At what age is a female face the most attractive?

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The most attractive age for a face is the one it's in now. everythin but the one you see now is just theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like I said, if you think that your male friends don't get turned on by fresh-faced, pert-breasted 14 year old girls, you're a bit naive.

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That I'm honest and rational.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

So the attractiveness of the female's face, would be entirely dependent on the person.

-How old are they with respect to the woman
-What race are they (do they like faces of their own race or culture or ethnicity)
-What's their gender orientation

So......yeah.

 

If you want a woman to drink cheap cider with, she shouldn't be too beautiful.
Spoils the atmosphere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There'd better be two bottles in that bag, or you're going out again.

 

They probably wouldn't broadcast the fact.
Man, and woman are corruptible.
That's why there is a prison sentence for child pornography.

 

Hey scheherezade. I'd settle for caveman status - plus a few get out of jail cards, just to squeak by on. That should at least keep me in a cot in the garage with access to the fridge. Of course if I hadn't hooked up with her in the first place on account of her good looks I'd be on easy street now. Worse, I'm sure that deep down somewhere in the back of my mind I hung on to the dream with a twist of science. It goes something like this: statistically speaking, if she hasn't thrown my suitcase out the window by now, it likely means she's really got the hots for me. (In despair I might even wonder if that's Gaussian or Rayleigh distributed.) It comes with a flash of rational remorse that goes iike this: OK, so that's obviously a best-case scenario . . . but isn't it within the realm of possibility? This is the problem in the OP with trying to marry science to gut-level responses. It usually amounts to little more than denial.

That first school age crush does seem like only yesterday but there's been a lot of road miles since then, so nowadays first impressions mostly collapse into tentative flickers. Satin vixen in black in white ads next to that sculpted bottle of overpriced perfume, silky mane blowing in the wind, are just as likely to turn out to be mean rotten battle axes - and probably moreso. Then there's Dirty Sally, the junk collector, craggy like like an Ansel Adams mountain range, but what character. Taking in strays, feeding the pigeons . . . yeah, what a knockout. So what if I identify with the pigeons? That doesn't mean I don't have standards. It's not about the face any more per se but the eyes. They've got to be generous, true, and - here we go again with that best case scenario - loyal. So maybe I do put Raggedy Anne on a pedestal. I'll fade the heat for that. That'll keep me on my toes wanting to compensate, wanting to chop her wood, to keep that fire going in her hearth. The same as when I carried a torch for the prom queen against all odds. So some things do come full circle.

But a pretty face? That's got to be a genetic program that keeps kids from forgetting their milk supply. After puberty it's something vestigial that keeps a hankering for being mothered. It probably was useful when the menfolk were out hunting game, to seek to be nursed and mothered when they got back all scuffed up and gored by antlers. Which is why I wouldn't consider caveman status to be a downgrade at all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You might be an exception to the rule, but on its face that sounds like a lie.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I like when Bells gets her hackles up because she's usually advocating for the underdog.

 

Peak testosterone correlates with peak gawpiness. Takes a few more years to mature into peak sexuality.
Though I guess you might have a point. The question WAS about attractiveness, not responsiveness!

 

Have you noticed how this whole discussion seems to have focused on age and looks, when in reality how many know for certain the exact age of a person we might meet and find attractive. Also I don't know how common this is or not but I actually find a woman with a sexy voice very attractive and this to me can be a deciding factor not necessarily what a woman looks like, I could hear a voice of a woman and know I'll be attracted to her just from her voice, and this is without ever knowing or having any real inkling of the age of the woman in question. But to get back to previous aspects of the discussion yes most men are capable of finding just about any female of child baring age attractive, but the difference is most men simply wouldn't look at a 14 year old in that way, It's the same as you might have an attractive sister or cousin but but you'd never give them any actual consideration as partner. Generally speaking I think most men would prefer someone mature enough to at least come close to being their emotional equal and not a child, as surely no could really suggest 14 is not still a child. So I would think anywhere between 21 and 30 for guys upto about 40 would probarbly be about right and older for older guys, but certainly not 14.

 

Are you sure about that? She is definitely a prosecutor in every case I have seen her here on, pinning down her victim.

 

suits me.

 

I find this whole thread very sexists, for sham on you all!

 

Yeah, and that reason is called law. 200 years ago they married 13-15 years old girls everyday.

As someone already said earlier, I vote for the 17-27 timeframe...

P.S.: Most people seem to miss that posters answer their own choices to a general question, and not what they think other people think...

 

Attractiveness = Fertility
and experts say the average woman's fertility peaks when she's 24.
You must listen when experts speak.
So 24.

Some men prefer women much older than this, and that's OK.
They probably are searching for a mother replacement.
Some men prefer women much younger, and these we call perverts.

@Electricfetus
Sham?


Here's some interesting information.
I think it's fairly accurate and derived from marriage records:

One common belief about the Renaissance is that children, especially girls, married young. In some noble houses marriages were indeed contracted at a young age, for reasons of property and family alliance, but in fact the average age of marriage was quite old--in the middle twenties.

Marriage statistics indicate that the mean marriage age for the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras was higher than many people realize. Data taken from birthdates of women and marriage certificates reveals mean marriage ages to have been as follows:

1566-1619 27.0 years
1647-1719 29.6 years
1719-1779 26.8 years
1770-1837 25.1 years
The marriage age of men was probably the same or a bit older than that of women. (In 1619, it was about 23 for women, 26 for men.) The age of consent was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy, but for most children puberty came two or three years later than it does today.
See http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/...l;jsessionid=535C29F8DC8FCC6AA395F2D86705792D

 

Syzygys, I was the one who said about the "17-27" timeframe >.>