Which body part do you find the most attractive?

Its a merkin

I dread to think what was contained in the glue they used though.

Then again, I don't really have that much hair down there. It doesn't creep out over the tops of my thighs and stomach- the first time I saw a woman with that sort of hair, it... gave me quite a turn.

I've just realised that the most attractive thing on a man is actually his fringe. Fringe and nose. (Paul will now spend the rest of the day fuming over men I know with large noses, big fringes and hairless chests...)

(Cue Paul going... "Hmmm, big nose, hairless chest, floppy fringe, short... you're on about DAN CLARK again, aren't you?!?!?!?")

Hah Kate - I have a fringe! So what if I'm taller... at least I have red hair... Nah, it's a losing battle.

Disembodied asses would suck ass, though. What is it with ILE and asses today?

Largely policed by mags written, edited, paid for and read by gurlz...

The Marie Claire with hear'say on the front w/no clothes on had a ninteresting piece inside on ultra-fatness as prized chickfactor in Jamaica, where the unfat-by-nature take ILLEGAL CHICKEN HORMONES to plump up and snag a man (tho ICH bring with them industrial-strength halitosis and diarrhoea rowr)

Very true, Mark, and it's a kind of being-your-own-worst-enemy that I can't understand at all. Why would anyone buy a magazine (or buy into the magazine's mentality) whose entire purpose is to make you feel inadequate about who you are and what you look like ? I think this would make a good topic for a thread. And it gets to the point where what those mags say women should look like becomes more important than what guys actually look for (i.e. A LOT of guys actually LOVE big asses, starting with me. Sir Mix-a-Lot = not an isolated case by any stretch of the imagination).

Basically there is a claque of style fascists who make the most expensive clothes for the richest people who have an in ordinate sway over some wierd idea of what's beautiful. I have no fixed ideas really about what I find attractive. I am attracted to complete people not individual body parts. To say looks are unimportant would be a bare faced lie, but they are only a part of the whole wonderful mix.

And superwealthy high-end fashion no longer determines "street" fashion: this hasn't really been so since the 60s; if anything the flow is the other way...

Elle et al is totally at the mercy of those who buy it: it's not a top-down phnom, it's a middle-out phnom.

(NB Style and fashion mags nichely for big women are even worse because they combine paranoid positivity, a preachiness about 'society' and a total slavering embrace of the attitudes that go hand in hand with the body-as-consumer-good position they pretend to deplore. The contradiction isn't as tedious as the endless positivity though.)

I don't really agree with the argument ethically, but it is the argument and quite frankly you can't fault them from a business POV. If people would buy magazines with, say, Emme on the cover more oftne, then they'd use larger models more often. It just doesn't happen though.

Which is of course a bigger argument to get into: why doesn't it happen? If all these people are so hung up on the idea that magazines should use larger models/smaller models/ethnic models/models with 6 toes/whatever, why don't they sell?

I'm not talking about covers really cos the on-the-cover argument is evading the issue (no matter which side uses it). Put Kate Moss or The Strokes on the cover, sure, who cares, then people buy it and inside they find Kate/Strokes as desired but ALSO an ethnic or 'curvy' model or Fennesz or Missy Elliott. All I want from any magazine is variety - put anyone you want on the bloody cover, I don't care. Or does featuring un-modellish models *anywhere* inside also lead to that fatal sales drop?

Incidentally the NME while being very disingenuous wasnt totally dishonest - I *did* find out about tons of less mainstream stuff when I started reading the mag because I'd read the whole thing and so the two-para review of someone further out would seep into the brain just like the eight-page Wonder Stuff special (gah).

NME is perfect example of this as most NME fans in say the early nineties were into indie. Therefore if you had a rap artist on the cover a) indie boy might not like him, but b) indie boy could not be him or identify with because he was black. I would be interested by the way to see if Elle's circulation went down whenever they had one of the few black supermodels on the cover.

Obviously whose picture is inside the magazine isn't going to affect sales nearly as much as the appearance of the cover, which is why you do see more diversity inside the pages. Granted the body types are all still exactly alike (they use that pesky "The designers only provide us with samples in XYZ sizes" excuse), but the racial makeup and quirks are more apparent inside the pages than outside. The only magazine I haven't noticed that with is, actually, Cosmo, whose readers are all apparently white nymphomaniacs according to their editors.

While I'm sure that this is true, and only human, would I be opening a big can of worms if I also said that it's retarded, and a source of evil ?

Tom, please don't litter your posts with little bon mots like this, because as I'm scanning the thread, THIS is what immediately jumps out and gives me a heart attack, instead of intelligent discourse about magazine covers...

This is precisely the Catch 22 that was the discussion I was having with the editor of the guitar magazine that I never ended up working for: Kate sez: why don't you put all these grate FEMALE guitarists in your magazine? editor sez: because no one has ever heard of them, we will never sell magazines that way. Kate sez: why do you think no one's ever heard of them? Cause no one will cover them!

And so on and so forth...

There's a simple response to being offended by fashion mags: don't read them.

But yes, if it bothers you, don't buy them or buy copies of the ones who put people you find more appealing on the cover. That'll change things much more quickly than buying the regular issues and bitching.

As Tom pointed out, there's a culture within these magazines of the body as a consumer good, and (excepting the specific example he mentioned) it would make no more sense to match that culture to contradictory covers than it would to put an overweight man on the front of a Men's Health magazine. Which is not to excuse the magazines, but rather to say that the magazine covers are part of a broader culture that would have to be dismantled first.

i play with my girlfriend till she's hot and wet.. then i flip her over onto her stomach and i suck on her long pretty toes and i kiss her soles... she loves it!

sometimes, i rub my cock against her soles when we're on the couch and i spew my hot cum all over her toes..

the gallblader

The gall of some people!

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/g/gaulishvillage.jpg

God, I love the stupid puns in A&O. "Petit Bonhomme", "Baba au Rhum", etc...

Left legs

BUM BUM

tough one...

but i think eyebrows are important. i also like nice legs. and broad shoulders.

everybody should answer bum, i mean, c'mon stop lying.

okay i like bums too

OH MY GOD. I WAS GOING TO POST A PICTURE OF A STREET BUM AND I GIS-ED "BUM" AND I FOUND SOMETHING HORRIFIC AND I WILL NEVER EVER WANT TO LOOK AT A BUTT AGAIN.

If you're curious, GIS "bum" and look at the 2nd image. It's a bum gone bad. I'm on the verge of tears I think.

Anyway, now that I'm not an ass man anymore, I have to say that my favorite G-rated part is triceps or forearms or face. My other favorite is the male basket--I'm sometimes surprised by just how detailed a view of their anatomy some men reveal through their clothes.

stop badmouthing bums

uk style:

bum=ass
tramp=bum
slag=tramp

Not just face, btw--LIPS.

I'm sure we all know it already, but

tramp = slut
slag = http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:wxyDTYmUHAfUwM:http://www.nzsteel.co.nz/images/Slag-hires.jpg

This needs to be a poll.

I get this for BUM:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/bush_bum_poster.jpg

the kidneys

Haha.

The goiter!

Clavicle

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/clavicle-22324.jpg

The Collarbone's Connected to Slimness

Ha, I said the same thing six years ago, I didn't even notice. Except I spelled it wrong.

the elegant subtle curves of a goitrous thyroid gland can indeed be quite attractive

http://drdavidf.com/images/goiter.jpg

The ankle.

What can I say, I grew up among the Amish.

Actually I would like to change my answer. The calves are the winners here.

http://www.babalog.com/archives/calf2.jpg

Those eyes, that mouth.

Sexy chin, too.

Calves don't really have much in the way of calves.

OTM. They should be called Nocalves.

I was researching the etymology of that word, and I found a bodybuilding site with this delightful statement

"I was standing there as Mr. Australia and I was more impressed with these guys calves than I was at my title.

It was then and there I decided I want to have some cows hanging out of my shorts (so I just trained them). "

OK, so I finally got around to looking for the etymology of the word calf as in calf muscle. There are a couple variations on the root (though all are Norse) but all agree: origin unknown.

:(

Still pretty into calves.

thighs, esp. big thighs.

brain

all things considered.

yawn

Also the part where the back and buttocks meet.

Vaginas

the hat

Getta loada them gams!

I vote legs. Any kind of legs!

very attracted to medullas tbh

Big tits

How does that guided by voices song go? "I'm a thigh man"

Natural red hair is the only answer I can come up with. It's just ridiculous. I saw a man who looked like a little hacking egg but he had red hair so I felt feelings that would definitely not have otherwise been felt.

Oh, and the big tits have to be natural as well

Lorax, have you been away for a while? i hadn't noticed your posts in some time and was all about to ask after you on the milk carton thread

hair, hands, ankles, and face in general i guess.

i dream of tall skinny redheads with gleaming big doe eyes.

im fwiggin cwazy for butts!!!!!!!!!

buttcrazytam.jpg

For me face overrides everything. I mean there are certain body parts that I guess I'm drawn to but I would never be attracted to someone whose face I wasn't into no matter how killer their body. If that makes sense. As far as face parts go I'm going to have to say eyes even though that sounds kind of boring.

cant lie it's boobs

I am powerless against a well formed bosom

hips.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/405570921_5720f5bee5.jpg

Pearls are not technically a body part iirc

btw mark S is a fucking star in the early days of this thread

omg

hips is a p good answer for women imo

like I said earlier though face trumps all in general

Pearls are not technically a body part iirc

So you say....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LNycjkgUcy8/TfZHL1uVxfI/AAAAAAAAJXs/qEA_qCLQAjA/s1600/gaia_cat_hair_ball_necklace_flora_davis.jpg

!!!

is that a white chocolate kitty?

the harbl