||Given how little I know about the editors of this site (and how the definition of "sexy" can vary significantly based upon any number of traits as well as to the preferences and values of each of us individually) how on earth can you expect any meaningful result? To improve the odds of an informed choice by all, I offer what little I know for consideration:
RE: bc - While I'm on record as describing him as being "cute," this is completely untrue. I loathe that word, actually, and would never use it to describe this specific person because it would be demeaning (I suspect, however, that the person responsible for that misinterpretation also had this in mind). It has since been clarified that I did, in fact, remark that bc is "stunning," but the yet-undisclosed follow-up phrase that came to mind was actually "mouth-watering" (make of that what you will; I am unashamed.) He's brilliant, charming, funny, chivalrous, etc., and I am aware of the fact that he writes better than I could ever dream to. I could go on, but I won't - I suspect that he blushes easily and wouldn't ever want to cause him discomfort of any sort. If I were to compare him to any known personages, I'd say his features are classic in a Cary Grant/young Sean Connery sense -- plus he also has a smile that promises all the fun you could wish for that is wonderfully inviting.
RE: Perdida - I believe I've seen a photo of the lady and, in a word, she is beautiful -- in the archetypical, "Golden Mean" sense of the word, the "we mere mortals aren't worthy to gaze upon your countenance" kind of beautiful. Her intelligence is of a level I'd describe as "genius" (and I've met a few, so I think I'm capable of recognizing them at this point in my personal evolution). She uses words with surgical precision to express exactly what she wishes; I am in awe of her clarity of thought and the consistent quality of her writing. She has an air of being utterly unattainable which, of course, makes her all the more desirable; my impression is that she's cool and passionate simultaneously. In my mind, I she's a cross between Audrey Hepburn and Mother Jones (the composite including only the best facets of each, of course!).
And then there's Peter Johnson. The first time I ever laid eyes upon him, the phrase that popped to mind almost immediately was "lady-killer"; the follow-up was "What an arrogant SOB!" and the general vibe was a horrified "Oh, God - he actually thinks he's God's gift to women!" This was followed genuine relief when I then realized that he's almost the perfect antithesis of what generally passes as being "my type" (he is taller than me, but then again, I'm only 5'2"). I also, based on experience, subscribe to a long-held theory that all fair-haired men are generally psychotic (and he qualifies on both counts). In the interim, I've discovered that he's a self-described narcissist, that he's as stubborn about his opinions as the day is long, and that he has the nerve to take pride in being absolutely infuriating whenever possible. While the literary quality of his postings is often inconsistent, he gets points in my book for paying attention to the subtle nuances and even I will admit that he's a true master of wordplay (but this is often diminished by the fact that most of his humor can best be appreciated by pre-pubescent boys). I could go on, but he'd probably love me for it.
But I also know these things to be true about Shoeboy: I've been lucky enough to witness how his eyes change with his mood. He is capable of being amazingly delightful when he wishes to be, devilish grin firmly in place. And I can only describe the few times I've been privileged enough to glimpse him without his emotional armor intact as "breathtaking."
Oh, I get it. This is supposed to be subjective! Guess who gets my vote? ;)