I think our opinion of attractiveness and mate selection are for the most part based on unconscious assessments of reproductive fitness. But the assesment is based on a lot more complex factors than just looking at WHR, butt morphology, height, neonatedness, etc.

but I think my concepts run into trouble because I don't understand all the inputs that create the output. Not because I am wrong and we really are rational post-natural beings who have transcended our biological history.

QB I agree with you about our general lack of rationality, but I think you give "biology" and "evolution" way too much weight over culture/nurture.

No way, on the Jan oy scale he's a 9 right now. It piss

I am getting so tired of hearing him say "its piss, its sick, its insulting, its revolting"

It was funny when it was off the cuff or had some kind of context. Now he just says it with no enthusiasm because.

It brandening

Reproductive fitness isn't a fixed universal thing, environmental influences, including culturally constructed influences, play a huge part over what constitutes fitness. I think it is completely reasonable that there would be some variance among people from different populations with very different environments (ie China versus sub-saharan Africa) over what body phenotype proffers optimal fitness and hence would be viewed as the most attractive.

However, at the end of the day you can make a lot of generalizations that are more or less universal, ie clear skin > pockmark skin; hourglass figure > metabolic syndrome shaped body, big bright eyes > dull eyes etc. etc. that are honest indicators of reproductive fitness that transcend "culture"

Yet weirdly there are tons of people that wanna bang fitness girls/models that would benefit from gaining 5-10% bodyfat for fecundity. Skinnyfats/chubsters are clearly in a better situation to just ****ting out kids.

Or emoken and his desire for petite women that struggle with childbirth at 5'0 and petite.

It is easier just making things up tho.

Also, something else to keep in mind is that we don't all just get to pick the most attractive people to mate with. Most people have a pretty good innate sense of their own attractiveness/value and unconsciously (or consciously, but mostly unconsciously) gravitate towards having relationships with people around the same score.

And this is how it is supposed to be. Generally when one partner is too much more attractive or has too much social value relative to the other then it is no longer compatible and the relationship is inevitably going to end. That is why older successful men invariably leave their spouses for a younger models. Because in men wealth/power is valued more and in women "youth" is valued more.

There is actually a biological reason for this, because egg quality and the ability to carry a baby successfully to term decreases much faster than sperm quality during the aging process.

There is? I am guessing most heterosexual males could walk around a college campus and pick out a number of skinny fat chicks they would rather bang (procreate with) than some 35 year old hard body fitness chick, all else being equal.

jdock,

This is why you're widely mocked.

Why don't we compare the 18y old cheerleader flyer who is 5'1 with abs and a petite frame to her 5'6 normie sorostitute friend? The latter has much higher fecundity, the first may or may not ovulate (so low if not zero fecundity).

But of course you were advocated chubby 14y old before I pointed out that girls that age has extremely low fecundity, so it isn't like you have even passing familiarity with this subject. Apparently 28 and 28% BF is "young and thin" in your world. I think many people would plow Alexis Ren (or virtually anyone on the maisonseasons IG page), despite her having lower fecundity than if she were slightly chubbier. You really just don't understand the subject in any passing depth and post weird stuff where you struggle to rejoin basic bits of scientific information together into anything passing off as reasonable. (See your comments on vaccines as well.)

But this was part of the AB/Thremp discussion.

But keep the hottakes coming. I find many of them pretty amusing with shreds of truth somewhere in there. (Along with lol justification for your own choices.)

Why don't we compare the 18y old cheerleader flyer who is 5'1 with abs and a petite frame to her 5'6 normie sorostitute friend? The latter has much higher fecundity, the first may or may not ovulate (so low if not zero fecundity).

What are you trying to argue, that all else being equal the girl with abs would be viewed as more attractive? I am skeptical of that. Anyways, what % of college cheerleaders would you guess are too skinny to ovulate. I would guess it is somewhere around 0%. But I admit this is just conjecture. This is outside my knowledge wheelhouse.

Apparently 28 and 28% BF is "young and thin" in your world.

I donno about "young and thin." But I just did a quick google search of BF% (cause I really don't think in terms of bodyfat) and I think the woman in the 30% picture has a great body (but I think she just genetically has a good shape and would have a great body if she was skinnier or fatter too), so guilty I guess.



See your comments on vaccines as well.

What are my thoughts on vaccines? I am curious. I don't think they are as radical as you probably assume they are. Also, I admit I am not as extreme an "antivaxxer" as I was a few years ago.

Wow that picture of women bodyfat levels is actually very reasonable.

jdock,

You explicitly stated that women at that level are "young and thin", this is what you backtracked into from your prior justification for seeing and wanting to bone fat 14y olds, which is pretty ****ing weird.

Considering your status as a low value male I could see why you're attracted to that.

Also, hearty lol at your speculation on lean women and ovulation. You have no idea what you're discussing most of the time. You are ill informed and too lazy to become informed.

And just like that the mik0 dock coalition has splintered beyond repair

I am skeptical I ever said this. I am sure you are taking something I said out of context, where I was not even talking about my own personal preference.

All part of the plan, it was my Operation Barbossa, but I invested in radar, so we good fam.

If you were speaking about the general population, wtf?

You couldn't be more divorced from reality if you polled NAMBLA members about their sexual preferences and used that to create a worldview.

It is fine. Looking at the bright side, this means one less Christmas card I have to send out.

Well, like I said I am skeptical I ever expressed the views you are attributing to me. But in case there is any doubt, I am willing to state on the record I do not, and have never had, any desire to bang fat 14 year olds.

I am sure there are plenty of 28 year olds with 28% BF I would be attracted to though, so guilty as charged on that count.

I have been looking at various body fat % charts. I have not seen a single female body under 15% that I find particularly attractive, or I doubt most heterosexual males would find attractive either. So not sure what Mikey is talking about there.

I have also determined I am somewhere between 20-25% BF, which is probably not a great look.

QB wins ainec. There's more people out there than just Thremp and BTM.

You guys can go for all the chicks with guts and FUPAs, that is all you.

Of all the offensive things about this post; from creating a metaphor where you're literally Hitler to mixing up the Battle of Britain, where radar proved decisive, with a giant land battle on the Eastern Front - the misspelling Barbarossa as Barbossa is what I find most egregious.

Just staying in my lane bro. We can't all be lucky enough to be so small that pressing 140 pounds is an accomplishment of note.

30% and 25% should switch places.