not just me, huh. #5 definitely is the most attractive. Kinda makes me wanna revoke my straighness : P
|
rofl. the fuck is this. tl is becoming this now?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Thank you for sharing? O_O
User was warned for this post
|
On May 22 2011 22:26 whiterabb1t wrote:
rofl. the fuck is this. tl is becoming this now?
People can blog whatever they wish, really. As long as it is not considered spam by the admins
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49650 Posts
On May 22 2011 22:26 whiterabb1t wrote:
rofl. the fuck is this. tl is becoming this now?
uhhh,platorepublic is gay,everyone should know that by now...hes just sharing his fantasies.
still,it does creep me out on a personal level.
|
lol, I think you covered almost all the bases there. Got to be good looking, intelligent,funny, rich and not some kind of mudblood.
It would be a lot more interesting if you had really specific things you would like. For example I knew a guy who loved women that didn't shave their arm pits, and I know a girl who is really into guys that are a little bit chubby. I really like girls that play guitar and sing.
Also, don't forget, this preppy adonis is going to have to accept that you enjoy playing RTS games, which seems unlikely.
|
So you want someone who is smart, handsome, rich, has good taste and social skills, and also loves you. Hell, I'm a straight male, but if I found a man like that, I just might try and go bi. ^^
Edit: Upon further consideration, I must agree with most other people here, nr.5 is the most handsome. I'm a sucker for well dressed people.
|
Mmm, all these men are a bit clean cut for my tastes. The only one I find particularly attractive is #1 - I think because he looks most like an "average person", just hotter. He also has a lovely smile, which is very important.
|
based entirely on the pictures (none of whom I immediately recognize) I think that #1 and #6 are the hottest and there's something about #4 too.
not really so sure about the hype on #5. He would definitely need to cut (or at least wash - so greasy -_-) his hair. dresses with swag though, but that would be assumed. I'm generally much more picky when it comes to finding men attractive though (1.5/2 on the Kinsey scale) 
|
This sucks in a male-dominated environment, so I'm unsure if you're doing this just as a minor provocation. It's like me sitting in a vorspiel with 90% average girls and preaching that I prefer supermodels. Also your picks are boring and attractive in the most generic sense... all of them are similar. It's like me picking Jessica Alba or similar boring women that every single male in the whole world finds attractive.
The biggest thumbs down ever, both in terms of lack of originality and content. Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. But I don't care, since it's well deserved.
|
I don't know what I was expecting...
|
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
Isn't this the exact definition of the halo-effect?
The halo effect is a cognitive bias whereby the perception of one trait (i.e. a characteristic of a person or object) is influenced by the perception of another trait (or several traits) of that person or object. An example would be judging a good-looking person as more intelligent.
|
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
man the real world is gonna hit you hard
Edit: high-five Torte!
|
On May 22 2011 23:52 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes. man the real world is gonna hit you hard Edit: high-five Torte!
brooooooooo
We're smart cookies ;D! Yeah!
/high-five!
|
On May 22 2011 22:05 platorepublic wrote:
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect\
Yeah it's wikipedia, but the first sentence basically sums up any psychology article on the subject:
The halo effect is a cognitive bias whereby the perception of one trait (i.e. a characteristic of a person or object) is influenced by the perception of another trait (or several traits) of that person or object. An example would be judging a good-looking person as more intelligent.
But don't worry it's not your fault
it's just halo
edit: DAMN YOU TOOOOORTE
|
|
|
On May 22 2011 22:05 platorepublic wrote:
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
You can be as gay as you like, i don't give a shit - that statement is still retarded and i won't hesitate to call it so. The ugly side of science is when it nears religion in these questions and is used as an excuse for adopting a fatalistic view of the world.
"Our faith is in God's hands and was determined long before we were born, it's all in His plan"
"Our genes decide our faith, upon conception we're given traits such as personality, intelligence, looks and artistic talent. The potential of all of us is written in our genetic code."
Spot the similarity? No? Oh, it's just that neither of these statements have been proven in any scientific study and only serve as giant leaps to conclusions that help plebeians make sense of the world.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 22 2011 23:52 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes. man the real world is gonna hit you hard Edit: high-five Torte!
wow i didnt notice this part of the post. As an ugly person i find this extremely offensive 
|
On May 22 2011 23:57 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 22:05 platorepublic wrote:
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
You can be as gay as you like, i don't give a shit - that statement is still retarded and i won't hesitate to call it so. The ugly side of science is when it nears religion in these questions and is used as an excuse for adopting a fatalistic view of the world. "Our faith is in God's hands and was determined long before we were born, it's all in His plan" "Our genes decide our faith, upon conception we're given traits such as personality, intelligence, looks and artistic talent. The potential of all of us is written in our genetic code." Spot the similarity? No? Oh, it's just that neither of these statements have been proven in any scientific study and only serve as giant leaps to conclusions that help plebeians make sense of the world.
Vast difference between fantasizing good associative personality traits and having faith or belief in justifications outside of the scientific method.
Don't be a Debbie Downer and make the statement above larger than it is intended. What he is saying, as silly as it is, is completely normal and intended by the photos. To infer beyond that is just bothering for trouble.
|
All those guys mostly look the same too. As the pictures go on more head tilting is required but ye, they all look the same.
lol @ your list of traits. why not just write "good qualities"
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
Please keep this blog orderly and with people behaving. I fail to see why any topic by or about homosexuals always result in a discussion about homosexuality and people shitting it up. If you have nothing to contribute to this blog or it has no interest to you please stay out of it and don't go for that reply button.
|
On May 22 2011 23:59 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:57 Thrill wrote:On May 22 2011 22:05 platorepublic wrote:
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
You can be as gay as you like, i don't give a shit - that statement is still retarded and i won't hesitate to call it so. The ugly side of science is when it nears religion in these questions and is used as an excuse for adopting a fatalistic view of the world. "Our faith is in God's hands and was determined long before we were born, it's all in His plan" "Our genes decide our faith, upon conception we're given traits such as personality, intelligence, looks and artistic talent. The potential of all of us is written in our genetic code." Spot the similarity? No? Oh, it's just that neither of these statements have been proven in any scientific study and only serve as giant leaps to conclusions that help plebeians make sense of the world. Vast difference between fantasizing good associative personality traits and having faith or belief in justifications outside of the scientific method. Don't be a Debbie Downer and make the statement above larger than it is intended. What he is saying, as silly as it is, is completely normal and intended by the photos. To infer beyond that is just bothering for trouble.
Did you even read the OP's post? He clearly believes there's a correlation between looks and brains. I was about to write that there's no way to misinterpret it, but you did.
|
On May 22 2011 23:54 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:52 gogogadgetflow wrote:I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes. man the real world is gonna hit you hard Edit: high-five Torte! brooooooooo We're smart cookies ;D! Yeah! /high-five!
You kind of just disproved yourself with this circle-jerk comment.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
very nice o_o although i must admit they all do have a similar feel to them, how often do you come across guys in everyday life that you'd like to bone, or vice versa or 69 or what have you? or maybe pics of yourself ^^
|
On May 23 2011 00:06 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:54 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 22 2011 23:52 gogogadgetflow wrote:I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes. man the real world is gonna hit you hard Edit: high-five Torte! brooooooooo We're smart cookies ;D! Yeah! /high-five! You kind of just disproved yourself with this circle-jerk comment.
Bad day?
|
On May 23 2011 00:06 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:54 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 22 2011 23:52 gogogadgetflow wrote:I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes. man the real world is gonna hit you hard Edit: high-five Torte! brooooooooo We're smart cookies ;D! Yeah! /high-five! You kind of just disproved yourself with this circle-jerk comment.
No? Not really o_o
How does what I am doing make the halo-effect of his statements any less true?
Additionally, I also said it was very normal, so normal that even I do it (even though the statement you are quoting that disproves me doesn't entirely fall exactly in the realm of the halo-effect)
This only further proves my point...
Good try though.
In other news, those guys are actually fairly handsome. I'm no homosexual, but I can appreciate good facial features :3
On May 23 2011 00:04 Demand2k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:59 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 22 2011 23:57 Thrill wrote:On May 22 2011 22:05 platorepublic wrote:
I don't know about you, but if they can look that good, I'm sure their personality and intelligence won't be too far off: good genes are good genes.
You can be as gay as you like, i don't give a shit - that statement is still retarded and i won't hesitate to call it so. The ugly side of science is when it nears religion in these questions and is used as an excuse for adopting a fatalistic view of the world. "Our faith is in God's hands and was determined long before we were born, it's all in His plan" "Our genes decide our faith, upon conception we're given traits such as personality, intelligence, looks and artistic talent. The potential of all of us is written in our genetic code." Spot the similarity? No? Oh, it's just that neither of these statements have been proven in any scientific study and only serve as giant leaps to conclusions that help plebeians make sense of the world. Vast difference between fantasizing good associative personality traits and having faith or belief in justifications outside of the scientific method. Don't be a Debbie Downer and make the statement above larger than it is intended. What he is saying, as silly as it is, is completely normal and intended by the photos. To infer beyond that is just bothering for trouble. Did you even read the OP's post? He clearly believes there's a correlation between looks and brains. I was about to write that there's no way to misinterpret it, but you did.
I don't think I did, but I won't derail to clarify, just read what I originally wrote in my first reply/post lolol
|
The question is... would a thread about the same thing but girls instead cause as much public dissaproval
|
|
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
On May 22 2011 23:37 Demand2k wrote:
This sucks in a male-dominated environment, so I'm unsure if you're doing this just as a minor provocation. It's like me sitting in a vorspiel with 90% average girls and preaching that I prefer supermodels. Also your picks are boring and attractive in the most generic sense... all of them are similar. It's like me picking Jessica Alba or similar boring women that every single male in the whole world finds attractive.
The biggest thumbs down ever, both in terms of lack of originality and content. Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. But I don't care, since it's well deserved.
What a post, for 80% it has no place in this blog as it's main aims are to troll/provoke as it claims this blog to do. The irony is not lost on me. On top of that it is faintly disturbing to me that you regard someone of an alternate sexual preference, which happens to be a minority, to be provoking the majority when opening a blog topic which contains content which is considered to be normal or even highly entertainable/appreciated when it is of a heterosexual nature.
Martyring to boot is just icing on the cake. If you have nothing to contribute except content aimed to provoke or derail please refrain from going for that reply button in the future. Which is sad since I found the part about your post above generic and boring choices to be spot on and interesting and adding to the topic. The rest of your post this thread could sorely do without.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
Now something on topic and away from moderation business: Gah #5's style is amazing. That's so the look I'm going to love to shop for when I start working fulltime. Sadly I'm absolutely incapable of pulling off that casual cool with the tie like that.
|
On May 23 2011 00:15 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 23:37 Demand2k wrote:
This sucks in a male-dominated environment, so I'm unsure if you're doing this just as a minor provocation. It's like me sitting in a vorspiel with 90% average girls and preaching that I prefer supermodels. Also your picks are boring and attractive in the most generic sense... all of them are similar. It's like me picking Jessica Alba or similar boring women that every single male in the whole world finds attractive.
The biggest thumbs down ever, both in terms of lack of originality and content. Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. But I don't care, since it's well deserved. What a post, for 80% it has no place in this blog as it's main aims are to troll/provoke as it claims this blog to do. The irony is not lost on me. On top of that it is faintly disturbing to me that you regard someone of an alternate sexual preference, which happens to be a minority, to be provoking the majority when opening a blog topic which contains content which is considered to be normal or even highly entertainable/appreciated when it is of a heterosexual nature. Martyring to boot is just icing on the cake. If you have nothing to contribute except content aimed to provoke or derail please refrain from going for that reply button in the future. Which is sad since I found the part about your post above generic and boring choices to be spot on and interesting and adding to the topic. The rest of your post this thread could sorely do without.
I was applying a reaction, as it's correctional in it's effect, just like your critisizm of me is correctional behavour. I did so quite harshly in this case as I feel it was warranted. The fact that you think is too harsh is something I'll have to take into consideration for the future, as it hurts my post to be too direct, which it did as shown by your reaction.
But calling me martyr or disrespective towards certain groups of people is just plain wrong as it has nothing to do with being harsh or direct. I've made no implications of the former in my first post, as the content would fit if he was a girl, which I thought he was in the first place. Read my post again and you'll se that it's so.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On May 23 2011 00:28 Demand2k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2011 00:15 Nyovne wrote:On May 22 2011 23:37 Demand2k wrote:
This sucks in a male-dominated environment, so I'm unsure if you're doing this just as a minor provocation. It's like me sitting in a vorspiel with 90% average girls and preaching that I prefer supermodels. Also your picks are boring and attractive in the most generic sense... all of them are similar. It's like me picking Jessica Alba or similar boring women that every single male in the whole world finds attractive.
The biggest thumbs down ever, both in terms of lack of originality and content. Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. But I don't care, since it's well deserved. What a post, for 80% it has no place in this blog as it's main aims are to troll/provoke as it claims this blog to do. The irony is not lost on me. On top of that it is faintly disturbing to me that you regard someone of an alternate sexual preference, which happens to be a minority, to be provoking the majority when opening a blog topic which contains content which is considered to be normal or even highly entertainable/appreciated when it is of a heterosexual nature. Martyring to boot is just icing on the cake. If you have nothing to contribute except content aimed to provoke or derail please refrain from going for that reply button in the future. Which is sad since I found the part about your post above generic and boring choices to be spot on and interesting and adding to the topic. The rest of your post this thread could sorely do without. I was applying a reaction, as it's correctional in it's effect, just like your critisizm of me is correctional behavour. I did so quite harshly in this case as I feel it was warranted. The fact that you think is too harsh is something I'll have to take into consideration for the future, as it hurts my post to be too direct, which it did as shown by your reaction. But calling me martyr or disrespective towards certain groups of people is just plain wrong as it has nothing to do with being harsh or direct. I've made no implications of the former in my first post, as the content would fit if he was a girl, which I thought he was in the first place. Read my post again and you'll se that it's so.
You don't understand what he meant by 'martyring.' What you did here: Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. That's known as martyring and usually results in moderation no matter what, so consider yourself lucky.
A but more on topic, I agree with your first post but I wouldn't have bothered posting it.
|
|
|
I have to disagree about #5 looking casually athletic, he's too obviously attempted to cultivate that exact look, which kills it for me. It has to be an organic casual athletic, or it looks fake.
Edit: oops, I can't count, I was thinking of #6. If me and #5 ended up in the same room, my wife would kill him. Or me. Or both. Or maybe she'd get really hot and bothered, that would be lucky.
|
On May 23 2011 00:34 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2011 00:28 Demand2k wrote:On May 23 2011 00:15 Nyovne wrote:On May 22 2011 23:37 Demand2k wrote:
This sucks in a male-dominated environment, so I'm unsure if you're doing this just as a minor provocation. It's like me sitting in a vorspiel with 90% average girls and preaching that I prefer supermodels. Also your picks are boring and attractive in the most generic sense... all of them are similar. It's like me picking Jessica Alba or similar boring women that every single male in the whole world finds attractive.
The biggest thumbs down ever, both in terms of lack of originality and content. Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. But I don't care, since it's well deserved. What a post, for 80% it has no place in this blog as it's main aims are to troll/provoke as it claims this blog to do. The irony is not lost on me. On top of that it is faintly disturbing to me that you regard someone of an alternate sexual preference, which happens to be a minority, to be provoking the majority when opening a blog topic which contains content which is considered to be normal or even highly entertainable/appreciated when it is of a heterosexual nature. Martyring to boot is just icing on the cake. If you have nothing to contribute except content aimed to provoke or derail please refrain from going for that reply button in the future. Which is sad since I found the part about your post above generic and boring choices to be spot on and interesting and adding to the topic. The rest of your post this thread could sorely do without. I was applying a reaction, as it's correctional in it's effect, just like your critisizm of me is correctional behavour. I did so quite harshly in this case as I feel it was warranted. The fact that you think is too harsh is something I'll have to take into consideration for the future, as it hurts my post to be too direct, which it did as shown by your reaction. But calling me martyr or disrespective towards certain groups of people is just plain wrong as it has nothing to do with being harsh or direct. I've made no implications of the former in my first post, as the content would fit if he was a girl, which I thought he was in the first place. Read my post again and you'll se that it's so. You don't understand what he meant by 'martyring.' What you did here: Show nested quote +Flame shield off, since I expect alot of people to become sulky over this post no matter what. That's known as martyring and usually results in moderation no matter what, so consider yourself lucky. A but more on topic, I agree with your first post but I wouldn't have bothered posting it.
I just freshed up on the forum rules, and saw that assuming critisizm beforehand is defined as martyring.
In that case, I feel obliged to respectfully apologize for what what you quoted me on.
|
On May 22 2011 22:28 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 22:26 whiterabb1t wrote:
rofl. the fuck is this. tl is becoming this now? uhhh,platorepublic is gay,everyone should know that by now...hes just sharing his fantasies. still,it does creep me out on a personal level.
sharing your gay fantasies, thats how the internet begun
+ Show Spoiler +
edit : platorepublic, personal question : nada s body thread or gay starcraft players thread?
|
Gay starcraft players thread any day, TheAwesomeAll from Netherlands.
|
On May 23 2011 02:33 platorepublic wrote:
Gay starcraft players thread any day, TheAwesomeAll from Netherlands.
hmmm, im not gay, but i prefer the unexpected opening and the magic of tl going to work in the nada's body thread. its magic
|
Hmmm, I'm not straight, I don't get the magic of SC II players.
|
A few things really kill the 'ogling models' pastime for me.
1) Models are chosen for their looks + ability to pose for the camera, rather than any real positive quality, so they're unlikely to be interesting people.
2) Photos (particularly staged, with makeup & digital editing) are extremely dishonest.
3) Photos don't include voice.
|
Eh, Gasperd Ulliel (no. 5, if I remember correctly) has the full package:
He's a young and blossoming actor/model who has a sexy French accent. Smart, nice, and shining personality.
|
Since it seems a lot of us like no. 5, let's give him more love, shall we?
|
|
|
On May 23 2011 17:06 platorepublic wrote:
Eh, Gasperd Ulliel (no. 5, if I remember correctly) has the full package:
He's a young and blossoming actor/model who has a sexy French accent. Smart, nice, and shining personality.
Maybe, but is he also a masters Zerg player?
|
Lol, who cares? I know grandmasters Toss players.
|
On May 23 2011 19:26 platorepublic wrote:
Lol, who cares? I know grandmasters Toss players.
But they aren't hot, are they?
|
On May 23 2011 19:50 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2011 19:26 platorepublic wrote:
Lol, who cares? I know grandmasters Toss players. But they aren't hot, are they?
They look better than average, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XBzLl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KdUux.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/126bt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X0yjQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jztxm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RMSUy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wTxpJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tkfg7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T0cOI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FRv7F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y7N3f.gif)
