I find this weird.
Ultimately both women are extremely similar in terms of reproductive potential, and as yet I have no indication of their personality, intellect or degree of talent in the sack. All I know is that I would happily let one of them use my face as a space-hopper, but the thought of doing the same for the other is physically repulsive to me. It's not just that I prefer one over the other, it's that one of them is a definite Hell Yeah and the other is an Oh Christ No, even though I'm perfectly aware that there's nothing but superficial physical differences between the two.
It's not about weight and it's not really about age, I've fond memories of older and wobbler ladies over the years, although I'll admit that a younger, thinner lady is far more likely to fall into the Hell Yeah segment. People seem to think that men rate women on a basic 1-10 scale and anybody who falls below, say, 5 is a non-starter, but it's really not so simple. When I look at a woman I instinctively, and usually instantaneously, place her into one of the mental boxes labeled either *Would* or *Wouldn't* but there are scales within those boxes.
A 10 in the *Wouldn't* box is almost certainly going to be better looking by conventional standards of beauty than a 1 in the *Would* box, but there's some weird, difficult to define quality that says either "potential lay" or "nope". Personally I always had a thing for mousy, understated, quiet girls* - usually not the type to turn heads when they walk into a room or to relish being the centre of attention, but if I learned anything about women it's that the quiet ones will surprise you every time.
Dunno where I'm going with this. Suppose it's just that good looking and sexy are two very different things.
*That said, I did marry a chirpy extrovert with massive norks who definitely gets noticed when she walks into a room, but that was more down to circumstance than anything else. The circumstance being that she got knocked up.