41 resultados para bisexual men
em Brock University, Canada
Resumo:
Front left team member John Corlett is currently (2008) Dean of the Faculty of Applied Health Sciences
Resumo:
Coach: Garney Henley Team (Alphabetically): Bruce Adams, Frank Capretta, Kevin Farrow, David Dennis, Rob Demott, Brian Hayden, Peter Kaija, Steve Kolenko, Leacoft Panton, Kevin Rome, Kevin Stevinson, Glen Tone, Moe Willoughby
Resumo:
1981-1982 Men's Basketball Team Front - Doug Fast. John Radaslav, Jim Zareski, Kelly Baker, Jim Baldin, Doug Johnson, Tim Mcalpine Back - Manager Britt Fischer, ??, Bob Blasko, David Hodges, Mark Green, Bob Yuhasz, Paul Treitz, Mike Creighton, Trainer Joe Kenney, Coach Garney Henley
Resumo:
Pictured here from left to right: Back Row - Les Korchok (Coach), Ken Cripps, Mike McGinnis, Bill Butler, Tim McKillop, Gary Jellum, Fred Kovacs (Manager). Front Row - Jim Leach, Wally Dick, Bob Tatti, Paul Zutautas, Tom Kearney (Trainer). Kneeling - Dave Luff, Dave Brent. Missing - Bill Levesque.
Resumo:
Brock's foilist lunges at his opponent in this 1981 foil bout.
Resumo:
Foilist completes his lunge.
Resumo:
From left to right. Top: Pierre Nadeau, Dave Blanchard, Tony Biernacki (Coach), Kevin McLaughlin, Mike McDonald. Bottom: Andy Ness.
Resumo:
From left to right. Top: Sean Dowd, Dave Muirhead, Mike Thompson, Rick Cicchine, Mark Thomas, John Ahlstedt, Mark Reynolds, Tom Kent, and Tony Biernacki (Coach). Bottom: Bob Nguyen (Coxie).
Resumo:
with coach Tony Biernacki
Resumo:
Rowing down the course.
Resumo:
Back Row: J.B. Owens, Ross Smith (Head Coach), Adam Frost, Derrick Harwood, Dave DeRose, Bill Arniel, Danny Mazor, Alan Ross, Randy McKeller, Pete McDougall, Ray D'Archi, Kelvin Oda, Mark Pelletier, Eric Thompson, Marty Houston, Ken White (Asst. Coach) Front Row: Peter Love, Chris Peskett, Duff Porteous, Bart Ward, Dave Sohmer, Gary Gautier, Ken Murray, Dave Tamowski, Steve Shaughnessy, Jeff Wood Absent: Alfred Esmaily, Luc Gignac, Fred Kovacs, Andrew Norman
Resumo:
Back Row: John MacNeil (Coach), John MacNail Jr, John Murray, Joel Walton, Frank Cipriano, Benny Grossi, Rino Berardi, Louis Famelos, Doug Rowan, Ron Di Felice Front Row: Ivan Hunt, Roger Vanoostveen, Dave Gibson, Joe Perri, Kent Mayhew, Jim Baldassarro, Guenther Baur Absent: Neil Dunsmore
Resumo:
From left to right: H. T. Lillies (Coach), Rudolph Ambacher, Bill Hadfield, Michel Thibodeau, Bill Haines, Larry Plummer, Bill Smale, and Kelvin Oda (Manager). Absent: Gordon McNeice, Tom Dagg, Hong Wey Kang, Darrel Murphey, Darren Cannell, Ian Shackel, John Bernie.
Resumo:
Existing research on attraction to body features has suggested that men show general preferences for women with lower waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), larger breasts, and slender body weights. The present study intended to expand on this research by investigating several individual difference factors and their potential contribution to variation in what men find attractive in female body features. Two hundred and seventy-three men were assessed for sex-role identity, 2D:4D digit ratios (a possible marker of prenatal exposure to androgens, and thus masculinization), physical attractiveness, early sexual experiences (as indices of early sexual conditioning), and early family attitudes toward body features, as well as their current preferences for WHR, breast size, weight, and height in women. For WHR, as predicted, physical attractiveness, early sexual experiences, and lower (more masculine) right-hand 2D:4D ratios significantly predicted current preferences for more feminine (lower) WHR. Early sexual experiences significantly predicted later preferences for breast size; in addition, more masculine occupational preferences and lower (more masculine) left-hand 2D:4D ratios predicted preferences for larger breasts. Participants' height, education level, Unmitigated Agency (masculinity) scores, and early sexual experiences significantly predicted current preferences for height. Finally, early sexual experiences significantly predicted current preferences for weight. The results suggest that variation in preferences for women's bodily features can be uniquely accounted for by a number of individual difference factors. Strengths and weaknesses of the study, along with implications for future research, are discussed.