is looking at a really good ass from behind as a male the same as looking at a really good frame from behind as a female

[Deleted member 19301]

sexual response is it the same

theres a study on how a wide frame elicits higher sexual response in females than a cleavage does in males anyone have it

 

[Deleted member 19567]

Official study's about female nature don't mean shit. To many factors.

I don't think its the same. Not even close, unless when you say frame you mean it in a redpill way, instead of actual body frame. Females don't have high testosterone. Men are not the same as women. All It takes for a men to get in heat is good ass-ets. But its different from woman because they can feel that same heat in other ways. If all it took was a good physical body to turn females on you would not have all these lookmaxxers, gymroids, with sub100 bodycounts. Social media and online dating proves that males are more sexually attracted to the female body, than females are for males body. For example, let me ask a question. Are you more attracted to a billionaire business chick, with multiple property's and cars, with talent, or a girl farmer in middle class with a good farmland, and cattle? For most men that question isn't even complete and answerable unless we know how hot she is, how her body looks like, etc. Ask a woman that question for a man and its perfectly answerable. Testosterone is more superior, and carnal when it comes to sexual attraction. It follows the blueprint more closely.

Having a wide frame as a male is mainly only attractive because the stigmatization. Same reason BBC and black men were only in recent years attractive after branded and marketed. Same reason Eboys are winning right now over gymroid. To put it in simpler terms, you will find the same sexual response in females if you get a short, no frame having extremely popular male celebrity. This is not the same as a man who will probably not soberly fuck a 1/10 woman with no body regardless of her status.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Official study's about female nature don't mean shit. To many factors.

I don't think its the same. Not even close, unless when you say frame you mean it in a redpill way, instead of actual body frame. Females don't have high testosterone. Men are not the same as women. All It takes for a men to get in heat is good ass-ets. But its different from woman because they can feel that same heat in other ways. If all it took was a good physical body to turn females on you would not have all these lookmaxxers, gymroids, with sub100 bodycounts. Social media and online proves that males are more sexually attracted to the female body, than females do for males body. For example, let me ask a question. Are you more attracted to a billionaire chick, with multiple property's and cars, with talent, or a girl in middle class? For most men that question isn't even complete or answerable unless we know how hot she is, how her body looks like, etc. Ask a woman that question and its perfectly answerable. Testosterone the more superior, and carnal when it comes to sexual attraction.

Having a wide frame as a male is only attractive because the stigmatization. Same reason BBC was only in recent years attractive after it was branded and marketed. Same reason Eboys are winning right now over gymroid. To put it in simpler terms, you will find the same sexual response in females if you get a short, no frame having extremely popular male celebrity. This is not the same as a man who will probably not soberly fuck a 1/10 woman with no body regardless of her status.

idk why girls are so obssessed with these soft tik tokker eboys with no frame, they just look like twink pussies. You think if a frame mogger just knocked out their boyfriend right in front of them theyd realize their mistake?

 

[Deleted member 19301]

If all it took was a good physical body to turn females on you would not have all these lookmaxxers, gymroids, with sub100 bodycounts.

big cope argument but what if females are simply not as intensely attracted by it +higher inhib cause of no test

also if the guy has avg/sub avg face the body is not that attractive anymore. Same with guys miring girls asses

 

[Deleted member 19567]

big cope argument but what if females are simply not as intensely attracted by it +higher inhib cause of no test

also if the guy has avg/sub avg face the body is not that attractive anymore. Same with guys miring girls asses

Not quite sure what you mean by avg or sub avg face of a male makes the body not attractive. But what i do know is that a ugly woman with a banging body is VERY likely to still get laid, and have higher body count, and SMV than a male in the same category. Its proven countless times and can be by anyone. Get a ugly as fuck girl with a perfect curved body on tinder or OLD, and you will pretty much see what i mean. Its not exclusive to online stuff either.

Males attraction for females does have something to do with testosterone. Females have less of it. Males have more of it. This is why female and male attraction is not the same. In a gym, she does not see the good looking gymroid in the same intensity as a guy seeing a 6.5/10 with a perfect body.

 

[Lihito]

Official study's about female nature don't mean shit. To many factors.

I don't think its the same. Not even close, unless when you say frame you mean it in a redpill way, instead of actual body frame. Females don't have high testosterone. Men are not the same as women. All It takes for a men to get in heat is good ass-ets. But its different from woman because they can feel that same heat in other ways. If all it took was a good physical body to turn females on you would not have all these lookmaxxers, gymroids, with sub100 bodycounts. Social media and online dating proves that males are more sexually attracted to the female body, than females are for males body. For example, let me ask a question. Are you more attracted to a billionaire business chick, with multiple property's and cars, with talent, or a girl farmer in middle class with a good farmland, and cattle? For most men that question isn't even complete and answerable unless we know how hot she is, how her body looks like, etc. Ask a woman that question for a man and its perfectly answerable. Testosterone is more superior, and carnal when it comes to sexual attraction. It follows the blueprint more closely.

Having a wide frame as a male is mainly only attractive because the stigmatization. Same reason BBC and black men were only in recent years attractive after branded and marketed. Same reason Eboys are winning right now over gymroid. To put it in simpler terms, you will find the same sexual response in females if you get a short, no frame having extremely popular male celebrity. This is not the same as a man who will probably not soberly fuck a 1/10 woman with no body regardless of her status.

Maaaaan wtf is with you and these redpill copes


Just accept its over

 

[Deleted member 19567]

Maaaaan wtf is with you and these redpill copes


Just accept its over

It is infact over.

I'm not saying it isn't, or that males should jestermaxx and continuously improve and turn into gods to looksmatch your average foid, im not saying its a guys fault,

just pointing out the differences.

 

[onnysk]

It’s equivalent of a female looking at guy bulge