YooHoo!
Deliberate Stranger
news:67DE165C37032.8312962963@anonymous.poster...
> Am I the only fat lesbian in the world? This section of the board sure
No, dykes tend to be fat. A lot of them become dykes because they can't get
a man.
> seems lonely so I thought I'd be the first to post. Here's a question for
> other fat lesbians out there...
> Do you find it especially difficult to be a femme AND a large woman? Some
> of my fat femme friends say that they often feel pressured to fill the
> butch role because they are large.
Being fat means you lose your female shape (you get rolls rather than a
waist and a big round bloated apperance instead) so you lose your
femininity. Having massive fat breasts doesn't make you any more womanly, as
even a very fat man would have those.
Your only choice is butch, because of your choice of lifestyle when it comes
to eating and exercise.
Anonymous
>No, dykes tend to be fat. A lot of them become dykes because they can't
>get a man.
that's not thier problem.
thier problem is they hook up with losers like you and start thinking all
men are losers.
hth
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
Nomen Nescio
> Am I the only fat lesbian in the world?
redirect to: Lady Veteran <arm...@alt.net>
Sharon Curtis
Deliberate Stranger <deliberat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"kayla" <r...@onebox.com> wrote in message
>news:67DE165C37032.8312962963@anonymous.poster...
>> Am I the only fat lesbian in the world? This section of the board sure
>
>No, dykes tend to be fat. A lot of them become dykes because they can't get
>a man.
>
>> seems lonely so I thought I'd be the first to post. Here's a question for
>> other fat lesbians out there...
>> Do you find it especially difficult to be a femme AND a large woman? Some
>> of my fat femme friends say that they often feel pressured to fill the
>> butch role because they are large.
>
>Being fat means you lose your female shape (you get rolls rather than a
>waist and a big round bloated apperance instead) so you lose your
>femininity. Having massive fat breasts doesn't make you any more womanly, as
>even a very fat man would have those.
You strange person (I guess that fits your posting address).
It is the skinny anorexic look that is the unfeminine look.
Fat generally makes the female curves more accentuated, and if someone
gains weight, it doesn't alter the basic type of shape. Some fat
women have waists. Those that don't probably didn't have much of a
waist at a thinner weight.
>Your only choice is butch, because of your choice of lifestyle when it comes
>to eating and exercise.
Is it news to you that there isn't a 100% correspondence between
lifestyle and size? Some thin people eat huge quantities. Imagine that!
And they are thin! Do you know people like that?
The Danimal
> In article <3b09eafc$0$25510$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
> Deliberate Stranger <deliberat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"kayla" <r...@onebox.com> wrote in message
> >news:67DE165C37032.8312962963@anonymous.poster...
> >> Am I the only fat lesbian in the world? This section of the board sure
> >
> >No, dykes tend to be fat. A lot of them become dykes because they can't get
> >a man.
> >
> >> seems lonely so I thought I'd be the first to post. Here's a question for
> >> other fat lesbians out there...
> >> Do you find it especially difficult to be a femme AND a large woman? Some
> >> of my fat femme friends say that they often feel pressured to fill the
> >> butch role because they are large.
> >
> >Being fat means you lose your female shape (you get rolls rather than a
> >waist and a big round bloated apperance instead) so you lose your
> >femininity. Having massive fat breasts doesn't make you any more womanly, as
> >even a very fat man would have those.
>
> You strange person (I guess that fits your posting address).
>
> It is the skinny anorexic look that is the unfeminine look.
I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a woman in real life
who was below the weight range of ideal female attractiveness for
her height.
The last one I can remember offhand may have been about two years ago.
I say "may have" because I'm not sure if she was really that light.
I just remember thinking she was unusually thin, but her basic shape
was still attractive. She was rollerblading and wearing lycra shorts
and a bra top, so she was displaying herself clearly.
In contrast, every time I go to the grocery store I see hordes of
waddling fat slobs who are not attractive in any sense of the word.
Clearly, for every woman who makes the mistake of eating too little
there's a lumbering herd of women who make the mistake of eating too
much.
In any case, the comparison is not between one mistake and another
mistake. The comparison is between eating the wrong amount vs.
eating the right amount.
A woman who eats correctly will maximize her potential attractiveness
to men. Lapsing into gluttony will destroy a woman's attractiveness to
men.
> Fat generally makes the female curves more accentuated,
That's true, for the small amount of fat a woman will carry if she is
in the weight range of ideal female attractiveness for her height.
For example, a slender woman will carry about 14% bodyfat. If she
weighs 130 pounds she is carrying about 18 pounds of fat. If you
trim 18 pounds of fat off cuts of beef and toss them in a bowl
you can see that's quite a bit of fat. But distributed correctly on
a woman's body it creates the best look.
Piling any more fat than that on her body is like trying to "improve"
a painting by dumping more paint on it. Once the fat is thick enough
to take on an appearance of its own, the rolls and dimpling are no
longer feminine but asexual. Excess fat on a man looks the same as
excess fat on a woman: uniformly disgusting.
I'm sure there are women reading this who have more fat on one
leg than a pretty woman has on her whole body.
> and if someone
> gains weight, it doesn't alter the basic type of shape.
Nonsense. A slender woman only has to gain a small amount of
fat to drastically degrade what had been the tight feel of
her body.
Any man who has had his hands around a woman's 24" waist understands
this. Just a few extra inches of fat can seriously mar the tight,
sexy feel that only a slender woman can provide. And if we are talking
100, 200, or more pounds of excess blubber the result is something
straight out of the average guy's sexual nightmare.
> Some fat women have waists.
What's the fattest woman with a 24" waist?
And even if you could find one, if she had monstrous saddlebags
on her hips, ass, and thighs her small waist wouldn't matter.
I remember seeing a woman like that once at a swimming pool.
She looked like someone had contructed her out of halves of
two different people. From the waist up she was normal, but
her lower body was revoltingly obese. Sorry, but that doesn't
work for most guys who have a choice.
> Those that don't probably didn't have much of a
> waist at a thinner weight.
Making the best of what you have is better than trashing it.
I'll never be as attractive to women as Russell Crowe is right
now, but that's no reason for me to be drastically less attractive
to women than I have to be.
> >Your only choice is butch, because of your choice of lifestyle when it comes
> >to eating and exercise.
>
> Is it news to you that there isn't a 100% correspondence between
> lifestyle and size? Some thin people eat huge quantities. Imagine that!
> And they are thin! Do you know people like that?
Yes, but all of them maintain a level of physical activity quite
beyond the comprehension of any morbidly obese slob.
For example, riding a bicycle 1 mile burns approximately 50 calories
(depending on rider weight, type of bike, whether it's on road or
dirt, hills, wind, how fast (riding faster burns more calories per
mile), etc.). This means riding 100 miles in a day requires the
athlete to consume about 5,000 calories in addition to whatever he
or she would require if inactive. Hard-training athletes have to
consume double or triple what a sedentary person needs just to
maintain weight. Military organizations understand this, so they
always increase rations for troops who are doing physically
demanding field maneuvers (20 mile marches with 75 pound packs,
etc.). If a hard-working individual fails to get the extra food
necessary to fuel the hard work, the result is always a catastrophic
weight loss. This is how the Germans, Russians, Japanese, etc., did
away with prisoners in concentration camps. With somewhat less rigor
than that, any fat slob can safely lose his or her excess weight.
If a person is maintaining ideal weight, that means he or she is
precisely matching food intake with energy expenditure + excretion.
If you are obese, that means you are a glutton: you are eating, on
average, between 500 and 1500 (or possibly even more) calories per
day above the amount you need to maintain ideal weight at your
level of physical activity. This has been the consistent finding
of all metabolic ward studies. Obese people have to eat more than
normal people to maintain their extra weight because adipose tissue
is living tissue which consumes extra calories and thereby raises
the fat person's metabolic rate.
Typically gluttons lie about how much they eat, to other people
and often to themselves.
And even *IF* there may be a few magical people who can be sedentary
gluttons without getting fat (despite the fact that none of them
have been found in metabolic ward studies), so what? That doesn't make
anybody find fat slobs more attractive. No man looks at some obese woman
and gets a boner when he thinks about how unfair life may have been
to her, any more than a woman gets wet when she observes the plight
of a male dwarf. Pity is not what drives sexual arousal.
It's evolution, baby, and evolution is not nice.
-- the Danimal
BethF
not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
petite, skinny women, some men like buff women and some men like girls with
big butts and some men like obese women. Obviously you don't realize
anything of importance about diet and exercise. For one, 14% BF isn't just
a "slender woman", its a really skinny woman. Aerobics instructors average
17-19% BF. I would say that as a whole Aerobics instructors are "slender
women" and in fact are very thin women. I dont believe I personally know
ANY women who have a BF% at 14%, although I know a couple of bodybuilding
women who have made it that low in preparation for a competition. I point
this out just to show what a complete ignorant dolt you are.
And if you think genetics and metabolism has nothing to do with fatness, I
must consider you a complete moron. I ride long distances on a bike
regularly (although not daily). If I consumed an extra 3000-5000 calories
every time i did, I would be as big as a freakin house. I also lift weights
3x per week and do cardio in the gym 3x per week. Obviously I am one
example of a person who doesnt' fit your limited and assinine little view of
the universe, where anyone who is active has 14% bodyfat. Its only with a
great deal of labor and monitoring that I am not fat. It certainly hasn't
been a matter of "not being a glutton" because I wasn't one to begin with.
If an obese person starves themselves and loses a great deal of weight, they
generally also lose a great deal of muscle mass, and by doing so fuck
themselves royally because muscle burns fat. Imagine that? So perhaps
sticking fat people in concentration camps isn't exactly a great method of
weight loss for them.
--
-Beth, Pseudo usenet cop
BikeE FX, AT and rans gliss
Anchorage, Alaska
http://home.gci.net/~dawg/
"The Danimal" <dNmOcS...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm> wrote in message
news:3B0AB7B5...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm...
Bob Wood
<huge load of feces zapped>
> -- the Danimal
What is this load of shite doing in
MFW? Oh...another cross-posting flame
war started by a mendicant....
Bob Wood
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence) that
> not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
> petite, skinny women,
All sane men prefer such women if they can get them.
> some men like buff women and some men like girls with
Very very few men are attracted to women who are hopped up on male hormones.
Given the damage that large doses of male hormones do to the female
reproductive organs, this is perfectly consistant with evolutionary
pressures to...prefer whatever it is that is (historically) most prevelant
(i.e. that which is healthy survives and reproduces faster than all else).
> big butts and some men like obese women.
Losers will trot out such lies in their desperate attempt to get laid.
Who woulda thunk it?
> Obviously you don't realize
> anything of importance about diet and exercise. For one, 14% BF isn't just
> a "slender woman", its a really skinny woman.
Bzzzzzt! wrong.
> Aerobics instructors average
> 17-19% BF.
Not in my neighborhood.
> I would say that as a whole Aerobics instructors are "slender
> women" and in fact are very thin women.
No. Most Aerobics instructors have more muscle mass than "very thin women"
Of course, the fact that you think Aerobics instructors are "very thin"
shows how out of tune you are with male perception.
And remember, it's MALE perception which judges female attractiveness
you women have ZERO say in the matter, just as men's opinions about
other men's attractiveness hold ZERO weight in comparison to WOMEN's opinions
of such.
> I dont believe I personally know
> ANY women who have a BF% at 14%, although I know a couple of bodybuilding
> women who have made it that low in preparation for a competition. I point
Actually, female bodybuilders usually get around 5%...which is precisely
why they look so .... grotesque.
> this out just to show what a complete ignorant dolt you are.
Beth, you have just offered YOURSELF up as an example of the "better to be
thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." rule
>
> And if you think genetics and metabolism has nothing to do with fatness, I
> must consider you a complete moron.
We are all genetically programmed to have a metabolism which, all else
being equal (body weight, food AND WATAR consumed, and energy expended
through physical exertion) is identical within the limits of experimental
error.
Our metabolism is nothing more than enzymes...i.e. CATALYSTS, which oxidize
fats, carbohydrates, and sugers at lower temperatures than that of
open-air burning.
If your metabolism is "inefficient", that would mean that your body isn't
producing the whole set of enzymes, and thus, your body oxidizes these
energy sources at HIGHER temperatures...thus, they would burn more energy
just maintaining body temperature.
However, as NOBODY has demonstrated any such person...your theory,
is so far, due to a an utterly complete lack of evidence, mere speculation.
> I ride long distances on a bike
> regularly (although not daily). If I consumed an extra 3000-5000 calories
> every time i did, I would be as big as a freakin house. I also lift weights
> 3x per week and do cardio in the gym 3x per week. Obviously I am one
> example of a person who doesnt' fit your limited and assinine little view of
> the universe, where anyone who is active has 14% bodyfat.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with all of those workouts,
you need to eat more than a sedate secretary or receptionist at the
same weight and body-fat percentage.
> Its only with a
> great deal of labor and monitoring that I am not fat.
ONLY implies that there are no other alternatives.
But other alternatives do exist....for example, merely eating fewer calories.
> It certainly hasn't
> been a matter of "not being a glutton" because I wasn't one to begin with.
>
> If an obese person starves themselves and loses a great deal of weight, they
> generally also lose a great deal of muscle mass, and by doing so fuck
> themselves royally because muscle burns fat.
Muscle burns calories. Whether it comes from fat or not depends on the
person's diet and exertion levels.
> Imagine that? So perhaps
> sticking fat people in concentration camps isn't exactly a great method of
> weight loss for them.
For many, that would be the best favor we can do for them.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Steve Chaney
wrote:
>Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence)
You shoulda stopped right there because at this point you're batting 1.000.
The good news is you're still batting 1.000
The bad news is Dan's not listening.
-- Steve
===============================
gun...@surf-side.net (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
"As long as an enemy is judged solely by his appearance, his victory is assured." - Outer Limits
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
The alt.bonehead.jim-dutton FAQ @ http://www.best.com/~paladin/jjd-faq.txt
"anybody that takes usenet to seriously deserves to be beaten to death." - Turtoni
"Let 'em eat eep" - Lady Veteran
Deliberate Stranger
And the bloated stack of tyres/beachball one.
> Fat generally makes the female curves more accentuated, and if someone
*Some* fat does. Too much has the opposite effect. See below.
> gains weight, it doesn't alter the basic type of shape. Some fat
Bullshit. The waist fills out, and those "curves" are replaced by rolls. The
legs become bloated and cellulite splotched. The face becomes pig-like
surrounded by a layer of fat. Are you telling me that's the same basic
shape?
I don't have a problem with a woman who is slightly overweight, in the
120-160 lbs region. They can still look good and are still basically in
control of their size. When a man says he wants a woman with a "little meat
on the bones" this is what he is talking about. He's not talking about some
300 lbs walrus.
> women have waists. Those that don't probably didn't have much of a
> waist at a thinner weight.
Men are attracted to thin girls. This is not the media influence, this is
because they LOOK better, they are more appealing to men. When a man is
forced to hook up with a fatty it's because of limited selection or because
they are just plain easy, but he wont love her and will be on the look out
for something better.
You can keep trying to convince yourself of how "feminine" and "curvy" and
"voluptuous" fat women are, but it won't change how men see them, and that's
basically as repulsive and asexual.
I'm a man, that makes me an authority on the subject. Just take a look
around this group to see most men think similarly, and take a look at the
fat women who can't find men because they are fat or are having their
marriage stressed because of having gained it.
Elzi Volk
>BethF wrote:
>>
>> Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence) that
>> not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
>> petite, skinny women,
>
>All sane men prefer such women if they can get them.
>
>
>> some men like buff women and some men like girls with
>
>Very very few men are attracted to women who are hopped up on male hormones.
Yeah, so all muscular women are "hopped up on male hormones"?
Christ.
>Given the damage that large doses of male hormones do to the female
>reproductive organs, this is perfectly consistant with evolutionary
>pressures to...prefer whatever it is that is (historically) most prevelant
>(i.e. that which is healthy survives and reproduces faster than all else).
You are revealing your ignorance even more. Please continue.
>> big butts and some men like obese women.
>
>Losers will trot out such lies in their desperate attempt to get laid.
And you are doing a good job.
>> I would say that as a whole Aerobics instructors are "slender
>> women" and in fact are very thin women.
>
>No. Most Aerobics instructors have more muscle mass than "very thin women"
Maybe to you, but then I doubt you open your eyes.
>Of course, the fact that you think Aerobics instructors are "very thin"
>shows how out of tune you are with male perception.
>
>And remember, it's MALE perception which judges female attractiveness
>you women have ZERO say in the matter, just as men's opinions about
>other men's attractiveness hold ZERO weight in comparison to WOMEN's opinions
>of such.
And you don't know diddly about people at all. That is perfectly
obvious.
>> I dont believe I personally know
>> ANY women who have a BF% at 14%, although I know a couple of bodybuilding
>> women who have made it that low in preparation for a competition. I point
>
>Actually, female bodybuilders usually get around 5%...which is precisely
>why they look so .... grotesque.
But the men look real cool at 5%, right?
Dickhead.
>> this out just to show what a complete ignorant dolt you are.
>
>
>Beth, you have just offered YOURSELF up as an example of the "better to be
>thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." rule
And you, sir, are a narrow minded moron.
>>
>> And if you think genetics and metabolism has nothing to do with fatness, I
>> must consider you a complete moron.
>
>We are all genetically programmed to have a metabolism which, all else
>being equal (body weight, food AND WATAR consumed, and energy expended
>through physical exertion) is identical within the limits of experimental
>error.
Uh, no. You don't know anything about physiology, either.
>Our metabolism is nothing more than enzymes...i.e. CATALYSTS, which oxidize
>fats, carbohydrates, and sugers at lower temperatures than that of
>open-air burning.
Woohoo!!!! Psuedo-science at its best!!
>
>If your metabolism is "inefficient", that would mean that your body isn't
>producing the whole set of enzymes, and thus, your body oxidizes these
>energy sources at HIGHER temperatures...thus, they would burn more energy
>just maintaining body temperature.
You need to read a physiology and human metabolism text or two. Or
have you been reading the comic books again?
>However, as NOBODY has demonstrated any such person...your theory,
>is so far, due to a an utterly complete lack of evidence, mere speculation.
And your's is wrong, too.
>> Its only with a
>> great deal of labor and monitoring that I am not fat.
>
>ONLY implies that there are no other alternatives.
>
>But other alternatives do exist....for example, merely eating fewer calories.
Oh wise man has all the answers.
>> If an obese person starves themselves and loses a great deal of weight, they
>> generally also lose a great deal of muscle mass, and by doing so fuck
>> themselves royally because muscle burns fat.
>
>Muscle burns calories. Whether it comes from fat or not depends on the
>person's diet and exertion levels.
True, finally something sensible.
>> Imagine that? So perhaps
>> sticking fat people in concentration camps isn't exactly a great method of
>> weight loss for them.
>
>For many, that would be the best favor we can do for them.
And you are a good cadidate for the oven.
Elzi
"In Texas, even the vegetables are made of meat!"
-L. McDonald
"Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
Bryce Lane
Lady Veteran
> > In article <3b09eafc$0$25510$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
> > Deliberate Stranger <deliberat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >"kayla" <r...@onebox.com> wrote in message
> > >news:67DE165C37032.8312962963@anonymous.poster...
> I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a woman in real life
> who was below the weight range of ideal female attractiveness for
> her height.
You are in the wrong places, that's all.
>
> The last one I can remember offhand may have been about two years ago.
> I say "may have" because I'm not sure if she was really that light.
> I just remember thinking she was unusually thin, but her basic shape
> was still attractive. She was rollerblading and wearing lycra shorts
> and a bra top, so she was displaying herself clearly.
Must have been Brendud. She thinks that is her sole purpose in
life....
>
> In contrast, every time I go to the grocery store I see hordes of
> waddling fat slobs who are not attractive in any sense of the word.
Your loss, fuck wit. You want a bimbo, go get one from Aarons blowjob
service.
You don't deserve a real woman.
>
> Clearly, for every woman who makes the mistake of eating too little
> there's a lumbering herd of women who make the mistake of eating too
> much.
I wonder why. Could it be because of people like you who can never be
pleased?
>
> In any case, the comparison is not between one mistake and another
> mistake. The comparison is between eating the wrong amount vs.
> eating the right amount.
Which means zilch. That is so very subjective. How much is the right
amount??? You are more than one brick short of a full load here.
>
> A woman who eats correctly will maximize her potential attractiveness
> to men. Lapsing into gluttony will destroy a woman's attractiveness to
> men.
And you think for all men? Yoiu will be a lonely wrinkle old fart
bachelor becuase no woman will ever be able to please you. You deserve
it too.
>
> Piling any more fat than that on her body is like trying to "improve"
> a painting by dumping more paint on it. Once the fat is thick enough
> to take on an appearance of its own, the rolls and dimpling are no
> longer feminine but asexual. Excess fat on a man looks the same as
> excess fat on a woman: uniformly disgusting.
Sez you. What a waste of bandwidth.
>
> I'm sure there are women reading this who have more fat on one
> leg than a pretty woman has on her whole body.
You have more fat between your ears than most fat women have on their
bodies.
>
> Nonsense. A slender woman only has to gain a small amount of
> fat to drastically degrade what had been the tight feel of
> her body.
Thank God you are only one idiot. I couldn't stand it if you had a
clone.
>
> Any man who has had his hands around a woman's 24" waist understands
> this. Just a few extra inches of fat can seriously mar the tight,
> sexy feel that only a slender woman can provide. And if we are talking
> 100, 200, or more pounds of excess blubber the result is something
> straight out of the average guy's sexual nightmare.
You need one of Aarons blowjob dolls.
>
> > Some fat women have waists.
They all have waists
>
> What's the fattest woman with a 24" waist?
See corsets-the original torture device.
>
> And even if you could find one, if she had monstrous saddlebags
> on her hips, ass, and thighs her small waist wouldn't matter.
Prepare to be alone, you old fart.
>
> I remember seeing a woman like that once at a swimming pool.
> She looked like someone had contructed her out of halves of
> two different people. From the waist up she was normal, but
> her lower body was revoltingly obese. Sorry, but that doesn't
> work for most guys who have a choice.
So she had no right to be swimming because by existing she offended
you sence of beauty? Get real!
> Making the best of what you have is better than trashing it.
> I'll never be as attractive to women as Russell Crowe is right
> now, but that's no reason for me to be drastically less attractive
> to women than I have to be.
You want to be more attractive to women? Get a brain transplant.
> If you are obese, that means you are a glutton:
Bullshit. What planet are you from???
>
> Typically gluttons lie about how much they eat, to other people
> and often to themselves.
Bullshit again
>
> It's evolution, baby, and evolution is not nice.
>
> -- the Danimal
Yes, you certainly proved that to be true. I just know you have a
bridge to go home to...
Bobbi
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 12:48:08 -0800, "BethF" <da...@alaskaREMOVETHIS.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence)
>
> You shoulda stopped right there because at this point you're batting 1.000.
>
Translation: BethF loses all credibility by the end of this sentance....
Lyle McDonald
mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both those
arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything approximating
what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
following book.
"Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is beautiful
; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
everybody to take a look at it.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Steve Chaney wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 May 2001 12:48:08 -0800, "BethF" <da...@alaskaREMOVETHIS.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence)
> >
> > You shoulda stopped right there because at this point you're batting 1.000.
> >
>
> Translation: BethF loses all credibility by the end of this sentance....
Regardless of whatever else you may or may not say, you've established
yourself as a real fuckwit by posting the above single sentence,
including the original post AND including your absurdly long .sig file.
Just so you know.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> BethF wrote:
> >
> > Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence) that
> > not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
> > petite, skinny women,
>
> All sane men prefer such women if they can get them.
It's impressive that YOU can speak for ALL men.
When did you become omniscient?
> > some men like buff women and some men like girls with
>
> Very very few men are attracted to women who are hopped up on male hormones.
Idiotic logic: all buff women are NOT hopped up on male hormones.
> > Obviously you don't realize
> > anything of importance about diet and exercise. For one, 14% BF isn't just
> > a "slender woman", its a really skinny woman.
>
> Bzzzzzt! wrong.
Nope, right. Average bodyfat in women is 21-28%. REcommended healthy
is 18-25% by the American College of Sports Medicine. 14% is
approaching the level where some women will lose their menstrual cycle
which is certainly NOT consistent with any evolutionary advantage. Nor
would it provide any type of survival capacity if a famine struck. If
you're going to try and drag evolutionary theory into these types of
things (it was one of your comments I snipped), you should really do
some more reading/thinking about the matter first.
> > Aerobics instructors average
> > 17-19% BF.
>
> Not in my neighborhood.
And I take it you've done the caliper measurements on them yourself to
make such a claim, yes?
> > And if you think genetics and metabolism has nothing to do with fatness, I
> > must consider you a complete moron.
>
> We are all genetically programmed to have a metabolism which, all else
> being equal (body weight, food AND WATAR consumed, and energy expended
> through physical exertion) is identical within the limits of experimental
> error.
untrue. unless you're carefully defining experimental error to be so
large as to make your incorrect assertion correct.
But even beyond that, although basal (or resting) metabolic rate tends
to be very consistently related to total bodymass, that ignores a much
more important fact: there are measurable differences in how different
individuals will respond to over and underfeeding (this is seen in both
rat models where they refer to diet resistant rats, as well as in human
models).
Some individuals are far more efficient at burnign off excess calories
(usually through adaptive thermogenesis), while others will tend to
store more fat during overfeeding. Research has also identified some
people who are better at upregulating fat oxidation when overfed
compared to others. Meaning this: overfeed two individuals, and one
may gain fat and the other will not.
The same has been hold going the other way: diet two individuals and
one's body may shut down harder and faster than the others, making
weight loss (as well as maintenance) *much more difficult* (my emphasis
so that someone doesn't try to put words in my mouth and say I said it
was impossible).
> If your metabolism is "inefficient", that would mean that your body isn't
> producing the whole set of enzymes, and thus, your body oxidizes these
> energy sources at HIGHER temperatures...thus, they would burn more energy
> just maintaining body temperature.
You're making this up as you go along. As Elzi said, read a good
physiology book or three.
Its only with a
> > great deal of labor and monitoring that I am not fat.
>
> ONLY implies that there are no other alternatives.
>
> But other alternatives do exist....for example, merely eating fewer calories.
you may want to read up on a few more of the details of bodyweight
regulation (hint: start with the ~2000-3000 papers on leptin) before you
make more dumbass statements like this. God forbid, you might actually
learn something.
Oh yeah, please learn to snip. And quit posting that .sig file of
yours, it's absurd for you to append it to every post you make.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
Nope, clinically proven. Well, sort of.
Study after study after study shows that people drastically underreport
their true caloric intake and overreport their true calorie expenditure.
Overweight individuals tend to undereport caloric intake and fat intake
by up to 40-50% and overestimate total activity levels by a similar amount.
So you don't think I'm picking on fat people, health conscious
individuals tend to undereport fat intake and over-report their intake
of low-fat foods.
The problem with the original comment is in the use of the word 'lie'.
Most studies suggest that such underreporting isn't a conscious issue,
it's a simple consequence of the fact that:
a. people are shitty at knowing how much they're really eating and/or moving
b. people tend to try and tell researchers what they think the
researchers want to hear
BTW, I didn't bother adressign any of your other comments beacuse every
single one of them was nothing more than a personal comment aimed at the
original attacker.
Lyle
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > BethF wrote:
> > >
> > > Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence) that
> > > not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
> > > petite, skinny women,
> >
> > All sane men prefer such women if they can get them.
>
> It's impressive that YOU can speak for ALL men.
> When did you become omniscient?
Sane men prefer healthy women.
Those who prefer unhealthy women are...insane.
Hope that helps.
>
>
> > > some men like buff women and some men like girls with
> >
> > Very very few men are attracted to women who are hopped up on male hormones.
>
> Idiotic logic: all buff women are NOT hopped up on male hormones.
Can't get the 5% body AND the sculpted muscles without male hormones.
So solly.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Lady Veteran wrote:
> >
> > The Danimal <dNmOcS...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm> wrote in message news:<3B0AB7B5...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm>...
> > > Sharon Curtis wrote:
>
> > > Typically gluttons lie about how much they eat, to other people
> > > and often to themselves.
> >
> > Bullshit again
>
> Nope, clinically proven. Well, sort of.
Yes, proven.
Doubly-labelled water studies accurately guage caloric expenditures.
That, combined with weight changes (if any) allow daily caloric
intake to be calculated.
>
> Study after study after study shows that people drastically underreport
> their true caloric intake and overreport their true calorie expenditure.
>
>
> Overweight individuals tend to undereport caloric intake and fat intake
> by up to 40-50% and overestimate total activity levels by a similar amount.
>
> So you don't think I'm picking on fat people, health conscious
> individuals tend to undereport fat intake and over-report their intake
> of low-fat foods.
>
> The problem with the original comment is in the use of the word 'lie'.
> Most studies suggest that such underreporting isn't a conscious issue,
> it's a simple consequence of the fact that:
>
> a. people are shitty at knowing how much they're really eating and/or moving
> b. people tend to try and tell researchers what they think the
> researchers want to hear
No...fat people tend to try to tell the researchers what a non-glutton
would say...to justify their "I have a magic metabolism" bullshit.
>
> BTW, I didn't bother adressign any of your other comments beacuse every
> single one of them was nothing more than a personal comment aimed at the
> original attacker.
>
> Lyle
Aaron R. Kulkis
Translation: I, Lyle McDonald, admit defeat.
>
> Lyle
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> As horribly hesitant as I am to get involved a in debate that is filled
> mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
> anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both those
> arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything approximating
> what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
> following book.
>
NOBODY is arguing for super skinny (anorexic). That's a false dichotomy
set up by the hog-beasts, who argue that the only two choices are
a) the poor eating habit of overeating
and
b) the poor eating habit of undereating.
The fail to recognize the OBVIOUS choice:
c) the good eating habit of eating a proper diet.
> "Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
>
> A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
> tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
> anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
> at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
> wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
> bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
> folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is beautiful
> ; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
> to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
> everybody to take a look at it.
>
> Lyle
Daniel Garcia
I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
beauty.
Sir-Dan-a-lot
Deliberate Stranger
"Daniel Garcia" <sunflo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:dSHO6.2717$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > big butts and some men like obese women.
>
> I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
> beauty.
"Not obese" rules out every woman in this group.
BrendaLee
And which group is 'this' group?
:)
BrendaLee
<not obese>
--
BrendaLee
Lady DreamCatcher
--------------------
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
-------------------------------------
brendalee makes the world better by her presence in it.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
when you dance with an angel the angel don't change the angel
changes you
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
Deliberate Stranger
"BrendaLee" <eh...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B0B54E4...@rochester.rr.com...
>
>
> Deliberate Stranger wrote:
> >
> > "Daniel Garcia" <sunflo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:dSHO6.2717$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > > > big butts and some men like obese women.
> > >
> > > I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a
thing of
> > > beauty.
> >
> > "Not obese" rules out every woman in this group.
>
> And which group is 'this' group?
Any of them. Okay, it excludes any of the women who are here for "support".
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> > > big butts and some men like obese women.
>
> I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
> beauty.
>
Only if you're a freak-o-phile.
> Sir-Dan-a-lot
BrendaLee
Hmmm. I am not here to support or be supported. :) I am here
because I am trying to understand the whys and wherefores of
obesity.
And I for one do believe in curves being where it is at.. :)
BrendaLee
Behind every good curve lies a muscle...
--anon
:)
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 06:45:42 GMT, hateful BrenduhSlut the PGP whore
> <eh...@rochester.rr.com> scrawled during arts and recreation:
>
> >
> >> > > "Daniel Garcia" <sunflo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >> > > news:dSHO6.2717$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> > > > > > big butts and some men like obese women.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a
> >> thing of
> >> > > > beauty.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Not obese" rules out every woman in this group.
> >> >
> >> > And which group is 'this' group?
> >>
> >> Any of them. Okay, it excludes any of the women who are here for "support".
> >
> >Hmmm. I am not here to support or be supported. :) I am here
> >because I am trying to understand the whys and wherefores of
> >obesity.
>
Meeeeeeeeeeooooooow!
Spit!
Hiss!
> vaperware "soulmate" tells people to kill themselves is hardly doing
> research.
> >
> Hey cuntface why don't you try a little honesty? You are here because
> Jackie is here. BenduhSlut lies again. No one is surpized. How do you
> keep your ears from chaffing themselves?
> >
>
> >BrendaLee
> Evil acceptor
> Pretender in action
Whit
Whit
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3B0B3670...@onr.com...
aMAZon
BethF wrote:
> If an obese person starves themselves and loses a great deal of weight, they
> generally also lose a great deal of muscle mass, and by doing so fuck
> themselves royally because muscle burns fat. Imagine that? So perhaps
> sticking fat people in concentration camps isn't exactly a great method of
> weight loss for them.
I've heard it said that no matter how much you starve a bulldog,
there's no way that dog is ever going to be a grayhound.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Nomen Nescio
> As horribly hesitant as I am to get involved a in debate that is filled
> mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
> anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both
those
> arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything
approximating
> what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
> following book.
>
> "Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
>
> A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
> tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
> anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
> at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
> wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
> bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
> folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is
beautiful
> ; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
> to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
> everybody to take a look at it.
i have read that book, and i've recommended it here (here being
soc.singles & ssfa) before. there is nothing in that book to support the
self serving attractiveness claims of the fat acceptors. (almost all of
whom are clinically obese or worse) as for promoters of 'super
skinniness', i wonder what that means? does it include the lovely
heathers locklear & graham? halle berry? elle macpherson? if so then
clearly something is amiss since these women have made millions selling
thier attractiveness to men.
if you use 'ability to sell movies, tv shows, posters, centerfolds & lap
dances' as the criteria the optimal female bmi range is between 17.6 -
20, with only a few odd outliers (gabby reece).
the following abstract may also be of interest:
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1999 Jan 22;266(1415):211-8
Visual cues to female physical attractiveness.
Tovee MJ, Maisey DS, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL
Department of Psychology, Newcastle University,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. m.j....@ncl.ac.uk
Evolutionary psychology suggests that a woman's sexual attractiveness is
based on cues of health and reproductive potential. In recent years,
research has focused on the ratio of the width of the waist to the width
of the hips (the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). A low WHR (i.e. a curvaceous
body) is believed to correspond to the optimal fat distribution for high
fertility, and so this shape should be highly attractive. In this paper
we present evidence that weight scaled for height (the body mass index
(BMI)) is the primary determinant of sexual attractiveness rather than
WHR. BMI is also strongly linked to health and reproductive potential.
Furthermore, we show how covariation of apparent BMI and WHR in previous
studies led to the overestimation of the importance of WHR in the
perception of female attractiveness. Finally, we show how visual cues,
such as the perimeter-area ratio (PAR), can provide an accurate and
reliable index of an individual's BMI and could be used by an observer to
differentiate between potential partners.
w00p there it is.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
John M. Williams
>>
>> > > big butts and some men like obese women.
>>
>> I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
>> beauty.
>
>Only if you're a freak-o-phile.
Aaron believes it is necessary to have idealized expectations of a
woman.
It's the best way to explain why he can never get laid.
Of course, his sigline is also a good indicator of why he is doomed to
perpetual celibacy.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
Mistress Krista
(not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not translate
into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers. Go to any shopping mall
in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive people,
male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy. Hell, old
people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
behaviour years, right?
It may be proven in innumerable research studies that we are "biologically
hardwired" to find floppy eared bunnies attractive but if we're not actually
having sex with them, the theories mean jack shit in the real world. It
would be lovely if we could quantify human behaviour with a nice little set
of equations, but humans have a way of screwing up <snicker> the best laid
<snicker x 2> theories.
Carry on with your regularly scheduled mfw to ssfa crossposting flame war.
Krista
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:4a11bc07c835081e...@dizum.com...
Lyle McDonald
>
> Are we going to talk about waist/hips ratios now?
Nothing to discuss: 0.7 has been shown to be the biologically preferred optimal.
When you show pictures of women with varying w/h ratios to folks without
any cultural programming (i.e. find a nice hunter gatherer troop to
bother), they invariably pick that ratio as the most attractive over
deviations higher and lower.
It's biological programming plain and simple.
Amusingly (or frighteningly), a survey of the last 20 years of both
Playboy centerfolds and Mrs. America winners shows a w/h ratio of like 0.69-0.72.
Lyle
P.S. all the above was stolen directly from the book I mentioned below,
just so youse know
Lyle McDonald
>
> This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> (not imagined) behaviour.
And yet, *on average*, it seems to hold pretty well.
And that's what Krista appears to forget: this is all on a continuum and
it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
If you look at the *majority* of folks, they pick what appears to fall
fairly close to what is considered a 'biologically programmed' notion of
attractiveness, although there is an error bar of a rather large
magnitude.
Of course, only a true moron would argue that a humans biological
programming (that only a truly retarded individual can ignore) is going
to provide anything more than *tendencies* towards a behavior or
another.
Humans, who possess higher cognitive powers, have the choice to be
either swayed or not swayed by their biologically programmed drives.
To repeat an argument I used in a previous thread: although our
biological programming says to eat high calorie, sugar dense, fat dense
foods, we have the choice (and I would say that most on mfw make that
choice) NOT to eat them.
Of course, Krista can't accept this type of logical argument. She never can.
She alwyas has to exclude the middle and go to extremes.
It's either one or the other (in this case either biologicla programming
OR NOT, nothihng in between can exist), and she just can't seem to grasp
the concept of a continuum in anything. Makes me wonder if PhD programs
are teaching people anything these days.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
that was sort of my point in bringing it up.
> as for promoters of 'super
> skinniness', i wonder what that means? does it include the lovely
> heathers locklear & graham? halle berry? elle macpherson? if so then
> clearly something is amiss since these women have made millions selling
> thier attractiveness to men.
Shh, logic won't work in these types of arguments. It's all about
irrationally held emotion. Hell, Krista is working on her freaking PhD
and she won't accept scientifically based arguments that contrast with
her absurdly held dogma.
You shouldn't expect anybody else in this thread to do so either.
Lyle
Whit
She wouldn't want to piss of the PhD committee by saying something
controversial.
> You shouldn't expect anybody else in this thread to do so either.
>
word (except for Lyle and I of course... :) )
Whit
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lady Veteran wrote:
> >
> > The Danimal <dNmOcS...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm> wrote in message news:<3B0AB7B5...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm>...
> > > Sharon Curtis wrote:
>
> > > Typically gluttons lie about how much they eat, to other people
> > > and often to themselves.
> >
> > Bullshit again
>
> Nope, clinically proven. Well, sort of.
>
> Study after study after study shows that people drastically underreport
> their true caloric intake and overreport their true calorie expenditure.
>
>
> Overweight individuals tend to undereport caloric intake and fat intake
> by up to 40-50% and overestimate total activity levels by a similar amount.
>
> So you don't think I'm picking on fat people, health conscious
> individuals tend to undereport fat intake and over-report their intake
> of low-fat foods.
>
> The problem with the original comment is in the use of the word 'lie'.
> Most studies suggest that such underreporting isn't a conscious issue,
> it's a simple consequence of the fact that:
>
> a. people are shitty at knowing how much they're really eating and/or moving
> b. people tend to try and tell researchers what they think the
> researchers want to hear
I suppose if you wanted to consider 'b' as 'lying', you could do that.
But, to me 'lie' suggests something done with malicious intent, which I
don't *really* see 'b' as. It's just a problem inherent in survey type
studies (which food record studies invariably are). A friend doing
research in the area says that college students do the same thing when
reporting on alcohol intake: drastically misrepresent how much they're
drinking either because they're unaware of how much it is, or want to
give the researchers what they think the researchers want.
Lyle
Whit
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> >
> > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > (not imagined) behaviour.
>
> And yet, *on average*, it seems to hold pretty well.
>
> And that's what Krista appears to forget: this is all on a continuum and
> it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
>
It is called "excluding the middle" and as I have said before, it is a fave
tactic, although easily recognizable. IOW, if an element of behavior
(biological drive towards certain ideal body types in this case) cannot be
shown to explain everything (which would be ludicrous), then it explains
nothing.
> If you look at the *majority* of folks, they pick what appears to fall
> fairly close to what is considered a 'biologically programmed' notion of
> attractiveness, although there is an error bar of a rather large
> magnitude.
>
> Of course, only a true moron would argue that a humans biological
> programming (that only a truly retarded individual can ignore) is going
> to provide anything more than *tendencies* towards a behavior or
> another.
>
> Humans, who possess higher cognitive powers, have the choice to be
> either swayed or not swayed by their biologically programmed drives.
>
More correctly, they have the choice to TRY to go against their drives.
they may or may not succeed based on a # of factors, including their
tenacity, which is both biologically and environmentally based, like almost
anything in human nature.
"You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It's part of nature too
Our little lives get complicated
It's a simple thing
Simple as a flower
And that's a complicated thing"
Love and Rockets - No New Tale to Tell
> To repeat an argument I used in a previous thread: although our
> biological programming says to eat high calorie, sugar dense, fat dense
> foods, we have the choice (and I would say that most on mfw make that
> choice) NOT to eat them.
>
And our biological drive still tempts us. Because that is the "way we are".
> Of course, Krista can't accept this type of logical argument. She never
can.
>
> She alwyas has to exclude the middle and go to extremes.
>
Hey, I said that.
> It's either one or the other (in this case either biologicla programming
> OR NOT, nothihng in between can exist), and she just can't seem to grasp
> the concept of a continuum in anything. Makes me wonder if PhD programs
> are teaching people anything these days.
>
> Lyle
Teaching people how to be good little soldiers it seems in many cases.
Whit
Lyle McDonald
Is that the reason? I'd honestly been wondering for a while. Then
again, I've truly met some retarded folks with PhDs so maybe not (my
absolute fave to this day was a PhD in exercise physiology back in
Nashville who told a client that she could NOT get fat eating jelly
beans because they had no fat in them).
And here I thought higher education was about learning to think.
Ah well.
> > You shouldn't expect anybody else in this thread to do so either.
> >
>
> word (except for Lyle and I of course... :) )
And Elzi. She's all smart and stuff.
Lyle
Whit
> Whit wrote:
> >
> > Are we going to talk about waist/hips ratios now?
>
> Nothing to discuss: 0.7 has been shown to be the biologically preferred
optimal.
>
yes, iirc
> When you show pictures of women with varying w/h ratios to folks without
> any cultural programming (i.e. find a nice hunter gatherer troop to
> bother), they invariably pick that ratio as the most attractive over
> deviations higher and lower.
>
While I agree with your basic point, that whr is biologically programmed, I
disagree that hunter gatherers or ANYBODY who lives with other people (or
even a tv set in the woods, obviously) is not culturally programmed. Unless
you live in a world free of interaction with ANY other people at all, you
are culturally programmed. That is a quibble, but a fact nonetheless.
Every culture (including hunter-gatherers) has a culture by defintiion, and
thus is culturally as well as biologically programmed.
But, yes, whr is biologically programmed. It doesn't mean that some people
won't like extra fat or skinny people, or learn to like same, etc. It just
means that we are nudged towards certain norms of desire, overall on
average. We know this.
I think the trademark expected argument to your point would be along the
lines of
"but the scientists who run these experiments are imposing their
patriarchal, western values so that the observer has altered the reality of
the experiment"
or something equally retarded...
> It's biological programming plain and simple.
>
yes
> Amusingly (or frighteningly), a survey of the last 20 years of both
> Playboy centerfolds and Mrs. America winners shows a w/h ratio of like
0.69-0.72.
>
> Lyle
> P.S. all the above was stolen directly from the book I mentioned below,
> just so youse know
>
Plagiarist.
But, seriously. Take a woman and bring her whr closer to that norm (like a
girl with naturally really small breasts, but a normal hip size for her
height) and she will be instantly more aesthetically pleasing to the vast
majority of men. Yes, I know the French feel that more than a handful is
wasted, but need I mention Jerry Lewis?
I thought not.
Whit
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0BD559...@onr.com...
> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > >
> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > > (not imagined) behaviour.
> >
> > And yet, *on average*, it seems to hold pretty well.
> >
> > And that's what Krista appears to forget: this is all on a continuum and
> > it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
> >
>
> It is called "excluding the middle" and as I have said before, it is a fave
> tactic, although easily recognizable. IOW, if an element of behavior
> (biological drive towards certain ideal body types in this case) cannot be
> shown to explain everything (which would be ludicrous), then it explains
> nothing.
It's akin to the creationist argument which goes 'Since even scientists
argue about evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory must be wrong'.
Truly the argument style of a weak mind.
> > Humans, who possess higher cognitive powers, have the choice to be
> > either swayed or not swayed by their biologically programmed drives.
> >
>
> More correctly, they have the choice to TRY to go against their drives.
> they may or may not succeed based on a # of factors, including their
> tenacity, which is both biologically and environmentally based, like almost
> anything in human nature.
Well put, Whitholio.
> > To repeat an argument I used in a previous thread: although our
> > biological programming says to eat high calorie, sugar dense, fat dense
> > foods, we have the choice (and I would say that most on mfw make that
> > choice) NOT to eat them.
> >
>
> And our biological drive still tempts us. Because that is the "way we are".
shh, it's a secret.
> > Of course, Krista can't accept this type of logical argument. She never
> can.
> >
> > She alwyas has to exclude the middle and go to extremes.
> >
>
> Hey, I said that.
I should point out that my comment was based on stuff you had said
before. My apologies for not referencing you.
Lyle
Mistress Krista
> >
> > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > (not imagined) behaviour.
>
> And yet, *on average*, it seems to hold pretty well.
Prove it. Show me evidence which indicates a direct correlation between WHR
and actual mate choice. I don't have a problem with saying "on average",
but if you're going to quote studies, then let's see some which are actually
worth something. You could easily do a study showing that people would like
to have a zillion dollars, and this would be indicative of what people value
in a capitalist society, or what they feel would meet their needs in terms
of access to economic resources, but it wouldn't show you anything about the
actual material worth of people or their real paycheque at the end of a work
week. Hell, I wouldn't kick Halle Berry out of my bed for eating crackers,
but this has absolutely zero impact on my love life.
Besides, there's a long tradition of dividing the world of women into the
girl you want to marry and the girl you want to have sex with. Why would
this make sense using the suggested paradigm?
>
> And that's what Krista appears to forget: this is all on a continuum and
> it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
Everything is on a continuum. That's not rocket science.
>
> If you look at the *majority* of folks, they pick what appears to fall
> fairly close to what is considered a 'biologically programmed' notion of
> attractiveness, although there is an error bar of a rather large
> magnitude.
>
IMHO there are few truly ugly people in the world anyway. Most people are
just sort of average looking, and average in general. Basic health,
cleanliness and grooming skills are adequately apotropaic of ugliness for
most people. Being exceptionally attractive and exceptionally unattractive
both take a lot of genetics and hard work. A continuum, of course. So why
do researchers use exceptional people to establish the preferences of
unexceptional people? Methodologically this doesn't make sense.
> Of course, only a true moron would argue that a humans biological
> programming (that only a truly retarded individual can ignore) is going
> to provide anything more than *tendencies* towards a behavior or
> another.
There seem to be an awful lot of true morons out there.
>
> Humans, who possess higher cognitive powers, have the choice to be
> either swayed or not swayed by their biologically programmed drives.
>
> To repeat an argument I used in a previous thread: although our
> biological programming says to eat high calorie, sugar dense, fat dense
> foods, we have the choice (and I would say that most on mfw make that
> choice) NOT to eat them.
>
> Of course, Krista can't accept this type of logical argument. She never
can.
>
> She alwyas has to exclude the middle and go to extremes.
"Of course Krista CAN'T accept this... She NEVER can. She ALWAYS has to
exclude the middle..."
I see three words which express absolutes. Would you care to rephrase?
"If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate."
>
> It's either one or the other (in this case either biologicla programming
> OR NOT, nothihng in between can exist), and she just can't seem to grasp
> the concept of a continuum in anything. Makes me wonder if PhD programs
> are teaching people anything these days.
>
Has it been that long since dropped out of grad school that you can't
recall?
I think it's time to pull out the Lyle McDonald patented "you have poor
reading comprehension" schtick. Your reiteration of my ASSumed position is
not what I said at all. Obviously the actions of every living organism have
a biological basis (actually if you want to get nitpicky everything is based
in physics). The fact that I can type these words is evidence of innumerable
metabolic and neurological processes. It does amuse me, however, that in
the most technologically advanced and culturally mediated society in
existence, some of us feel the need to simplify the world into two
ahistorical categories based on who has a hoo-hoo and who has a num-num, and
to pretend that complex human behaviour can be adequately explained by the
numerical size of a woman's bootay.
What I said was:
a) there is not a linear correlation between attractiveness studies and what
actual mating behaviour is;
b) methodologically studies that suggest this are problematic;
c) you cannot clearly numerically quantify diverse human behaviour (as you
indicate, the best you can do is indicate a *range*)
I could also add that these kinds of studies are done with particular
populations, i.e. college students. As any researcher with a clue should
know, extrapolating results from a limited demographic is not a great idea
without some significant caveats. You cannot go from specific to general
without being damn careful about it. You don't test a medication on a
particular, limited population, then decide that you can give it to everyone
and expect the same effects. My quibble is not with the bases of human
behaviour (because we really don't know as much as we think we do), but with
the methodological and epistemological idiocy of the original hypotheses,
study design, conclusions, popularization of the results, and applications.
If I were to design a study like this, it would have to be:
a) a large, exclusively heterosexual population (let's make it easy and say
males only);
b) a longterm project which tracked actual reproductive AND sexual behaviour
over time (say 20 years);
c) and then correlated it with perceptions of attractiveness which were
established periodically, using both normative averages and exceptional
samples.
The population would have to be either corrected for socially categorical
differences (economic status, race/ethnicity, geographical location, etc.)
OR deliberately cross-cultural and cross-social strata of aforementioned
categories. And even then the conclusions would still have to be limited to
the demographic of the group I studied. Which would make it mildly
interesting but overall useless. Real people have a way of fucking up nice
neat data.
As you are fond of saying, Lyle, it depends.
Krista
Lyle McDonald
>
> This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not translate
> into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers.
And the book I referenced points out that supermodels are at THE EXTREME
of the continuum.
> Go to any shopping mall
> in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive people,
> male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy.
You really need to read this book, Krista. I know you won't, that might
require you to question your idiotic dogma, but you really should.
Becaue, of course logic would argue that the BILLION (or is it trillion
at this point) dollar industry that has developed because of people
wanting to improve their attractiveness to the other sex (noting that
many of the involved attempts tie directly into biological programming
such as improved hair quality being a biological indicator of health,
just like skin tone, or the boobie implants, or the liposuction to give
a more feminine figure, or corsetting, or hip hugger pants to accentuate
the waist/hip ratio and on and on it goes) doesn't give any indication
of programmed biological drives compared to your scientific study of a
mall somewhere up in Canada.
Christ, Krista, can someone getting her Phd really be as stupid as you are?
> Hell, old
> people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
> behaviour years, right?
Humans are an anomaly in that we survive long enough beyond reproduction
to make this a possibility. It is an outlier among nearly all other
animals. The book "Why We Age" covers this in some detail. The fact is
that menopause as it occurs in humans is likely a biological exception,
because we didn't have the requisite life span up until recently for
women to survive that long.
It occurs in a very few other animal species but it still rather rare .
I would posit that, given their druthers, old men would prefer a young
woman but don't have the opportunity unless they are wealthy as fuck.
I'm basing this supposition on the biological FACT that men can sire
kids until they die, a post-menopausal woman is reproductively useless.
Her only real use in an evolutionary sense is to help her children take
care of their children (i.e. take care of her grandchildren). Which is
exactly what occurs in the few animals where the females experience
menopause and survive beyond their reproductive years.
I'd suggest Krista read some Dawkins (esp. The Selfish Gene since he
covers this concept, whether it is more evolutionarily useful to take
care of your current kids, sire new kids, or take care of your kids
kids, in terms of game theory) but I know she won't. Such is the price
for maintaining a dogma, you have to ignore anything to the contrary.
Anyway I'd posit that older men tend to pick older women by default.
It's either that or don't get laid. And since a man's biologicla drive
is to 'get laid' (for the most part, we also need food and sleep and the
order of sex, food sleep will keep many a man happy for many many
years), he will do what it takes to do so.
> It may be proven in innumerable research studies that we are "biologically
> hardwired" to find floppy eared bunnies attractive but if we're not actually
> having sex with them, the theories mean jack shit in the real world. It
> would be lovely if we could quantify human behaviour with a nice little set
> of equations, but humans have a way of screwing up <snicker> the best laid
> <snicker x 2> theories.
If you're really too dumb to realize that the data being presented are
nothing more than biological tendencies and that humans are not
*controlled* by those tendencies in teh same way that other animals,
you're too dumb for me or anybody else to bother arguing with. But I
knew that already.
Lyle
Whit
> Whit wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Hey, I said that.
>
> I should point out that my comment was based on stuff you had said
> before. My apologies for not referencing you.
>
> Lyle
Oh, you don't have to. It spreads the love for you to repeat my ideas.
Whit
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0BD42B...@onr.com...
> > Whit wrote:
> While I agree with your basic point, that whr is biologically programmed, I
> disagree that hunter gatherers or ANYBODY who lives with other people (or
> even a tv set in the woods, obviously) is not culturally programmed. Unless
> you live in a world free of interaction with ANY other people at all, you
> are culturally programmed. That is a quibble, but a fact nonetheless.
> Every culture (including hunter-gatherers) has a culture by defintiion, and
> thus is culturally as well as biologically programmed.
sorry, badly phrased on my part, very badly phrased.
the basic argument about this topic seems to come down to biological
tendencies on the one side vs. what I should have called modern societal
(i.e. US) cultural programming.
Of course your average hunter gatherer troop has cultural programming,
but its their culture.
I should have made it more clear that I meant they don't have your
typical American/European (or whatever) cultural programming.
That is, you can't expect someone who's never seen television to have an
idea of beauty based on Beverly Hills 90201 or Melrose Place or
something like that. On the presupposition that those are
representative of what most would think of as 'American standards of
beauty'. Or use the models in the majority of clothes, makeup ads, or
whatever. Point being that the cultures being tested haven't been
exposed to them in any way shape or fashion.
So the simple fact that cultures without such cultural programming
exhibit a nearly identical preference in terms of what they find
attractive is pretty damning to the argument that 'all is social
programming'.
Now, one shouldn't ignore obvious fact that societal norms HAVE changed
in terms of what is found attractive. But, even then, over the
centuries, it's still all been aimed at moving men and women towards
what was biologically programmed as attractive to the other sex.
Whether it was corsetting, or excessive exercise to flatten the stomach
and build up the glutes for women, or whatever ; it's all the same shit:
people using a variety of ways to 'improve attractiveness' as it ties
into biological drives.
> I think the trademark expected argument to your point would be along the
> lines of
>
> "but the scientists who run these experiments are imposing their
> patriarchal, western values so that the observer has altered the reality of
> the experiment"
>
> or something equally retarded...
And wrong because all the researchers did was show stick figures and ask
which the folks found more attractive.
> > Amusingly (or frighteningly), a survey of the last 20 years of both
> > Playboy centerfolds and Mrs. America winners shows a w/h ratio of like
> 0.69-0.72.
> >
> > Lyle
> > P.S. all the above was stolen directly from the book I mentioned below,
> > just so youse know
> >
>
> Plagiarist.
Yeah, and?
> But, seriously. Take a woman and bring her whr closer to that norm (like a
> girl with naturally really small breasts, but a normal hip size for her
> height) and she will be instantly more aesthetically pleasing to the vast
> majority of men.
Or, as a friend once put it, if you're gonna have hips, you should at
least have the tits to match.
> Yes, I know the French feel that more than a handful is
> wasted, but need I mention Jerry Lewis?
>
> I thought not.
Now you're just being silly. Everyone knows that:
a. jerry lewis was a genius
b. the french are just ignorant and smelly in the first place so what
they fuck do their opinions matter anyhow
Lyle
Whit
----- Original Message -----
From: Mistress Krista <mistres...@home.com.removethis>
Newsgroups: soc.support.fat-acceptance,soc.singles,misc.fitness.weights
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: YooHoo!
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0BD559...@onr.com...
> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > >
> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's
actual
> > > (not imagined) behaviour.
> >
> > And yet, *on average*, it seems to hold pretty well.
>
>
> Prove it. Show me evidence which indicates a direct correlation between
WHR
> and actual mate choice. I don't have a problem with saying "on average",
> but if you're going to quote studies, then let's see some which are
actually
> worth something. You could easily do a study showing that people would
like
> to have a zillion dollars, and this would be indicative of what people
value
> in a capitalist society,
Actually, this is what people value in general, not so much money, but what
it will get you. The difference is that they are more likely to GET it in a
capitalist society.
That is why the system works.
or what they feel would meet their needs in terms
> of access to economic resources, but it wouldn't show you anything about
the
> actual material worth of people or their real paycheque at the end of a
work
> week. Hell, I wouldn't kick Halle Berry out of my bed for eating
crackers,
> but this has absolutely zero impact on my love life.
>
> Besides, there's a long tradition of dividing the world of women into the
> girl you want to marry and the girl you want to have sex with. Why would
> this make sense using the suggested paradigm?
>
> >
> > And that's what Krista appears to forget: this is all on a continuum and
> > it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
>
>
> Everything is on a continuum. That's not rocket science.
>
> >
> > If you look at the *majority* of folks, they pick what appears to fall
> > fairly close to what is considered a 'biologically programmed' notion of
> > attractiveness, although there is an error bar of a rather large
> > magnitude.
> >
>
> IMHO there are few truly ugly people in the world anyway.
Joe Torre being a notable exception!
Most people are
> just sort of average looking, and average in general. Basic health,
> cleanliness and grooming skills are adequately apotropaic
Ooh, gettin' waaaaarmed up...
apotropaic.
She's like a left wing William F Buckley Jr.
Whit
Whit
Yes. And culture is ultimately influenced by biology anyways.
> > I think the trademark expected argument to your point would be along the
> > lines of
> >
> > "but the scientists who run these experiments are imposing their
> > patriarchal, western values so that the observer has altered the reality
of
> > the experiment"
> >
> > or something equally retarded...
>
> And wrong because all the researchers did was show stick figures and ask
> which the folks found more attractive.
>
Yes, but that gets in the way of good opportunity to use the word
"patriarchal" , so they will ignore that.
I could mentions soap usage statistics per capita but that would be cruel.
Whit
Lady Veteran
wrote:
>As horribly hesitant as I am to get involved a in debate that is filled
>mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
>anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both those
>arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything approximating
>what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
>following book.
>
>"Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
>
>A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
>tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
>anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
>at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
>wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
>bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
>folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is beautiful
>; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
>to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
>everybody to take a look at it.
>
>Lyle
I am not arguing for any other reason than to show that people have a
right to live their lives in pease no matter how they look. The idiots
think that fat people should be dead.
I rest my case.
Bobbi
Meet our Mistress of Love and Light....
http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
I don't have the time every day to put on makeup.
I need that time to clean my rifle.
Hanriette Mantel- Comedian
The thing women have to learn is that
nobody gives you power. You got to take it.
Rosanne Arnold
Promote self acceptance!
Michael Kelly Larsen
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > The problem with the original comment is in the use of the word 'lie'.
> > Most studies suggest that such underreporting isn't a conscious issue,
> > it's a simple consequence of the fact that:
> >
> > a. people are shitty at knowing how much they're really eating and/or moving
> > b. people tend to try and tell researchers what they think the
> > researchers want to hear
>
> I suppose if you wanted to consider 'b' as 'lying', you could do that.
> But, to me 'lie' suggests something done with malicious intent, which I
> don't *really* see 'b' as. It's just a problem inherent in survey type
> studies (which food record studies invariably are). A friend doing
> research in the area says that college students do the same thing when
> reporting on alcohol intake: drastically misrepresent how much they're
> drinking either because they're unaware of how much it is, or want to
> give the researchers what they think the researchers want.
One of the most eye-opening experiences of my life (well, it
genuinely was) was a period of time where I agreed to track
*every* calorie I ingested for a period of twelve weeks, and
put it in a spread sheet. My mantra was "if I can't measure it,
I won't eat it." I started out at 2640 calories per day, and
thought that was a luxurious amount. I quickly realized how
little it actually is, and how hard it was for my body to deal
with it. I eventually got over it, and was able to handle it
and the subsequent decreases. Later, I figured I'd be able to
do it by feel, since I had done it already. Hah! End result of
not tracking was putting back 10 of the pounds I'd tried so hard
to lose.
What's my point? Oh yeah. If you want accuracy, you've got to *be*
accurate, and be willing to do it for the whole duration. There's
no magic in a lot of these things, except that the discipline to
follow through pretty much *is* magic, considering how few people
actually do.
--MKL, who made 200# and 12% for the 2001 season, aiming for 190#
and sub 10% for 2002.
--
Michael Kelly Larsen (m...@connectix.com)
Application Engineer, Connectix Corporation
http://www.connectix.com/
-------------------------------------------
"I think I am, therefore, I am. I think."
--George Carlin
The Danimal
>
> This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not translate
> into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers. Go to any shopping mall
> in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive people,
> male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy. Hell, old
> people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
> behaviour years, right?
Old people have, on average, less sex than young people, and most
likely they have sex of lower average quality.
If you looked at the kinds of cars most people are driving, you might
conclude there is little desire out there for Bentleys, Ferraris,
Lamborghinis, and other ultra-luxury sedans and hand-crafted sports cars.
Hardly anybody has one...so hardly anybody wants one, right?
But that would be misleading. Almost everybody who drives a shitbox
would probably enjoy having a better car. However, most people don't
have a PERFECTLY FREE CHOICE because their position in the car market
is not all that great (because they are not extremely rich). When the
average person chooses a car, s/he makes a highly constrained choice.
The highest-quality cars are priced totally out of the reach of the
average person, and such car as the average person can afford presents
a number of tradeoffs---the average person usually doesn't purchase
all the options and features s/he might want if cost were no object.
The sexual market works similarly to the car market, except that the
medium of exchange is different. Instead of trading money for cars,
people seeking sex, love, and/or romance exchange something we can
call SMV (Sexual Market Value). Think of SMV as being a person's
ability to excite, attract, entice, thrill, and give pleasure to
members of that person's target group for sex, love, and/or romance.
A person's SMV reflects how closely that person conforms to
the sexual preferences of the people he or she finds attractive.
Clearly there are some preference trends, which means
some people will have obviously higher SMV than others.
For example, most women find themselves most attracted to men who
have the following characteristics (not necessarily in this order, and this
list is by no means exhaustive):
* Tall (around 6'2" seems to be the optimum height for a man; shorter
than 5'6" causes a man to lose SMV in proportion to his shortfall;
at heights above 6'5" the freak factor begins to set in)
* Handsome (symmetrical, muscular, lean, athletic, leading man looks,
no visible deformities, full head of hair, check any hunk calendar
marketed to women for examples)
* Successful in some socially relevant field (a good indicator of
such success is wealth)
* Dominant personality
* High social status
* Not too much older than the woman
* Willingness to commit
Most men find themselves most attracted to women who
have the following characteristics (again, not exhaustive but these
are the biggies most men will agree on):
* Youth (or convincingly young appearance); most women reach
their maximum attractiveness to men somewhere between the ages
of 18 to 26 or so, with a gradually accelerating decline as
they get older. By age 50 or so, very few women have much in
the way of attractiveness to men
* Beauty (BMI 17-23, waist:hip ratio of .68, clear skin,
good proportions, healthy appearance; check any successful soft
porn magazine marketed to men for examples)
* Feminine personality
* Willingness to put out
Assortative mating takes place in the sexual market. Women who rate
high in terms of what most men want tend to pair off with men who
similarly rate high in terms of what most women want. People who bring
less to the table eventually learn through unpleasant experience that
they must settle for partners who correspondingly bring less to the
table themselves.
Assortative mating takes place because almost everybody tries to select
a partner with the highest SMV possible.
> It may be proven in innumerable research studies that we are "biologically
> hardwired" to find floppy eared bunnies attractive but if we're not actually
> having sex with them, the theories mean jack shit in the real world.
On the contrary, if a theory indicates that people are hard-wired
to want to do something and scarcity of opportunity prevents most
of them from succeeding, then we can predict a whole bunch of
probable consequences of that large-scale failure. For example,
there will be commercial opportunities for workable substitutes.
Scarcity in the sexual market creates lucrative opportunities for
people who can sell things that mitigate the scarcity of high-SMV
partners: porn, romance novels, romantic movies featuring unusually
attractive people, strippers, prostitutes, the use of beautiful people
in advertising, etc.
In fact these sex substitutes are a truer test of sexual preference
than partner choice, because modern media can infinitely duplicate
a small number of the most highly compelling images. I.e., there is
no shortage and thus consumers can have a free choice.
But most importantly, what a theory means for the INDIVIDUAL is
different than what it means for the GROUP. Since almost everybody
wants a high SMV partner and can derive a massive psychological
benefit by attracting at least one, each person's own SMV is
a key component of that person's happiness. (Having a high SMV
doesn't guarantee that a person will be happy, but a high-SMV
unhappy person would probably be even more miserable with a
low SMV.) The key point is that a person's SMV depends on a mix
of factors. Some of them are within the person's power to change
and some are not.
For example, a man can do next to nothing about his height. If he's
short, he takes an SMV hit in that area and he can't fix it directly.
However, a man is free to choose how successful he is within some range
of possible outcomes reflecting his innate potential. If he chooses
to goof off and make nothing of himself, his attractiveness to
most women will probably decline drastically as he ages. If he works
hard, takes risks, and gets lucky, he might hit the jackpot in some
competitive field where women value the winners.
Similarly, a woman can do nothing about her age, but she decides
how much to eat, how active to be, and whether to expose her skin to
destructive poisons in cigarette smoke or to equally destructive
radiation from the sun. By doing the wrong things (gluttony, sloth,
smoking, tanning) a woman can damage or even utterly destroy her
attractiveness to men years before her natural deterioration due to
aging would do the same thing. (The same behavioral choices apply
to men, but their consequences are somewhat less because a man's
physical attractiveness while important to women is not the
primary determinant of his SMV.)
We can also analyze a person on the basis of just a few key indicators
of SMV and pretty much predict how his or her social life is going to
go.
It's also possible to predict probable outcomes of specific scenarios
based on SMV theory. The most interesting scenarios involve couples
with SMV mismatches. SMV mismatches can occur over the course of
a long-term relationship if the SMV of one partner changes at a
rate different from that of the other partner. For example, an
obscure man could marry and then later achieve world fame. This
almost always dooms his marriage because his fame suddenly makes
him attractive to high-SMV women he could not interest at the time
when he met his wife. He can then derive greater psychological
benefit from these other women, and it's difficult for him to resist
the powerful temptation to stray.
SMV mismatches are also possible due to someone's inexperience or
market inefficiency. For example, an unusually beautiful woman
might have trouble meeting any correspondingly high-SMV men. She
might therefore settle for a man with lower SMV (of course he will
still have close to the highest SMV from among the men available
to her at the time). If the mismatch is large enough, she will
tend to be dissatisfied with him and treat him like garbage. However,
the man is likely to tolerate a lot of mistreatment because he
realizes what an impossibly lucky chance he has had to be with
a woman with such high SMV.
In general, SMV mismatches create lopsided power distributions in
relationships, with the higher SMV partner dishing out disrespect
and the lower SMV partner tolerating it.
Wives of celebrity men often tolerate a huge amount of cheating by
their husbands.
> It
> would be lovely if we could quantify human behaviour with a nice little set
> of equations, but humans have a way of screwing up <snicker> the best laid
> <snicker x 2> theories.
But despite all the alleged theoretical screwups there is an unusual
absence of real exceptions to SMV theory. A "real exception" would be
a person who has high SMV (and thus a wide choice of partners) who
rejects all the potential partners with similarly high SMV and selects
a partner with low SMV. (Low SMV people pairing up with low SMV people
is not an exception to SMV theory but supporting data.)
I've asked repeatedly on several newsgroups for any anecdotes people
could share about, say, a slender young attractive woman having her
heart broken after her boyfriend dumped her for a woman at least
50 pounds heavier (scaled to height) and 20 years older.
In the real world this just never seems to happen. Old fat women
are simply not a competitive threat to young slender women.
So while that scenario may have occurred somewhere in space-time,
it seems to be so rare as to have an utterly negligible probability
of happening where any of us will observe it.
-- the Danimal
Whit
> -- the Danimal
<STANDING APPLAUSE...>
Whit
Elzi Volk
>As horribly hesitant as I am to get involved a in debate that is filled
>mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
>anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both those
>arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything approximating
>what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
>following book.
>
>"Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
>
>A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
>tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
>anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
>at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
>wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
>bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
>folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is beautiful
>; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
>to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
>everybody to take a look at it.
>
>Lyle
Unfortunately, such perceptions are human nature. Humans perceive and
base 'reality' on their own senses and emotions. Subjectivity is the
name of the game, rather than objectivity. Our evolutional imprinting
for 'attractiveness' is only a small contribution to how we perceive
each other. Emotions play a large role in what each individual deems
as 'attractive.' And there is a wide range of phenotypes that attract
the opposite sex, with a large area under the curve that could be
considered the 'norm.' But there are always going to be those that lay
on the outer edges, and these tend to be more vocal in their diversion
from the norm. And possibly more emotionally based. Also, like tends
to attract like. Fat people *usually* gravitate towards individuals
similar to themselves, etc.
Humans are inherently unique because biology is not the sole
determinant. Psychology (including our complex sociology and culture)
is also a strong influencing factor. While you and I tend to perceive
this topic more objectively, most do not. And we won't have any
success in influencing their view, because it is their established
'reality' which they do not like challenged.
Elzi
"In Texas, even the vegetables are made of meat!"
-L. McDonald
"Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
Bryce Lane
Elzi Volk
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > Obviously you don't realize
>> > anything of importance about diet and exercise. For one, 14% BF isn't just
>> > a "slender woman", its a really skinny woman.
>>
>> Bzzzzzt! wrong.
>
>Nope, right. Average bodyfat in women is 21-28%. REcommended healthy
>is 18-25% by the American College of Sports Medicine. 14% is
>approaching the level where some women will lose their menstrual cycle
>which is certainly NOT consistent with any evolutionary advantage. Nor
>would it provide any type of survival capacity if a famine struck. If
>you're going to try and drag evolutionary theory into these types of
>things (it was one of your comments I snipped), you should really do
>some more reading/thinking about the matter first.
To do that would entail admittance that he was not right, and then
educating himself. We know that he is not capable of that.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Are we going to talk about waist/hips ratios now?
that's in the arena.
>
> Whit
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0B3670...@onr.com...
> > As horribly hesitant as I am to get involved a in debate that is filled
> > mostly with pseudoscientific emotionally based assertions (rather than
> > anything approximating fact on either end), I'd only say that both those
> > arguing for super skinny and super obese as being anything approximating
> > what might have been evolutionarily deemed 'attractive' read the
> > following book.
> >
> > "Survival of the Prettiest" by Nancy Etcoff.
> >
> > A layperson's examination of the science behind the biology of what we
> > tend to find attractive (for both males and females). Not that I think
> > anybody involved in this stupid debate will bother reading it (looking
> > at the cross-posting list, I see this as a troll beyond trolls and I
> > wasted enough time on the stupid vegetarian thread), because it might
> > bring into question their personally biased emotionally-held dogma (fat
> > folks arguing fat is beautiful, skinny arguing super skinny is beautiful
> > ; both being totally wrong on all counts because they are too ignorant
> > to see outside of their emotion based boxes) but it would behoove
> > everybody to take a look at it.
> >
> > Lyle
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Elzi Volk
>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > BethF wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Danimal, you must realize ( or maybe I overestimate your intelligence) that
>> > > not all men have the same taste as you in women. Some men like tiny,
>> > > petite, skinny women,
>> >
>> > All sane men prefer such women if they can get them.
>>
>> It's impressive that YOU can speak for ALL men.
>> When did you become omniscient?
>
>Sane men prefer healthy women.
>
>Those who prefer unhealthy women are...insane.
>
>Hope that helps.
It helps only in providing more evidence that you are a fuckwit who
sees reality only as your own carefully measured utopia. It also
proves that you know little about human physiology.
Women who have mucscles are not unhealthy. Quite the contrary. Look up
in MedLine for articles on osteopenia, osteoporosis, amenorrhea,
anorexia, bulemia, and bone fractures.
Moron.
>> > > some men like buff women and some men like girls with
>> >
>> > Very very few men are attracted to women who are hopped up on male hormones.
>>
>> Idiotic logic: all buff women are NOT hopped up on male hormones.
>
>Can't get the 5% body AND the sculpted muscles without male hormones.
>
>So solly.
So solly yourself. A woman *can* obtain 5% without supplementing with
male hormones, although it is not healthy to maintain that low bf. Nor
is it for males either. So your arguement is specious.
Whit
Elzi Volk <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:js2ogto6oc96uiuvl...@4ax.com...
I think the fact that they may not be able to get a thin person, so to
speak, is a large part of this. More telling would be would fat people
choose normally-massed people if they COULD. I think the answer, generally
is - yes.
So, I don't see it as like attracts like, in this instance, as much as "you
can't always get what you want"
> Humans are inherently unique because biology is not the sole
> determinant.
I don't think this is inherently unique to humans. Biology is not the sole
determinant for many animals' behavior as well.
Whit
Aaron R. Kulkis
> >>
> >> > > big butts and some men like obese women.
> >>
> >> I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
> >> beauty.
> >
> >Only if you're a freak-o-phile.
>
> Aaron believes it is necessary to have idealized expectations of a
> woman.
>
> It's the best way to explain why he can never get laid.
False premise.
>
> Of course, his sigline is also a good indicator of why he is doomed to
> perpetual celibacy.
See above.
Alex Brands
> If you're really too dumb to realize that the data being presented are
> nothing more than biological tendencies and that humans are not
> *controlled* by those tendencies in teh same way that other animals,
> you're too dumb for me or anybody else to bother arguing with. But I
> knew that already.
And yet, you bother.
Big Lee
"Alex Brands" <abbr...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.01052...@ascc.artsci.wustl.edu...
chemical imbalance of some kind.)
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not translate
> into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
But the fact that large numbers of men WANT supermodels...
well, demand vastly exceeds supply
In contrast, when it comes to fat women, supply vastly exceeds demand.
Hope that helps, hog-beast.
> fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers. Go to any shopping mall
> in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive people,
> male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy. Hell, old
Desperate situations makes people do desperate things.
> people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
> behaviour years, right?
are you sure?
Do you TRULY desire to have sex with someone whom you find repulsive?
>
> It may be proven in innumerable research studies that we are "biologically
> hardwired" to find floppy eared bunnies attractive but if we're not actually
> having sex with them, the theories mean jack shit in the real world. It
> would be lovely if we could quantify human behaviour with a nice little set
> of equations, but humans have a way of screwing up <snicker> the best laid
> <snicker x 2> theories.
>
> Carry on with your regularly scheduled mfw to ssfa crossposting flame war.
>
> Krista
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:4a11bc07c835081e...@dizum.com...
> >
> > i have read that book, and i've recommended it here (here being
> > soc.singles & ssfa) before. there is nothing in that book to support the
> > self serving attractiveness claims of the fat acceptors. (almost all of
> > whom are clinically obese or worse) as for promoters of 'super
> > skinniness', i wonder what that means? does it include the lovely
> > heathers locklear & graham? halle berry? elle macpherson? if so then
> > clearly something is amiss since these women have made millions selling
> > thier attractiveness to men.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> >
> > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > (not imagined) behaviour.
>
>
> it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
>
> fairly close to what is considered a 'biologically programmed' notion of
> attractiveness, although there is an error bar of a rather large
> magnitude.
>
> programming (that only a truly retarded individual can ignore) is going
> to provide anything more than *tendencies* towards a behavior or
> another.
>
> either swayed or not swayed by their biologically programmed drives.
>
> To repeat an argument I used in a previous thread: although our
> biological programming says to eat high calorie, sugar dense, fat dense
> foods, we have the choice (and I would say that most on mfw make that
> choice) NOT to eat them.
>
> Of course, Krista can't accept this type of logical argument. She never can.
>
> She alwyas has to exclude the middle and go to extremes.
>
> OR NOT, nothihng in between can exist), and she just can't seem to grasp
> the concept of a continuum in anything. Makes me wonder if PhD programs
> are teaching people anything these days.
BS
More of the Same
Piled higher and Deeper.
>
> Lyle
>
> The ability to sell lap dances does not translate
> > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> > fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers. Go to any shopping mall
> > in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive people,
> > male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy. Hell, old
> > people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
> > behaviour years, right?
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
This is why a PhD in anything outside of the "hard sciences" is....worthless.
>
> > > You shouldn't expect anybody else in this thread to do so either.
> > >
> >
> > word (except for Lyle and I of course... :) )
>
> And Elzi. She's all smart and stuff.
>
> Lyle
Tom Morley
Morley's rule of estimating fat in resturant food: Estimate,
then mutiply by (at least) two.
--
Tom Morley | For me after a good set of
mor...@math.gatech.edu | squats it feels more like meat
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com | tenderizers than sledgehammers.
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | --- Robert Plank
ICQ: 24798603 AIM: DocTDM |
Mistress Krista
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> >
> > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
translate
> > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
>
> There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
<reassuring pat>
>
> But the fact that large numbers of men WANT supermodels...
> well, demand vastly exceeds supply
>
> In contrast, when it comes to fat women, supply vastly exceeds demand.
And yet they continue to have sex with people, so it would seem, and produce
offspring. What a conundrum!
>
> Hope that helps, hog-beast.
Indeed it does. Oink.
>
>
> > fantastic tales they tell psychology researchers. Go to any shopping
mall
> > in North America and observe the couples. Plenty of unattractive
people,
> > male and female, are hooking up and (one presumes) getting jiggy. Hell,
old
>
> Desperate situations makes people do desperate things.
Either way, the result is the same. FAT PEOPLE ARE FUCKING!! Yes indeed.
Lots of them, in fact.
>
>
> > people are getting it on, and they should be way past their reproductive
> > behaviour years, right?
>
> are you sure?
>
>
> Do you TRULY desire to have sex with someone whom you find repulsive?
Well, I wasn't going to get into this for fear of hurting your feelings...
listen, it's not you, it's me, honest. When I compared your personality to
the stench of an old chimp's egg protein fart, I meant that you were warm
and powerful, and made a real impression on people.
In the meantime, give these folks a shot: http://www.fistfullofunix.com/
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
Krista
Gabrielle Jayde
a hard time finding any obese women here.
Gabrielle, Curvy and NOT obese.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://go.to/jayde
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deliberate Stranger <deliberat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b0b596b$0$25503$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "BrendaLee" <eh...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0B54E4...@rochester.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > Deliberate Stranger wrote:
> > >
> > > "Daniel Garcia" <sunflo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:dSHO6.2717$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > > > > big butts and some men like obese women.
> > > >
> > > > I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a
> thing of
> > > > beauty.
> > >
> >
> > And which group is 'this' group?
>
> Any of them. Okay, it excludes any of the women who are here for
"support".
>
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > >
> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
> translate
> > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> >
> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
>
> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
> <reassuring pat>
I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
Mistress Krista
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> > > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's
actual
> > > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
> > translate
> > > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> > >
> > > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> > > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
> >
> > Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just
numbers.
> > <reassuring pat>
>
> I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
I used to bench press 537.5 lbs.
> And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
Which is why she left you?
> Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
>
>
> Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
>
That's what she told you, huh. In other words the mail-order hooker thing
didn't work out. Sorry to hear that; guess that tech support salary will
only go so far given the other undesirable circumstances.
Krista
--
Elzi Volk
>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
>> > Mistress Krista wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
>> > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
>> translate
>> > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
>> >
>> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
>> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
>>
>> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
>> <reassuring pat>
>
>I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
>Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
>
>
>Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
She was trying to escape you.
Public <Anonymous_Account>
: Mistress Krista wrote:
: > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
: > > Mistress Krista wrote:
: > Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
Ignore the feminist! For sure, if all women looked like supermodels,
you would be dating a woman who looks like a supermodel.
: I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
I used to go with a gal who looked just like Betty Page. Liked to
play games too. It doesn't get any better than that. Such gals don't
seem interested anymore. Do you think it might be because I'm older,
shorter, and less lean?
Regards,
Jackie
--
Her headlights are shining like rock candy. Too bad I'm on a low-carb
diet.
Dave H
news:m9VO6.16597$425.4...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Well, I wasn't going to get into this for fear of hurting your feelings...
> listen, it's not you, it's me, honest. When I compared your personality
to
> the stench of an old chimp's egg protein fart, I meant that you were warm
> and powerful, and made a real impression on people.
>
> In the meantime, give these folks a shot: http://www.fistfullofunix.com/
>
With your permission, I am snagging this for a sig.
dave h
--
"When I compared your personality to the stench of an old chimp's egg
protein fart, I meant that you were warm and powerful, and made a real
impression on people."
- Mistress Krista
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0C23F5...@yahoo.com...
> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> > > > Mistress Krista wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's
> actual
> > > > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
> > > translate
> > > > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> > > >
> > > > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> > > > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
> > >
> > > Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just
> numbers.
> > > <reassuring pat>
> >
> > I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>
> I used to bench press 537.5 lbs.
Men don't give a fuck how much you can bench press, as that indicates
NOTHING about desirable FEMININE qualities (and in fact, leads me to
believe that you've been fucking up your body with excessive male hormones).
>
> > And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
>
> Which is why she left you?
No. Her visa expired.
>
> > Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
> >
> >
> > Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> >
>
> That's what she told you, huh.
visa expired
> In other words the mail-order hooker thing
> didn't work out.
False premise. I met her at the pool at my grandmother's apartment.
> Sorry to hear that; guess that tech support salary will
> only go so far given the other undesirable circumstances.
I don't post here to make friends
Hope that helps.
>
> Krista
>
> --
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Mistress Krista wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> >> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> >> > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
> >> translate
> >> > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> >> >
> >> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> >> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
> >>
> >> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
> >> <reassuring pat>
> >
> >I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
> >And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
> >Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
> >
> >
> >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
>
> She was trying to escape you.
Wrong. Her visa expired.
>
> Elzi
>
> "In Texas, even the vegetables are made of meat!"
> -L. McDonald
>
> "Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
> Bryce Lane
>
> http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/
Bob Tokyo
"Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:4d3dad7f5252fad1...@anon.xg.nu...
> Aaron R. Kulkis (aku...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>
> I used to go with a gal who looked just like Betty Page. Liked to
> play games too. It doesn't get any better than that. Such gals don't
> seem interested anymore. Do you think it might be because I'm older,
> shorter, and less lean?
>
shorter. Also, kind of human shaped. And with eyes and facial features and
such, and without parklands or any sort of major industry. And no
Minneapolis. Come to think of it, I guess she looked entirely unlike
Minnesota. Never mind.
Bob Tokyo
> I don't post here to make friends
We can tell.
Bob Tokyo
> Elzi Volk wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> >
> > She was trying to escape you.
>
> Wrong. Her visa expired.
>
Better to let these things end quietly.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis (aku...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> : > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> : > > Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> : > Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
>
> Ignore the feminist! For sure, if all women looked like supermodels,
> you would be dating a woman who looks like a supermodel.
>
> : I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>
> I used to go with a gal who looked just like Betty Page. Liked to
> play games too. It doesn't get any better than that. Such gals don't
> seem interested anymore. Do you think it might be because I'm older,
> shorter, and less lean?
Yes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jackie
> --
> Her headlights are shining like rock candy. Too bad I'm on a low-carb
> diet.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Good.
USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
Elzi Volk
>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3B0C23F5...@yahoo.com...
>> > Mistress Krista wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
>> > > > Mistress Krista wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's
>> actual
>> > > > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
>> > > translate
>> > > > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
>> > > >
>> > > > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
>> > > > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
>> > >
>> > > Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just
>> numbers.
>> > > <reassuring pat>
>> >
>> > I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>>
>> I used to bench press 537.5 lbs.
>
>Men don't give a fuck how much you can bench press, as that indicates
>NOTHING about desirable FEMININE qualities (and in fact, leads me to
>believe that you've been fucking up your body with excessive male hormones).
Jesus Christ. Jan Todd, a prof here at UTA, and a powerlifter for
decades was the first woman to squat 500 lbs. I bench nearly 200 lbs.
A woman I know, smaller than me, deadlifts 350 lb. So we are all
fucked up with 'excessive male hormones'??????
Bub, you really have your head up your ass.
Smell nice in you own little world in there?
Do us all a favor, go flush it.
>> Sorry to hear that; guess that tech support salary will
>> only go so far given the other undesirable circumstances.
>
>I don't post here to make friends
>
>Hope that helps.
In further revealing your stupidity? Well, yes it does.
Thank you for sharing.
would you please go away now?
Elzi Volk
>Elzi Volk wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Mistress Krista wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
>> >> > Mistress Krista wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
>> >> > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
>> >> translate
>> >> > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
>> >> >
>> >> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
>> >> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
>> >> <reassuring pat>
>> >
>> >I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
>> >And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
>> >Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
>> >
>> >
>> >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
>>
>> She was trying to escape you.
>
>Wrong. Her visa expired.
That's what she told you.
Elzi Volk
>Bob Tokyo wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3B0C2ED4...@yahoo.com...
>> > I don't post here to make friends
>>
>> We can tell.
>
>Good.
>
>USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
So you're a fucking wuss, too.
Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
Elzi Volk
She musta had a lot of lakes, then?
Did you go canoeing?
Um, never mind.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Elzi Volk wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mistress Krista wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3B0C148D...@yahoo.com...
> >> >> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This would be a good theory, IF it had any relevance for people's actual
> >> >> > > (not imagined) behaviour. The ability to sell lap dances does not
> >> >> translate
> >> >> > > into large numbers of men dating only supermodels, despite whatever
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> >> >> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
> >> >> <reassuring pat>
> >> >
> >> >I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's era).
> >> >And she was a hell of a lot smarter than you, too.
> >> >Fluent in her own langauge PLUS Italian, German, French, and English.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> >>
> >> She was trying to escape you.
> >
> >Wrong. Her visa expired.
>
> That's what she told you.
Actually, I saw her visa.
>
> Elzi
>
> "In Texas, even the vegetables are made of meat!"
> -L. McDonald
>
> "Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
> Bryce Lane
>
> http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Bob Tokyo wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3B0C2ED4...@yahoo.com...
> >> > I don't post here to make friends
> >>
> >> We can tell.
> >
> >Good.
> >
> >USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
>
> So you're a fucking wuss, too.
>
> Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
Unlike you, I'm not a ditch digger.
Nobody gives a fuck what you ditch diggers think.....so, you'll never
be sanctioned for it.
>
> Elzi
>
> "In Texas, even the vegetables are made of meat!"
> -L. McDonald
>
> "Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
> Bryce Lane
>
> http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0C2EE8...@yahoo.com...
> > Elzi Volk wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> > >
> > > She was trying to escape you.
> >
> > Wrong. Her visa expired.
> >
> Well, that's what she told you.
Actually, I saw her visa....with all the official stamps, too.
> Why hurt your feelings and make a scene?
> Better to let these things end quietly.
you sound jealous.
Bob Tokyo
have to go to all that trouble.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Spot the denial.
Bob Tokyo
> Bob Tokyo wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B0C2ED4...@yahoo.com...
> > > I don't post here to make friends
> >
> > We can tell.
>
> Good.
>
> USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about
repercussions.
>
saying (for example) that I suspect you have a lot of anger control issues
that probably cause you more problems than you know in your career and daily
life, and that many of these issues seem to involve your relationships with
women. I might also say that I suspect you shield yourself as best you can
from awareness of your situation with a mixture of denial and semi-feigned
rage. Hostile would be saying more or less the same thing in more
colloquial terms, regardless of whether or not I felt it to be the case.
There we go. Nice to have things out in the open.
John M. Williams
>
>Elzi Volk wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Tokyo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > I don't post here to make friends
>> >>
>> >> We can tell.
>> >
>> >Good.
>> >
>> >USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
>>
>> So you're a fucking wuss, too.
>>
>> Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
>
>Unlike you, I'm not a ditch digger.
Only because you can't be trusted with a shovel. You're lucky that
the institutional staff let you use the blunt plastic scissors.
>Nobody gives a fuck what you ditch diggers think.....so, you'll never
>be sanctioned for it.
Nobody cares what psuedo-militia lunatics like you think, either ...
but I'm sure it makes you feel really cool to fantasize that they do.
Do you sit in your room and spank your monkey, fantasizing about black
helicopters landing outside your window?
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
Bob Tokyo
> Bob Tokyo wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B0C2EE8...@yahoo.com...
> > > Elzi Volk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> > > >
> > > > She was trying to escape you.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Her visa expired.
> > >
> > Well, that's what she told you.
>
> Actually, I saw her visa....with all the official stamps, too.
>
>
> > Why hurt your feelings and make a scene?
> > Better to let these things end quietly.
>
> you sound jealous.
>
on, or do you wish to continue exploring the issue?
Elzi Volk
>Elzi Volk wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Tokyo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3B0C2ED4...@yahoo.com...
>> >> > I don't post here to make friends
>> >>
>> >> We can tell.
>> >
>> >Good.
>> >
>> >USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
>>
>> So you're a fucking wuss, too.
>>
>> Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
>
>Unlike you, I'm not a ditch digger.
>
>Nobody gives a fuck what you ditch diggers think.....so, you'll never
>be sanctioned for it.
Whoah, I'm a ditch digger. My diplomas don't state that. You must be
mistaking me for your sister.
Bob Tokyo
"Elzi Volk" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:l8eogto82hd7man4v...@4ax.com...
> "Bob Tokyo" <rober...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
> >news:4d3dad7f5252fad1...@anon.xg.nu...
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis (aku...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> : I used to date a girl who looks identical to Sophia Loren (1960's
era).
> >>
> >> I used to go with a gal who looked just like Betty Page. Liked to
> >> play games too. It doesn't get any better than that. Such gals don't
> >> seem interested anymore. Do you think it might be because I'm older,
> >> shorter, and less lean?
> >>
> >I used to date a girl who looked exactly like the state of Minnesota, but
> >shorter. Also, kind of human shaped. And with eyes and facial features
and
> >such, and without parklands or any sort of major industry. And no
> >Minneapolis. Come to think of it, I guess she looked entirely unlike
> >Minnesota. Never mind.
> >
>
> She musta had a lot of lakes, then?
> Did you go canoeing?
> Um, never mind.
>
She writes that she never believed in God, and therefore felt no guilt over
"sin", but that she did love, believe in, and fear her Grandmother, and
therefore did feel terrible guilt over impropriety.
Which is a long lead in to my statement of a religious position;
A gentleman never tells.
Alex Brands
> > There are not large numbers of supermodels, hence, only a small number
> > of men can actually date them. Hope that helps, retard.
>
>
> Oh, that must explain why you're not dating one. I'm sure it's just numbers.
> <reassuring pat>
Yes, it does. If there were only 100 men in the world (and they were
all equivalent to Aaron R. Kulkis) and close to 3 billion supermodels,
you can be sure that all 100 would be dating supermodels.
Bob Tokyo
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Elzi Volk wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bob Tokyo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3B0C2ED4...@yahoo.com...
> >> >> > I don't post here to make friends
> >> >>
> >> >> We can tell.
> >> >
> >> >Good.
> >> >
> >> >USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying
about repercussions.
> >>
> >> So you're a fucking wuss, too.
> >>
> >> Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
> >
> >Unlike you, I'm not a ditch digger.
> >
> >Nobody gives a fuck what you ditch diggers think.....so, you'll never
> >be sanctioned for it.
>
> Whoah, I'm a ditch digger. My diplomas don't state that. You must be
> mistaking me for your sister.
>
scientist? Well that's a surprise. I guess you never can tell.
By the way, why is Aaron going on so much about "sanctions" and
"repercussions"? Odd that.
Alex Brands
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I used to bench press 537.5 lbs.
> >
> >Men don't give a fuck how much you can bench press, as that indicates
> >NOTHING about desirable FEMININE qualities (and in fact, leads me to
> >believe that you've been fucking up your body with excessive male hormones).
>
> Jesus Christ. Jan Todd, a prof here at UTA, and a powerlifter for
> decades was the first woman to squat 500 lbs. I bench nearly 200 lbs.
> A woman I know, smaller than me, deadlifts 350 lb. So we are all
> fucked up with 'excessive male hormones'??????
Why resort to a straw man argument when dealing with Aaron Kulkis?
There's plenty of good arguments to make.
John M. Williams
>> >>
>> >> > > big butts and some men like obese women.
>> >>
>> >> I think a woman gotta have curves. Not obese, but a big butt is a thing of
>> >> beauty.
>> >
>> >Only if you're a freak-o-phile.
>>
>> Aaron believes it is necessary to have idealized expectations of a
>> woman.
>>
>> It's the best way to explain why he can never get laid.
>
>False premise.
I suppose I was being unfair using the term "never." And I imagine
that you have developed quite a taste for skinny women after paying
for all those cheap crack whores.
John M. Williams
>
>By the way, why is Aaron going on so much about "sanctions" and
>"repercussions"? Odd that.
Wake up and read the Deja, Bob. Aaron is a dyed-in-the-wool,
black-helicopter-watching, pseudo-militia lunatic who thinks he has
controversial things to say, and that the New World Order Cabal is out
to get him. You need to become more familiar with all those clever,
looney-tune, buzz words.
HTH.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Elzi Volk wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bob Tokyo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I don't post here to make friends
> >> >>
> >> >> We can tell.
> >> >
> >> >Good.
> >> >
> >> >USENET is the only forum where one can be honest without worrying about repercussions.
> >>
> >> So you're a fucking wuss, too.
> >>
> >> Mwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!
> >
> >Unlike you, I'm not a ditch digger.
>
> Only because you can't be trusted with a shovel. You're lucky that
> the institutional staff let you use the blunt plastic scissors.
>
And yet, the army trusts me with automatic rifles, machine guns,
hand grenades, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, and
other stuff that's classified.
go figure.
> >Nobody gives a fuck what you ditch diggers think.....so, you'll never
> >be sanctioned for it.
>
> Nobody cares what psuedo-militia lunatics like you think, either ...
what part of "US Army" do you not understand?
> but I'm sure it makes you feel really cool to fantasize that they do.
> Do you sit in your room and spank your monkey, fantasizing about black
> helicopters landing outside your window?
whatever, donkey-raping shit-eater.
> --
>
> John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
> ------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
> ------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
Aaron R. Kulkis
I'm hostile to idiots.
Like you.
Hope that helps.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0C3921...@yahoo.com...
> > Bob Tokyo wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B0C2EE8...@yahoo.com...
> > > > Elzi Volk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Too bad she had to go back to her home country.
> > > > >
> > > > > She was trying to escape you.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Her visa expired.
> > > >
> > > Well, that's what she told you.
> >
> > Actually, I saw her visa....with all the official stamps, too.
> >
> >
> > > Why hurt your feelings and make a scene?
> > > Better to let these things end quietly.
> >
> > you sound jealous.
> >
> I can see you're still feeling some pain over this. Would you like to move
> on, or do you wish to continue exploring the issue?
I moved on years ago.
Found one even better.
Hope that helps.