[Zee]

I think it just depends on the girl quite honestly.

[_DC_]

Yes, I agree with the poster two above (with updated picture of Cruise).

All of the "pretty boys" above actually all have masculine features such as strong jawline, prominent nose and brow.

I think the other look is "rugged" or something similar. Still I think that's mostly an upkeep thing. If Cruise didn't take care of himself, let his hair grow wild, no grooming, bad skin etc... he's look "rugged" too. "Pretty" just means well-kept, well-groomed, stylish etc. IMO anyway.

[Kickb]

All the debating reminds me of the Handsome Men's Club.

[calex]

(04-05-2012 12:50 PM)Chapped3rdEye Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 12:41 PM)calex Wrote:  

Since T levels were much higher 50 or more years ago

Eh? Link plz. Not saying you're wrong, just curious.

First one off google - http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscienc...netal.html

Blame foods full of hormones, cell phones, residue of fucking birth control pills in the drinking water, and omnipresent plastic. All the more reason to eat clean and lift hard.

[Blunt]

Faces can definitely be both handsome and manly. See Jon Hamm (Don Draper).

Ugliness in certain features like exaggerated brow lines, prominent nose can make a face ugly and manly. While ugliness in features like a weak chin or puffy cheeks makes a face ugly and feminine.

So sometimes an ugly face is more manly. I think the worst off are guys with weak chins.

[Screwston]

Danny Trejo used to be a heroin addict and did time in prison. Those deep acne scars make guys look real rough and mean sometimes. Tom Cruise is a pretty boy actor with a big nose.

[kosko]

Ll cool j has a babyface he had not aged I 20 years. The perfect example us Seal. Even before the burns dude had a broker face but women still want to jump on his shit. Overly manly/ugly faces are animal ish which is something women ate attracted too.

[Parlay44]

Maybe some of these actors and musicians are bad examples to use for this thread. Their fame and fortune slightly skews their attractiveness rating.
I'm talking about regular everyday guys that hit the bars on Friday and Saturday nights.

[Screwston]

(04-05-2012 05:19 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:53 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Handsome man
http://www.moviespad.com/photos/tom-crui...-7dfb9.jpg

The problem with this picture is that it has Tom Cruise in some gay ass pose, while Danny Trejo has a fierce look on his face. I'd say this would be a better comparison of the two.

I don't get it. Is Tom Cruise supposed to look threatening there? He looks like an angry pretty boy model

[Moma]

Here is Danny before smack and the chat with Father Time...

[Khaleth]

(04-05-2012 05:41 PM)kickboxer Wrote:  

All the debating reminds me of the Handsome Men's Club.

"I had your back punk ass bitch..." -Lenny Kravitz

Hahahaha! That was amazing.

[DLuzhin]

To be considered handsome all you need is prominent cheekbones and a defined jawline. The nose, eyes, lips, etc barely matter after that.

You can even be a talentless fucking idiot and you'll still be considered handsome if you just have those two.

[deca]

The actor in the original post is not ugly because he's 'too masculine', but because he's just... ugly. If you notice the middle portion of his face ('midface'), you'll see that it's disproportionately long or 'downward grown'. Also there's the effect of aging on the soft tissue, it's sagging, wrinkled, and pockmarked - the usual.

[Wahawahwah]

Nice

[cubanlinx]

If tom cruise is a pretty boy, then I'm a pretty boy. Fuck.
On a serious note, faces are ugly because they have some sort of overly prominent feature.

[wilberforceeggmont]

That "pretty boy/clean cut" bloke you see with the Justin Bieberish hair who looks a lot younger than he is, has probably never stepped in to a gym and looks like he doesn't need to shave, is slaying 8s all day long. Women love it. You all know it.

Seen it a million times.

[OO7]

(04-10-2016 01:36 AM)wilberforceeggmont Wrote:  

That "pretty boy/clean cut" bloke you see with the Justin Bieberish hair who looks a lot younger than he is, has probably never stepped in to a gym and looks like he doesn't need to shave, is slaying 8s all day long. Women love it. You all know it.

Seen it a million times.

So you’re saying … looks do matter ???

[hydrogonian]

Danny Trejo has facial scarring and is thus technically deformed. He's not exactly a good example even for ugly.

The ugly example should still have clear and un-scarred skin, have low body fat, and maybe have hair.

I think that men with 'unconventional' facial proportions (ie: ugly) men, but still having features within certain parameters (no deformities), can indeed have a masculine and thus unconventionally attractive face - adjusted for age. The x factor, in my observation, is the guy's body composition and hormonal profile as reflected in his face.

Relatively high T guys with low-ish body fat, and no other unusual issues, will tend to project an attractive manliness even without conventional good looks.

Ugly guys that are too skinny don't project it. Fat guys don't project it.

Good looking guys can better get away with being too skinny.

I observe that being at the max of what is generally listed as your ideal weight, on a height dependent BMI index, is good for attractiveness. Even ten pounds over looks pretty good on me, but I have a wide frame.

[Kamikaze]

Here are a few dudes who are not in terrible shape, have their hair, and who've made a living off being ugly.

First



And another.



Another ugly dude.



I wasn't sure what my point was initially but after seeing these pics, I think there are a few things to consider:

1. The quality of the pic, meaning the camera, lighting, etc matter a lot.
2. These guys are surprisingly not horrible looking and could probably be considered good-looking if they worked out, had some muscle, and as they aged probably kept their hair cropped close.
3. Given this, these guys probably play up their ugliness just to get roles.

This convinces me a lot more that if you just work out enough you can be at least passable.

[Adrenaline]

This thread is hilarious. No girl is attracted to an ugly guy for the fact that he's ugly. Girls are with ugly guys because they have other things going for them. If that first bloke in OP's post wasn't an actor, he wouldn't get a Second glance in a bar anywhere in the world.

And am I really seeing masculine and ugly being used as interchangeable words? Ugly does not equal masculine. There are two types of good looking men.

1) Pretty boy (Ronaldo, Vinny Chase from Entourage)
2) Rugged (Gerard Butler)

Pretty boy's usually have softer, more feminine features and symmetrical eyes, nose, lips etc. These are the more model types. Rugged men usually have the strong jaw and facial hair and can be considered sex symbols even though their facial features may not be perfect. Women have different preferences based on their personality, upbringing, stage of cycle etc but both are still good looking.

Ronald and Adrian Grenier have no problems with the ladies, despite not looking very "masculine" or "ugly" as some of you are oddly stating.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

It's kind of ridiculous to evaluate actors for this.

On one hand, is it beta?

More to the point, they're not only the most attractive sample pool you could draw from but also their ubiquitous presence has the effect of making us see them as a sort of standard for looks.

I associate James Coburn and Charles Bronson with masculine faces but for the love of god I can't tell if they were ugly or attractive.

[R_Niko]

I think it's been proven that women with higher testosterone are considered "uglier" by men based on facial photos. So, this kinda makes sense. Test equals manly features.

But as many have pointed out, there are many kinds of ugly. Uneven facial features signify poor genetic health and/or less than ideal hormone levels.

[PeanutoftheNight]

It seems to me that many of the men considered to be attractive to women, such as those appearing as male models, hot girls' boy-toys, 'dreamy' actors, etc. always have subtle feminine features. You inspect their face for more than a glance and start noticing feminine-esque structures, eye colors and stuff like that. The 'manly' men don't have these features, women are very often attracted to them, but aren't considered to be attractive. Shows that men are much more attracted to and dependent on physical features for arousal/sexual interest than women.

[EDantes]

My opinion is that it's subjective.

In general I believe men with a "softer" or "handsome face" (ex. pretty boys) tend to get more attention from women.

But men with a rugged, "ugly" or aggressive face tend to get more respect from men.

Men who look "too aggressive", rugged or "alpha" sometimes come across as intimidating to women but are the type of guy who other men wouldn't think about messing with.

So ultimately which is more of a male archetype is debatable; technically the "rugged, tough guy" look I believe is more traditionally "manly" and would have gotten the most respect in ancient times where men had to actually fight and rely on brute force.

In today's world, the softer but charismatic male archetype seems to be more desired since men don't typically have to rely on strength or aggression alone.

According to Jack Donovan, women desire men who are either "feared" or "revered". Most women tend to prefer the suave, "revered" type of man, but women who grow up in the ghetto or bad areas of town tend to prefer the more aggressive, tough guy type of man; some even think a guy is a "wuss" if he doesn't hit a woman or pick fights with other men.

[R_Niko]

(04-12-2016 09:03 PM)PeanutoftheNight Wrote:  

It seems to me that many of the men considered to be attractive to women, such as those appearing as male models, hot girls' boy-toys, 'dreamy' actors, etc. always have subtle feminine features. You inspect their face for more than a glance and start noticing feminine-esque structures, eye colors and stuff like that. The 'manly' men don't have these features, women are very often attracted to them, but aren't considered to be attractive. Shows that men are much more attracted to and dependent on physical features for arousal/sexual interest than women.

http://www.livescience.com/28237-women-o...e-men.html

"Women using the birth control pill prefer men with less masculine faces compared to nonusers, new research suggests.

Millions of women use hormonal forms of contraception, and some studies indicate the pill could affect partner preferences. A new study shows women were attracted to less masculine male faces after going on the pill, while their ratings of the attractiveness of female faces were unaffected. And in couples who first met when the woman was on the pill, the men were less likely to have manly faces than those who met when the woman was off the pill. If supported, the findings could have important implications for how relationships are formed.

Many factors can influence human attractiveness. Some research suggests that a preference for masculine or feminine traits may be linked to genetic benefits for a couple's offspring, such as strong immune systems. And a few studies have found that women prefer more masculine traits during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. The new study investigated how the pill affects these preferences.

Facial attraction

The study, detailed online March 23 in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology, compared the romantic preferences of straight women ages 18 to 24 who were taking oral contraception against those who were not. Researchers showed the women composite images of young male and female faces, which could be manipulated to appear more or less masculine (based on features like cheekbone prominence, jaw height and face width). Scientists then told the participants to alter the male faces so they were most attractive for either a short- or long-term relationship, and to alter the female faces simply to be the most attractive.

The women were tested twice — once when none of them were taking the pill and again three months after some began using the pill. The women themselves decided whether to join the pill-taking group or not.