Butts, big and small
Guys love butts. That's a fact. I'm not really a butts person, I do appreciate a guy's tight, muscular derriere or a nicely shaped round lady's, but it is not my main interest when seeing a naked person.
In formal logic, this is counterintuitive. Our butts and men's are not all that different so you would expect men to be mainly attracted by other parts of our anatomy, where our feminity is more marked. I'm not speaking here about being naked and bending over, when you get to see more of my anatomy, I'm speaking about simply walking in town while wearing a nice, tight dress. Guys do look. Probably more than at my chest or at my legs, which are my favourite parts of a woman's anatomy.
But I think that guys' interest for our butts (not speaking here about gay guys yet!) comes from immemorial times in the past of our species, when we were all walking mostly on our four so our butts were the main sexual interest of men. Or apes, or whatever we were. I would bet that we ladies also flashed our oestrus period by turning our butt into some sort of sexy red or crimson colour, just like other apes.
Then one day we started to realise that our hands were too precious to be used as legs and in the new bipedal position we ladies started to develop unnecessarily big breasts to keep you guys amused now that you no longer had visual access to our more intimate parts - and also to hide our oestrus period and become sexually receptive 24/7 to keep you guys sticking around. But our butts must still trigger in you that ancient attraction - especially when, in the nude, we bend over.
But let's talk about the interesting parts, size, shape and texture.
Some smart-ass scientists have calculated that what is nice in a woman's body is actually her W/H (waist to hips) ratio and the ideal one would be 0.7. I think what they did was to actually measure this ratio on the statue of Venus de Milo (although I personally find her waist surprisingly wide). I am not surprised that Venus's hips and thigh are quite wide, but I am surprised that her boobs are a beautiful B cups while statues produced in the Barbarian world at about the same time seem to indicate a passion for big ones.
I think that this 0.7 ideal may be valid statistically only for the Caucasian world. How wide your hips and how plump your butt are is determined to a good degree by your estrogen level. High estrogen means you will store fat mostly on your hips (and boobs) while low estrogen (say after menopause) means you will store it mostly like guys, on your mid section. There are regional variations, many African ladies can store large amounts of fat on their hips and W/H ratio will be extremely low, while many Asian ladies will store it all over and their W/H ratio will be higher. And I do expect that African men love larger butts than do Asian men.
I'm European so I guess I should aim for 0.7. if I measured myself correctly, I'm not far, 0.69. which means that either my waist is a bit too narrow or my butt is a bit too big. I like to think it's the former, but the truth likely lies in the second.
But here is the thing. I suspect that those scientists who discovered that the 0.7 W/H ratio is ideal did test this by showing various silhouettes to a couple hundred Caucasian men but that must have happend a few decades ago. I believe that today men like a far bigger ratio - not that they want a wider waist, but they want far smaller butts than they did decades ago.
Today, youth is king. And slimness and fitness are youthful and so is a small, muscular butt. It's not the tall, anorexic, androgyne buttless models gay designers proposed us 20 years ago, but young fitness instructors who populate stylish magazines today.
I have a friend, F, who is small, athletic, with tiny boobs and the smallest, tightest butt one could wish for. I measured her, I actually started to measure all my models and shoot them with a piece of paper with the results as if I were a real agent (which I don't pretend to be, but this can help them if they want to model). I don't remember the exact numbers and I don't have the pics on my phone, but I suspect that her ratio was somewhere close to 0.9. which means that if she has a waist of 60 cm, her butt it is somewhere around 67, which is smaller than the waist of most women. She is 26 but I think she looks 12 and this is why I never showed pics of her here. But you know what? I shot her twice and each time both D and T arranged their programme to make sure they attended.
Now, I realised that when I show up somewhere with her, both dressed sexily or naked, I attract more looks but this is just because bigger is more spectacular. I'm sure that, given the choice, most men would choose to have sex with her. I'm absolutely not jealous, there is no competition here, I have more attention than I need and I'm sure that, absent that choice, most men would also agree to have sex with me, but I am acknowledging an evidence here. Like for boobs, which we discussed before, bigger butts are more spectacular but men prefer smaller. I saw a group of Admirers of small butts here, I don't think there is a similar one for big butts.
Now, there are exceptions here, these very short girls with tight waist but huge boobs and butts, Kim Kardashian, Nicki Minaj, even Bianca Censori more recently. They are the exception which confirms the rule and I can give three explanations for their celebrity. First, there is a small percentage of men, say 10-20% who genuinely like big butts. Second, as said big is spectacular. So is a five-legged sheep or a traffic accident, and men would look at these as well. Third, scarcity creates value and men like diversity, so in a world where magazines are populated by skinny but very small-butted girls, a big butt may attract attention including from some guys who actually like small ones.
The shape now, in short because this post is getting too long already. Just like for boobs, I suspect most men like it perky and apple rather than pear-shaped. But some butts may have dimples, some are very muscular, some ar softer and the muscles cannot really be seen.
I won't insist about the texture, I am convinced that everyone wants the butt skin to be as soft and sweet as a baby's, no hair, pimples or cellulites.
So the bottom line (if I may say so).
Guys,
1. On a scale 1 to 10, where 1 is "I feel like throwing up when I see one" and 10 is "I can't think of or look at anything else when I see one", how much do you like to see butts?
2. Considering that "everything in proportion" is not an acceptable answer, what do you prefer: a small butt even if the W/H ratio is a bit bigger than the theoretical ideal of 0.7, or a bigger butt with a W/H ratio smaller than 0.7?
3. And in general, maybe after googling up silhouettes with various W/H ratios, do you think that 0.7 is really the best?
4. Muscular like a body builder's or soft like Marilyn Monroe's?
1. 8
2. I actually found a very scholarly paper on this topic - from Harvard Anthropology School . Based on the profile images in that study - my preference is a solid .6
their scale goes from .55 - very protruberant shape - to .75 - quite flat. I find your "European" .7 profile still too flat - IMHO. I should make clear that the profile view is most important to me - seeing a sweeping curve and recurve ,- that may or may not complement the curves of the breasts. A shapely side view with not too much width in the straight on rear view is my ideal.
3. I can appreciate both the athletic shape and a softer , fleshier one. I believe Marilyn did have a shapely butt -although i don't recall many photos emphasizing that.
Speaking of MM and her curves, Arata Isozaki - a famous Japanese architect from the late 70's and 80's - designed several building with sinuous curved forms. He actually had someone produce several sets of "French Curves" for drawing these forms - the curves were taken from MM's various profiles. Back in the day of hand drawing. When i was working for a big NY office , we collaborated with Isozaki's office. One of the young architects they sent to NY had a set of the Marilyn Curves - that caused quite a stir in the drafting room.
Guys love butts. That's a fact. I'm not really a butts person, I do appreciate a guy's tight, muscular derriere or a nicely shaped round lady's, but it is not my main interest when seeing a naked person.In formal logic, this is counterintuitive. Our butts and men's are not all that different so you would expect men to be mainly attracted by other parts of our anatomy, where our feminity is more marked. I'm not speaking here about being naked and bending over, when you get to see more of my anatomy, I'm speaking about simply walking in town while wearing a nice, tight dress. Guys do look. Probably more than at my chest or at my legs, which are my favourite parts of a woman's anatomy.But I think that guys' interest for our butts (not speaking here about gay guys yet!) comes from immemorial times in the past of our species, when we were all walking mostly on our four so our butts were the main sexual interest of men. Or apes, or whatever we were. I would bet that we ladies also flashed our oestrus period by turning our butt into some sort of sexy red or crimson colour, just like other apes.Then one day we started to realise that our hands were too precious to be used as legs and in the new bipedal position we ladies started to develop unnecessarily big breasts to keep you guys amused now that you no longer had visual access to our more intimate parts - and also to hide our oestrus period and become sexually receptive 24/7 to keep you guys sticking around. But our butts must still trigger in you that ancient attraction - especially when, in the nude, we bend over.But let's talk about the interesting parts, size, shape and texture.Some smart-ass scientists have calculated that what is nice in a woman's body is actually her W/H (waist to hips) ratio and the ideal one would be 0.7. I think what they did was to actually measure this ratio on the statue of Venus de Milo (although I personally find her waist surprisingly wide). I am not surprised that Venus's hips and thigh are quite wide, but I am surprised that her boobs are a beautiful B cups while statues produced in the Barbarian world at about the same time seem to indicate a passion for big ones.I think that this 0.7 ideal may be valid statistically only for the Caucasian world. How wide your hips and how plump your butt are is determined to a good degree by your estrogen level. High estrogen means you will store fat mostly on your hips (and boobs) while low estrogen (say after menopause) means you will store it mostly like guys, on your mid section. There are regional variations, many African ladies can store large amounts of fat on their hips and W/H ratio will be extremely low, while many Asian ladies will store it all over and their W/H ratio will be higher. And I do expect that African men love larger butts than do Asian men.I'm European so I guess I should aim for 0.7. if I measured myself correctly, I'm not far, 0.69. which means that either my waist is a bit too narrow or my butt is a bit too big. I like to think it's the former, but the truth likely lies in the second.But here is the thing. I suspect that those scientists who discovered that the 0.7 W/H ratio is ideal did test this by showing various silhouettes to a couple hundred Caucasian men but that must have happend a few decades ago. I believe that today men like a far bigger ratio - not that they want a wider waist, but they want far smaller butts than they did decades ago.Today, youth is king. And slimness and fitness are youthful and so is a small, muscular butt. It's not the tall, anorexic, androgyne buttless models gay designers proposed us 20 years ago, but young fitness instructors who populate stylish magazines today.I have a friend, F, who is small, athletic, with tiny boobs and the smallest, tightest butt one could wish for. I measured her, I actually started to measure all my models and shoot them with a piece of paper with the results as if I were a real agent (which I don't pretend to be, but this can help them if they want to model). I don't remember the exact numbers and I don't have the pics on my phone, but I suspect that her ratio was somewhere close to 0.9. which means that if she has a waist of 60 cm, her butt it is somewhere around 67, which is smaller than the waist of most women. She is 26 but I think she looks 12 and this is why I never showed pics of her here. But you know what? I shot her twice and each time both D and T arranged their programme to make sure they attended.Now, I realised that when I show up somewhere with her, both dressed sexily or naked, I attract more looks but this is just because bigger is more spectacular. I'm sure that, given the choice, most men would choose to have sex with her. I'm absolutely not jealous, there is no competition here, I have more attention than I need and I'm sure that, absent that choice, most men would also agree to have sex with me, but I am acknowledging an evidence here. Like for boobs, which we discussed before, bigger butts are more spectacular but men prefer smaller. I saw a group of Admirers of small butts here, I don't think there is a similar one for big butts.Now, there are exceptions here, these very short girls with tight waist but huge boobs and butts, Kim Kardashian, Nicki Minaj, even Bianca Censori more recently. They are the exception which confirms the rule and I can give three explanations for their celebrity. First, there is a small percentage of men, say 10-20% who genuinely like big butts. Second, as said big is spectacular. So is a five-legged sheep or a traffic accident, and men would look at these as well. Third, scarcity creates value and men like diversity, so in a world where magazines are populated by skinny but very small-butted girls, a big butt may attract attention including from some guys who actually like small ones.The shape now, in short because this post is getting too long already. Just like for boobs, I suspect most men like it perky and apple rather than pear-shaped. But some butts may have dimples, some are very muscular, some ar softer and the muscles cannot really be seen.I won't insist about the texture, I am convinced that everyone wants the butt skin to be as soft and sweet as a baby's, no hair, pimples or cellulites.So the bottom line (if I may say so).Guys,1. On a scale 1 to 10, where 1 is "I feel like throwing up when I see one" and 10 is "I can't think of or look at anything else when I see one", how much do you like to see butts?2. Considering that "everything in proportion" is not an acceptable answer, what do you prefer: a small butt even if the W/H ratio is a bit bigger than the theoretical ideal of 0.7, or a bigger butt with a W/H ratio smaller than 0.7?3. And in general, maybe after googling up silhouettes with various W/H ratios, do you think that 0.7 is really the best?4. Muscular like a body builder's or soft like Marilyn Monroe's?
Okie D
Here goes nothing
1. On a scale 1 to 10, where 1 is "I feel like throwing up when I see one" and 10 is "I can't think of or look at anything else when I see one", how much do you like to see butts?
9 i do enjoy the sight of a nicely proportioned butt,
2. Considering that "everything in proportion" is not an acceptable answer, what do you prefer: a small butt even if the W/H ratio is a bit bigger than the theoretical ideal of 0.7, or a bigger butt with a W/H ratio smaller than 0.7?
I confess to like the look of the hourglass figure (whether that's healthy or not isn't part of the equation, yet) i think that's a 0.75 or so on the w/h ratio barometer) a healthy looking peach of a posterior is an attraction.
3. And in general, maybe after googling up silhouettes with various W/H ratios, do you think that 0.7 is really the best?
0.75
4. Muscular like a body builder's or soft like Marilyn Monroe's?
A butt that could cracl walnuts is nice to look at, but not one to live with, brother that could be dangerous for a guy... so Marilyn's please, she wasn't a small lady. The candle in the wind, so sad.
So Richie's motto, don't neglect the butt.
Rx
For me I do love watching a woman walk from behind. As their hips move side to side and up and down. I think its called a swish.
As far as a small butt, they are so cute. You just want to hold them and when they bend over every thing is there to enjoy.
With the soft or muscular, hmmm bony or fat. No I dont like the big fat ones. Because most of the time they smell when I deep in there.
Then theres the ones that turn red when smacked. Lol. Butt really they are all beautiful
I am not really a 'behind' type guy; it does compliment the package and should not be 'out-of-whack' so to speak. That said, here's my response:
1. On a scale 1 to 10, where 1 is "I feel like throwing up when I see one" and 10 is "I can't think of or look at anything else when I see one", how much do you like to see butts? I do enjoy the view of a nice, slightly sloped bottom. It adds greatly to the overall package; I would rate it a middle of the road 6.
2. Considering that "everything in proportion" is not an acceptable answer, what do you prefer: a small butt even if the W/H ratio is a bit bigger than the theoretical ideal of 0.7, or a bigger butt with a W/H ratio smaller than 0.7? A bottom that does advertise its existence but doesn't scream ALL CAPS at you. The TV / media types are gross. I suspect a 0.7 or so would be fine for viewing pleasure.
3. And in general, maybe after googling up silhouettes with various W/H ratios, do you think that 0.7 is really the best? After reviewing the chart; I would prefer about a 0.75 as most attractive.
4. Muscular like a body builder's or soft like Marilyn Monroe's? A behind should be soft ... end of discussion.
Just another's guys opinion ... but in reality, all nicely proportional women are a pleasure to gaze upon. I shall continue to do so in a sincere, respectful manner.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!