In honor of the release of X-Men Origins: Wolverine this weekend, we have to ask you a pretty difficult question. Who would you rather–Hugh Jackman as Wolverine or Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth? They may both be scruffy, rugged guys with claws, but which one of them has you dropping your pants the fastest?
Even though you can only pick one, feel free to fantasize about a ménage à trois on your own time. If you care to share details about who would be doing what to who in such a threesome, we certainly won't complain…
– Dewitt
For some more pictures to help with your decision, follow the JUMP:
liev with a better haircut
both and at the same time 🙂
jackman hands down or pants down or hands down on all fours
hmm, do you think this will shut up the mass of men who protest at the sight of a twink/jock/anything-but-a-bear. probably not, but it was a great effort dewitt. for the record, i think hugh is hotter, but needs so manscaping. so sue me, i like the twinks.
Liev Schreiber is cuter, at least to me. Hugh Jackman is just a bit too scruffy for me, not to mention a bit too muscled.
Hugh Jackman all the way for sure. He’s got intensely rugged good looks going for him. And have you seen his ass? My goodness its great haha.
I’ll take Ryan Renolds as deadpool
I don’t like either one actually but if i had to pick Hugh Jackman is definitely better looking
Hugh all the way!
hugh for sure. slightly over-muscled, but still sexy sexy sexy. on all fours for him 😛
Liev is yum!
Tough choice. Both hot, but I think Liev’s a little cuddlier.
Still, would love to have both of them digging their claws into me. Any chance we could work Beast into the mix?
I think it’s funny when men say “muscled” and “well-built” men aren’t attractive to them, because it’s such a bold-faced lie. Every human being that is attracted to men has an ideal attraction to muscle men because it’s in our INSTINCT to want to (try, anyway) mate with men that look like they have an excellent set of genes.
People that bash men for being well-muscled only speak that way because they, themselves, are not.
FYI: I’m not muscled either, so I’m not biased. I just learned it in Psych so I thought I’d share 🙂
Jackman FTW <3
Well the sex with either of them will be hot but you know Hugh will ditch you in bed to go to the gym and Liev will hug and kiss you until you are ready for second time,third time…
Hugh will also want to be the center of attention everywhere you go and Liev will compliment your looks….
hard decision…indeed hard
@Justin: I’m surprised that someone who studied “psych” would be so ignorant as to assign instinctive female behaviors to male individuals where there is no biological imperative to fulfill. The real fact is that most “preferences” develop early based on the types to which we are exposed and have some interpersonal context. Our homosexuality may be genetic, but the kinds of men to which we are attracted is more a matter of the kinds of men to which we are exposed during formative pre-adolescent years.
Grant all the way totally besides wolverine has an adamantium skeleton totally hard! hahaha
@shaman ive heard of research stating that a homosexual male behaves tword other males the same as a heterosexual female, responding to the same chemical signals and physical ideals
@Shaman: It isn’t ignorance that drives my comment. It’s scientific study. What makes a man gay is the presence in our bodies of the same hormone concentrations that exist in women. Women are attracted to “buff” men because, in nature, they would give the idea of having superior genes for survival. Thus, women would want to pass that on to their children.
As such, gay men mimic this and feel that urge to mate. Regardless of the fact that a penis and an anus does not a baby make.
Justin, yeah, you say you have studied/are studying Psych but you sure don’t seem to have much understanding of the psychology of attraction.( Read my latest response on the Dr. Queerlove column where we were debating.)
A perfect genetic specimen is definitely what animals usually look for and what our ancestors sought out, and it remains dominant because, via survival of the fittest, those who did not have good genes and seek them out in a mate naturally had their lines die out. But that doesn’t happen anymore. Those who are influenced by genetic mutations and psychological events( which play a much greater role at this stage in human evolution, because instinct is diminishing and thought/emotion increasing in impact) to seek out types other than the physically fittest no longer always die out – nor do their offspring. Also, even in cases where we may still be driven to seek out those who can protect and provide us and our offspring, physical aptitude is no longer the sole measure of that in our society, and that change has colored the way our minds interpret said biological imperative.
And while there are certainly biological factors in being gay, there are mental ones too, and hormones are only a part of a much more complex equation physiological/psychological equation. Or do you honestly believe that adjusting hormone balance will make us straight? And how does the person who taught you that “gay men have women’s hormone levels” explain bisexuality?
Also, watch your language. There is a difference between not being attracted to well-muscled men and “bashing” them. And I know some very fit and muscular guys who are not into similar types at all – so there goes that theory.( And no, they don’t look for femme guys to compliment or reinforce their masculinity, either.)
Liev for me, thanks, although in terms of characters I would not want Sabretooth anywhere near me at any time.
Of course it remains relevant in today’s society. You claim physical aptitude is no longer relevant? Then pray tell why it is a common event for “gold-diggers” to cheat on their often less-than-attractive-benefactors for the pool boy in the speedo, and subsequently losing their benefactor.
And yes, I personally believe that if hormone therapy can drastically alter a person’s appearance well after they have gone through puberty, it absolutely carries potential in one day altering which sex a person is attracted to. And to answer the bisexuality question, technically there is no 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Psychology views it similarly to a numbered scale. Obviously the more homosexual you are, the more closely your hormone levels mimic that of a more heterosexual female’s would, while a bisexual (and I’m assuming you mean falls dead center on the scale) would have hormone concentrations that ALTER periodically, as reflected by the tendency to change sexual preferance (sometimes over years in adulthood, and weeks/months in teens) over time.
But I digress lol, my point is no one can truthfully claim that a toned, strong-looking man is not attractive. It’s our instinct.
PS: The muscular guys you know seem like paradoxes. Because if they don’t like other muscled men, then that own distaste would have to be reflected on themselves as well, since they, themselves are. If you mean they aim to date men of a slighter build than they (they don’t have to be feminine), then yes, that is to avoid a sense of physical competition, and gain a sense of unspoken-of physical superiority over their partner. But if you ask them if they think Dave Beckham or someone similar has a nice body, I’m willing to bet they’ll say yes.
You miss the point boys. THese guys are fuckable.