Men Live for Dangerous Curves
It’s well known that men are attracted to an hourglass shape in women, yet with obesity rampant and rising in America, such exemplary specimens are becoming more difficult to find. Size inflation has become a national pastime. In the popular media, we continually hear how men should overcome their nature and give “real women” meaning BBW’s a chance. Fat chance (pun intended) of that happening, despite the outcry that big is beautiful. If the feminist propaganda were to be believed, appearance is irrelevant and we’re just brutish dogs for being so shallow as to judge a woman by her appearance. While that may be the case for such things as hiring decisions by a company, it is not and will never be the case for dating and mating.
Men, the world over, are attracted to the visual. To pretend otherwise is to succumb to the socialist ideology of true equality, something that does not exist in nature and particularly in social animals with defined hierarchy (nor should it as competition is the driving force behind evolution). This is, if anything exacerbated by the imposition of social monogamy, which would incline one to be even more particular. If you have to put all of your eggs in one basket, it better be one without any holes. Men are universally attracted to beauty, and judge a prospective partner’s value (i.e. best genome) by her signs of youth, vitality and secondary sexual characteristics, which are expressions of estrogen and indicators of her fertility.
Men however, don’t have a monopoly on shallowness. Women are equally shallow; however they don’t always judge men by appearance alone. Women are hypergamous and seek status and wealth in their partners to the extent that they are able, particularly for long-term relationships. They want security and a provider, in essence they look for a walking wallet (whereas we select for a walking womb). When women seek short term-dalliances appearance tends to take primacy because the man’s means and ambition are irrelevant and she’s usually already got a willing provider on the hook as insurance. At this point it’s all about the sex and this is where the Alpha becomes most desirable (to the young women and the cheating wives). While social dominance is also a cue, male secondary sex characteristics like stature, a defined jaw and brow ridge, and the bouquet of pheromones emanating from him comprise the cues that tell a woman it’s time to shed the panties. Alpha males are defined by their testosterone and the cues that make a woman wet are its expressions.
Feel-good proclamations of egalitarianism are a human creation, nature however, is a cruel bitch and doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. If you are an inferior specimen, you won’t mate with the top-dogs. Water seeks its own level, simple as that, and mating, above all, is a biological imperative driven by our reptilian brains on a subconscious level. Biological imperatives also don’t give a shit about fairness and how many people have eating disorders either. Our ideologies simply don’t operate on this level; imperatives will trump them every time. We are always going to try to get the best mate we can, and people will settle and pair off with equally desirable members of the opposite sex. We’ll all be better off if we openly admit that there is a desirability hierarchy (as captured by the 10-point scale), and that it’s based on appearance and means, and our kids will be better off if we’re straightforward about this with them too. It’s easier to keep the weight off from day one, or to work hard and pursue a high paying career, than to spend your life in denial about the facts of life. If you know what you have to do, you have a choice and have to accept the consequences of your decisions.
But, you may ask, does beauty really tell you all that much about genetic desirability? After all, there are astounding numbers of individuals occupying the lower rungs of the scale right? Indeed, the research backs up the conclusion that womanly curves do represent markedly higher fertility levels. However painful the conclusion, evolutionarily, women with a low waist to hip ratio, i.e. a gynoid figure are substantially better mates than the chunky ones. Android fat distribution is an indication of higher testosterone levels, which negatively impacts female secondary sexual characteristics and fertility. This study found pregnancy rates in women with an android (mannish) body fat distribution, defined as a waist to hip ratio of greater than 0.8, of less than half that of women with gynoid body fat distribution consistent with a typical voluptuous female figure. That is the preferred female shape is more than 200% more fertile than their heftier counterparts; not an insignificant difference. The reason that men evolved this preference should be clear, and the conclusion that beautiful women are indeed a better choice for the investment of one’s resources cannot be disputed; so much for the big-is-beautiful fallacy. It amounts to so much wishful thinking on the part of the reproductive underclass. It’s no accident that a man’s income and his wife’s heft are inversely correlated on average. When you can afford and attract the best, you simply do. Don’t be sorry for demanding the best (you can get) gents, it’s your evolutionary prerogative and your obligation to your potential offspring. Guilt is for lesser beings, ones who can be easily manipulated into complying with the bastardized ideologies of the losers in the game of life. The lion shed’s no tears for the wildebeest he dine’s on, it’s the way of life.
Interestingly another study found an offspring sexual bias in women who have android body fat distribution: they have more sons. While the reasons for this are unclear, there would be an obvious evolutionary handicap to these women’s daughters if they resembled their mothers. Sons would be less impaired by higher testosterone levels in utero, and may even benefit by receiving higher free testosterone rates and stature as a result biasing them towards the Alpha body type and reproductive strategy. This dovetails nicely with the hypothesis that beautiful people have more daughters, as they too would be advantaged by their genetic inheritance.
One more: just can't resist the meme.
compelling indeed. try dropping this stuff on a chick you meet or date….she’ll act horrified. no woman wants to hear the truth about cats and dogs…..
Yep, I only drop the bomb on the underqualified gals. Those I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Otherwise I put of the face of the willing naif with the Alpha mein. Women don’t enlighten us as to their true thoughts and motives, why not return the favor.
Well, duh. But you’re missing the point. When men think “fat”, they think about obese people; when they think “not fat”, they think about the girl in the last picture. When women think “fat”, they think about that girl; when they think “not fat”, they think anorexic. Girls who don’t look like baseball bats (would you fuck that? I wouldn’t) think they’re fat . That’s what the outcry is about.
Also, the ev-psych is crap. Just look at what were considered attractive women more than a century ago, pick any painting. They would be too fat to get a date nowadays. The reason you won’t fuck a fatty is cultural, not biological. So what?
> Guilt is for lesser beings
Well, maybe it is also for all the non-psychotic human beings that inhabit this earth. Of course, psicopaths don’t have to deal with this kind of ‘lesser feelings’.
If you don’t act inconsitently with your value system there is no need for guilt, so neither do normal men with congruency. But of course, that requires some strength of will.
Some women do, but its disingenuous to use that to excuse size 14 now being the national average for women. If someone has mental issues they need to address them, it’s not society’s fault or the media’s fault. Most men, myself included, don’t want baseball bat shaped women, we want women with natural feminine figures, a gynoid shape, the point of the post by the way and a BMI around 20-25.
As for changing tastes in different cultures, what varies is absolute size, what remains fixed and universal is waist-to-hip ratio. In the paintings you reference, where nude rubenesque women are portrayed, like his Venus at the Mirror, the subject still has feminine fat distribution. The study referenced finds that absolute size is less relevant than feminine proportions. Regardless of whether a culture values a thinner or more zaftig ideal, they still have this universal charcteristic. Typically it appears that cultures value the norm that characterizes affluence. In times where food was scarce, a heavier ideal seems to prevail. In developed nations, food is abundant and cheap and thinness signifies affluence. If you eat too much as most Americans do, you need to expend free time in staying fit. Its natural that if starvation is not an issue, starvation insurance in the form of excess weight is of discounted value. None of this is contrary to the underlying theme however. If Ruben’s paintings and others features apple-shaped women with android fat distribution you might have a case.
> If you don’t act inconsitently with your value system there is no need for guilt
So, if my value system values death above everything, do I need to feel guilty when I kill someone?
I would define guilt as the feeling that arises when I don’t act with humanity. As gult is a painful feeling I could say that it inclines me to act humanly. Thus I need to have the capacity to feel guilt to be human. So guilt is for humans.
My my Ian, subjective definitions now?
From dictionary.com:
Guilt:
–noun
1. the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability: He admitted his guilt.
2. a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.
3. conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.: to live a life of guilt.
I believe we were dealing with the second definition, regarding the feeling of guilt. If one acts congruently with their beliefs, they will not feel guilt, remorse or whatever over responsibility for said actions. I use beliefs/value systems vs. codified law or religiously imposed morals because these don’t apply to everyone universally. For instance, I feel no guilt if I jaywalk, despite it’s being illegal, because I believe there is no harm done provided I watch for traffic. I feel no guilt for premarital sex, because I don’t adhere to a religious moral code. I do live by the golden rule, to do no (unwarranted) harm and not infringe on the liberty or property of others. Provided I live according to this belief, I have no need for guilt, and part of being mature and controlled is not acting impulsively and destructively. This is more than adequate to live humanely and in no way fits the definition of psychopath as you suggest. A psychopath lacks empathy for others and simply doesn’t care that what they do to others would hurt them if done to them in kind. They feel no guilt and remorse not through right living, but through mental disorder. I would posit that a grown man with a defined value system and the backbone to live in accordance with it needs no guilt and feels none. The need for guilt defines a lesser being who does not have the strength to act according to their values. Whether such a person merits the title of “man” versus a “boy in a man’s body” is questionable and is what I meant by “lesser being.” When one is congruent they have no need for guilt or apology.