Does the average man prefer women who have at least some muscle?

I always hear about how the average guy doesn't find muscular women attractive but in my experience the same is true for women who have no muscle at all. I don't even mean just fat women but I've heard guys criticize skinny women who have no muscle tone at all, like the ideal seems to be women who look like they go to the gym and have visible muscle tone on their arms, legs, and abs without looking super shredded or muscular.

Like most guys I know would probably prefer a girl with a body like this:

over someone who's just straight up skinny with no muscle, is it the same for anyone else?

Very interesting thread. My perception is that most men look at women's traits that are considered traditional (e.g. breast, legs, overall shape etc.), and don't consider visible muscle tone as attractive (at least not explicitly: could be that every man is turned on by muscles, but we don't know that). However, muscle tone is often preferred indirectly, in the sense that usually it affects positively the above mentioned "traditonal" beauty traits: toned muscles mean nicer legs and arms, rounder butt, flat stomach and better posture, which are undeniably what the majority of men look for. That said, I'm not sure if most men would criticise an unfit woman just because she is untoned. I believe that she would still be considered desirable if she had at least some of the traditional beauty traits. All this of course may vary with culture and time.

PS. I bet that most men would find the girl in the picture above too thick/muscular/masculine/etc and with no boobs.

I'm not your average man, otherwise I would not be on this exceptional forum. I'm a 68 year old who has been starved of the sight of, and interaction with female muscle, most of my life. In fact I feel I was born far too early. However I'm sure the average man would and should prefer a woman with some toned muscle. Not only does it make for a fitter body and healthier look, it's much better than the flabby flesh and the unattractive bingo wings that are usually left to develop without exercise.

Marcor311 and jaguar55

You're both right, I agree 100%. I'm a man (about your age) and have played sports my whole life. I have also always looked for and preferred really muscular women. For the same reasons as you. Unfortunately I was also born a little too early... Nowadays the choice would be much larger...

Most men would definitely like to see some amount of muscle/shape in the lower body but upper body is still contentious. A lot are still intimidated by a women with a muscular upper body and associate that with manliness.

I think a lot more men like leg muscles like bigger calves and glutes and quads. but can't stand even the most minor upper body muscle.

I think a lot more men like leg muscles like bigger calves and glutes and quads. but can't stand even the most minor upper body muscle.

Ditto

I think a lot more men like leg muscles like bigger calves and glutes and quads. but can't stand even the most minor upper body muscle.

speaking of legs and glutes, I'm not sure if most men prefer "toned" (i.e. tight, firm) legs and butt, or they just look for "shapely" legs and butts (i.e. with curves in the right places, not saggy, nice soft skin, round butt, etc.). Maybe it is more common to like a round butt even if it is soft to the touch (hence with not much muscle tone).

Well I am very average and the answer is no. I prefer a lot of muscle!

Well I am very average and the answer is no. I prefer a lot of muscle!

bro you're not average if you're on this site