I was thinking earlier on about what the outcome would be of a hypothetical visit to, say, a theme park on a busy summer Saturday, where I was able to photograph each boy I found attractive, and then rank the boys in order of attractiveness from my perspective. If I were ever to do such a 'survey', I would be willing to lay pretty good odds that the 'winner' would be 13 years old. Not a result with any real significance, just an observation, really.
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
I think the outcome would be that you would be in trouble. Any person seen photographing children in a public place these days is immediately suspected of being a perv and the authorities would jump all over you. It's a shame, but that's the way it is.
ReplyDeleteHello Brian
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's a thought experiment. I'm well aware of the hysteria surrounding boylovers - I've lived in its shadow for more years than I care to remember.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B
I reckon there's an high chance that the theoretical winner of this hypothetical exercise would be thirteen or fourteen - but there are also some darn cute fifteens and sixteens - and some boys I used to see regularly on a bus were in both lower and upper sixths where real heart melters too. So I think the variation could easily go up to eighteen.
ReplyDeleteIt does depend so very much on personal looks, but also grooming, clothing and deportment. Makes no odds all this whether we're talking about boys or girls I guess.
Hello Micky
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of my 'survey' wouldn't be a foregone conclusion - if we're looking at it from a purely 'eye candy' perspective, there are some gorgeous elevens and twelves as well the older ones. I fell for 'DBJ' when he was about 11, give or take, and that was a prime example of an 'eyes only' kind of attraction. 13 would be the most likely for me, knowing what I know about me, though.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B
I do a tumblr, cute boys, shirtless boys and the like (no nudy bits or sex, please). It's a little bit the same. I click "reblog" whenever a picture that has something crosses my dash. That leaves me pondering what makes one image seem beautiful over another. More than age there is a certain attitude which I respond to most strongly. The cheeky smile, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteIt's as if we humans have an innate drive to categorise, collect and classify things we're interested in. You see that with the huge porn collections men acquire. Always the hunt for the new, perfect image while keeping the old one, labelled for the way it approaches the ideal state.
Good to see the Saints on the improve. Although the West Coast this weekend will be a stern test, as they say.
Hello Billy
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that when it comes to 'attractiveness', there are virtually no objective criteria that can meaningfully apply - what I find irresistible, the next man (or woman) might find neutral, or even repulsive. This post was just me 'thinking aloud', so to speak, about my perceptions. Age certainly isn't the only determinant, there's a certain 'Je ne sais quoi', the 'attitude' you allude to, which, when taken together with physical attractiveness, 'good looks' or whatever you want to call it, makes one individual more or less desirable than another, even if the only desire is to look and admire. In my experience, though, and only, in this context, applicable to me, the probable age of a person most likely to 'tick all the boxes' is 13.
It's certainly nice to see St Kilda playing something closer to where we should have been all year, and at least giving ourselves a chance of playing in September. The next game is a big test, though, as you rightly say - it's no surprise to see your guys and Geelong doing so well, but it's a different matter with West Coast, they're far and away the most improved team this year. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it goes.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B