Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The fairer sex?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The fairer sex?

    Recently i was looking up something about Peacocks, when i was a kid a guy in my street had one, we the kids on the street spent so much time trying to get a hold of a couple of his feathers, one day i found a small, tiny blue feather from his neck, it was completely blue unlike most neck feather that are mostly gray, i used to keep that feather in a ring box i got a few years earlier (don´t ask, i was hoarding all sorts of stuff back when i was a kid). Anyway i was reading an article and the author mentions, rather out of hand, how peacocks males are, like most species, prettier then females. This gave me pause, i was wondering, is this true? Well surely for peacocks it is, but what about other animals. Well it seems to hold up rather well for birds, take a humble rooster for example. But what about other animal groups? Well they mainly fall into two groups, either the male is nearly indistinguishable from females, or the male is more aesthetically pleasing, from lion´s mane to elephant´s tusks to elk´s horn, males seem universally more adorned then females. So why do we think that human females are the "fairer" sex, and if an alien species with aesthetic tastes similar to ours but no sexual attractions to our females were to observe us, which gender would they find more pleasing?
    I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
    So why do we think that human females are the "fairer" sex, and if an alien species with aesthetic tastes similar to ours but no sexual attractions to our females were to observe us, which gender would they find more pleasing?
    We do this because we pander to women's sensibilities.
    “No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself. No man is free who cannot command himself.”
    ― Pythagoras

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
      Recently i was looking up something about Peacocks, when i was a kid a guy in my street had one, we the kids on the street spent so much time trying to get a hold of a couple of his feathers, one day i found a small, tiny blue feather from his neck, it was completely blue unlike most neck feather that are mostly gray, i used to keep that feather in a ring box i got a few years earlier (don´t ask, i was hoarding all sorts of stuff back when i was a kid). Anyway i was reading an article and the author mentions, rather out of hand, how peacocks males are, like most species, prettier then females. This gave me pause, i was wondering, is this true? Well surely for peacocks it is, but what about other animals. Well it seems to hold up rather well for birds, take a humble rooster for example. But what about other animal groups? Well they mainly fall into two groups, either the male is nearly indistinguishable from females, or the male is more aesthetically pleasing, from lion´s mane to elephant´s tusks to elk´s horn, males seem universally more adorned then females. So why do we think that human females are the "fairer" sex, and if an alien species with aesthetic tastes similar to ours but no sexual attractions to our females were to observe us, which gender would they find more pleasing?
      Males display strength and virility in different ways across species.
      Females display health and fertility in different ways across species.

      There is also another key driver in the plainer looking species which look similar, so lets deal with that first. By far you are talking about smaller prey species that are plain, their survival priority is camouflage. They would use other means of sexual signalling, mainly scent markers.

      Species highly evolved for their role, the role dominates appearance, this includes most cat species. These look similar (at least to human eyes) their fitness either as a father or mother is their fitness as hunters. Lions are different, because they live in prides and are social. So male display is about selecting the strongest from competing males, which drives a display of difference. A lion therefore has a different evolutionary pressure from tigers, cheetahs, and also deer, zebra etc.

      Let's look at peacocks beauty and bird species. Those have particular vibrant male displays to plain females. Females in effect do the work of compare and select. They won't mate with just the first male seen. That for them is the most efficient strategy. The male displays his fitness and strength by surviving despite the ostentatious display. The display offers no benefit, but is a declaration that he is strong enough to survive despite this investment in display. The environment, availability of food, and proximity of predators will be key drivers.

      The other environmental factor is visibility. Ostentatious displays are not so important on plains, but in forests standing out from the background certainly helps in being found.

      Humans basically follow a similar pattern, but as a species we have a capability to learn, adapt, adopt or invent our own patterns.

      The strategy of finder or displayer isn't tied to any gender, in varies across species, and more often than not is environment driven.

      Lets look at a few human differences.

      Poorer people tend to not be able to display, or least not as noticeably, male and female clothing will be functional driven. Long hair for females and short hair for males is an adopted convention, but beards are natural for men.

      Why do women adopt long hair, well one could say it's because it is aesthetically beautiful, but richer more lustrous hair growth is also a by product of the female hormone oestrogen.
      Same with beards, those are a by product of testosterone. Some these are gender signals, that become adopted as cultural adornments. The differentiation is in how well tended they are.

      Women can find beards attractive, but it won't just be any old beard, it will still have to display some quality, though they will like the indication that the beard grows healthily as that indicates healthy virility, likewise for men finding long hair attractive, it still needs to be thick and rich, a few scraggly irregular bunches of hair will be more offputting than a bald head on a woman.

      So these signals are transmitted endlessly.

      Classic beauty is based on facial symmetry, if both sides of face closely match that's an indication of healthy genes. The shape of a persons body and face is control by cell division indicators, in other words genetically encoded appearance is by cells having a number of cell divisions programmed into them. Therefore irregularities in that carry through very easily, and it's no surprise we are heavily tuned to reading that.

      Healthy skin indicates good health too. Healthy skin is attractive in males or females, however male features also display strength so an amount of ruggedness even scarring that shows survival against dangerous encounters is attractive.

      Both men and women can judge pretty accurately the attractiveness of their own gender as well the opposite gender. Because overall it isn't as subjective as one might imagine.

      Then we have the social dimension, typified by statements like the fairer sex.

      This has lots of factors, but I'll pull one more biological one to look, neoteny which is the capacity to look child like. In humans it acts as a sign of youth, for a woman she wants to display she is in her fertile years. This is a balance between being old enough to be a capable mother yet young enough to still bear children. The male isn't the birth bearer, but a sperm producer. Therefore the same criteria don't apply he can produce sperm for longer, producing sperm isn't the same cost to the body as birthing a child. However he still needs to advertise his genetic fitness, genetic fitness can still hold even in advanced years, sperm are produced, eggs are created when the female is still foetus, she cannot produce more eggs. She is timebound.

      So fairer sex as a statement is valuing this peak period of fertility for a woman, it's a more crucial species investment to get it right. That window is far less crucial for a male. The fairer sex doesn't work against women, it's been taken as a value judgement etc, that is false. When a woman is fair, she gets a greater selection of males to choose from, that she can apply her selection too.

      Reproduction at the end of the day, is eminently practical. Drivers combine to shape the species. Then you have social strategies in play. Individuals that are in deficit of the biological attractive factors will use strategies to overcome those deficits. Human males displaying wealth, women can display wealth too it's lesser success strategy for women but still has influence in competition. You will see many women saying women shouldn't be judged by their appearance, even beautiful ones showing solidarity with their 'sisters' but you don't see many sacrificing their beauty to show solidarity with the ugly. Even where women use nose rings, and green hair, she's still displaying and drawing attention to herself and her attractiveness just using a different set of adornments to mark her tribe, likewise for males.

      The last thing to note on this, is that part of it is social and by design, in how people execute strategies, part of it is innate. The nature / nurture division that has long been debated in biology. More than one strategy is in play, and some of those risk acting against survivability. This is nothing new, it's part of evolution, species press their own boundaries, successes reproduce and failures die off - eventually.
      Last edited by voidspawn; 04-15-2017, 07:50 PM.
      "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
      Originally posted by menrppl2
      Can't live with em, life is great without them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
        Males display strength and virility in different ways across species.
        Females display health and fertility in different ways across species.

        There is also another key driver in the plainer looking species which look similar, so lets deal with that first. By far you are talking about smaller prey species that are plain, their survival priority is camouflage. They would use other means of sexual signalling, mainly scent markers.

        Species highly evolved for their role, the role dominates appearance, this includes most cat species. These look similar (at least to human eyes) their fitness either as a father or mother is their fitness as hunters. Lions are different, because they live in prides and are social. So male display is about selecting the strongest from competing males, which drives a display of difference. A lion therefore has a different evolutionary pressure from tigers, cheetahs, and also deer, zebra etc.

        Let's look at peacocks beauty and bird species. Those have particular vibrant male displays to plain females. Females in effect do the work of compare and select. They won't mate with just the first male seen. That for them is the most efficient strategy. The male displays his fitness and strength by surviving despite the ostentatious display. The display offers no benefit, but is a declaration that he is strong enough to survive despite this investment in display. The environment, availability of food, and proximity of predators will be key drivers.

        The other environmental factor is visibility. Ostentatious displays are not so important on plains, but in forests standing out from the background certainly helps in being found.

        Humans basically follow a similar pattern, but as a species we have a capability to learn, adapt, adopt or invent our own patterns.

        The strategy of finder or displayer isn't tied to any gender, in varies across species, and more often than not is environment driven.

        Lets look at a few human differences.

        Poorer people tend to not be able to display, or least not as noticeably, male and female clothing will be functional driven. Long hair for females and short hair for males is an adopted convention, but beards are natural for men.

        Why do women adopt long hair, well one could say it's because it is aesthetically beautiful, but richer more lustrous hair growth is also a by product of the female hormone oestrogen.
        Same with beards, those are a by product of testosterone. Some these are gender signals, that become adopted as cultural adornments. The differentiation is in how well tended they are.

        Women can find beards attractive, but it won't just be any old beard, it will still have to display some quality, though they will like the indication that the beard grows healthily as that indicates healthy virility, likewise for men finding long hair attractive, it still needs to be thick and rich, a few scraggly irregular bunches of hair will be more offputting than a bald head on a woman.

        So these signals are transmitted endlessly.

        Classic beauty is based on facial symmetry, if both sides of face closely match that's an indication of healthy genes. The shape of a persons body and face is control by cell division indicators, in other words genetically encoded appearance is by cells having a number of cell divisions programmed into them. Therefore irregularities in that carry through very easily, and it's no surprise we are heavily tuned to reading that.

        Healthy skin indicates good health too. Healthy skin is attractive in males or females, however male features also display strength so an amount of ruggedness even scarring that shows survival against dangerous encounters is attractive.

        Both men and women can judge pretty accurately the attractiveness of their own gender as well the opposite gender. Because overall it isn't as subjective as one might imagine.

        Then we have the social dimension, typified by statements like the fairer sex.

        This has lots of factors, but I'll pull one more biological one to look, neoteny which is the capacity to look child like. In humans it acts as a sign of youth, for a woman she wants to display she is in her fertile years. This is a balance between being old enough to be a capable mother yet young enough to still bear children. The male isn't the birth bearer, but a sperm producer. Therefore the same criteria don't apply he can produce sperm for longer, producing sperm isn't the same cost to the body as birthing a child. However he still needs to advertise his genetic fitness, genetic fitness can still hold even in advanced years, sperm are produced, eggs are created when the female is still foetus, she cannot produce more eggs. She is timebound.

        So fairer sex as a statement is valuing this peak period of fertility for a woman, it's a more crucial species investment to get it right. That window is far less crucial for a male. The fairer sex doesn't work against women, it's been taken as a value judgement etc, that is false. When a woman is fair, she gets a greater selection of males to choose from, that she can apply her selection too.

        Reproduction at the end of the day, is eminently practical. Drivers combine to shape the species. Then you have social strategies in play. Individuals that are in deficit of the biological attractive factors will use strategies to overcome those deficits. Human males displaying wealth, women can display wealth too it's lesser success strategy for women but still has influence in competition. You will see many women saying women shouldn't be judged by their appearance, even beautiful ones showing solidarity with their 'sisters' but you don't see many sacrificing their beauty to show solidarity with the ugly. Even where women use nose rings, and green hair, she's still displaying and drawing attention to herself and her attractiveness just using a different set of adornments to mark her tribe, likewise for males.

        The last thing to note on this, is that part of it is social and by design, in how people execute strategies, part of it is innate. The nature / nurture division that has long been debated in biology. More than one strategy is in play, and some of those risk acting against survivability. This is nothing new, it's part of evolution, species press their own boundaries, successes reproduce and failures die off - eventually.
        I believe short hair in men was adopted mainly for practical purposes, long hair did not fit well under a helmet. In fact i read that men were the ones selected for longer hair by women, and women naturally inherited that trait from there fathers, since of course long hair is not gender specific, both genders can wear it, and it only became female specific fashion fairly recently.
        I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
          So why do we think that human females are the "fairer" sex ... ?
          "Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … "

          After the Industrial Revolution any man could have tons of stuff, or at least look like it.
          So, like fangs on a chimpanzee, scarlet cloaks and gold coronets were no longer enough.
          Now, to show that they can squander enormous resources, men are keeping women as their living peacock tails.

          M

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
            I believe short hair in men was adopted mainly for practical purposes, long hair did not fit well under a helmet. In fact i read that men were the ones selected for longer hair by women, and women naturally inherited that trait from there fathers, since of course long hair is not gender specific, both genders can wear it, and it only became female specific fashion fairly recently.
            Male hair length has varied a lot, differentiating between fashions and innate drivers is hard, and you have to look cross culturally. Historically in art you do get lots of depictions of periods where males wore long hair. But you get entire societies like Rome where short hair on men persisted for a long time, admittedly they were a martial culture so the helmet thing might apply. Africans though tend to wear male hair shorter than female with no martial reasons. The African example is more telling in that it's the hormonal gender marking difference that is paramount. Female hair grows differently to male hair as it's under the influence of oestrogen, accentuating that is a meaningful sexual display therefore by secondary action long hair in females would be gender related. I've not seen the article you mention, but seen ample evidence across many cultures and time periods of women wearing long hair. I suspect the article you read was being selective in order to try to make some false contradiction of the prevalent view. We have a few thousand years worth of art records, which show a far greater tendency for women to wear longer hair than men.

            In terms of selecting mates, there are more factors as I explained. First factors are basic survival, display of gender is done one way or another, visually, through sense of smell, or instinctive behaviours. Then selection of fitness. Males having long hair doesn't make them unattractive to women, and it can act as a differentiator, but only in the context of the other markers being equal. You can look at a Celtic and Britannic males with long hair. There was no doubt they still prioritised marking their masculinity. And if you want to factor in fashion trends and the other myriad of factors you have to look at the stage of development of that society, the constant driver of one generation marking it's difference from the previous even when in pragmatic terms its detrimental.
            "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
            Originally posted by menrppl2
            Can't live with em, life is great without them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
              The nature / nurture division that has long been debated in biology.
              AFAIK, the consesus is that this is not an either/or question, but a mutual prerequisition and dependence.

              Your genes may determine your potential height, but the level of protein in your diet as you grow up will determine your actual height.
              No amount of food will make you taller if the genes don't allow it.
              No genetc possibility will make you taller if you don't get enough building material to follow the blueprint.

              M

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                Male hair length has varied a lot, differentiating between fashions and innate drivers is hard, and you have to look cross culturally. Historically in art you do get lots of depictions of periods where males wore long hair. But you get entire societies like Rome where short hair on men persisted for a long time, admittedly they were a martial culture so the helmet thing might apply. Africans though tend to wear male hair shorter than female with no martial reasons. The African example is more telling in that it's the hormonal gender marking difference that is paramount. Female hair grows differently to male hair as it's under the influence of oestrogen, accentuating that is a meaningful sexual display therefore by secondary action long hair in females would be gender related. I've not seen the article you mention, but seen ample evidence across many cultures and time periods of women wearing long hair. I suspect the article you read was being selective in order to try to make some false contradiction of the prevalent view. We have a few thousand years worth of art records, which show a far greater tendency for women to wear longer hair than men.

                In terms of selecting mates, there are more factors as I explained. First factors are basic survival, display of gender is done one way or another, visually, through sense of smell, or instinctive behaviours. Then selection of fitness. Males having long hair doesn't make them unattractive to women, and it can act as a differentiator, but only in the context of the other markers being equal. You can look at a Celtic and Britannic males with long hair. There was no doubt they still prioritised marking their masculinity. And if you want to factor in fashion trends and the other myriad of factors you have to look at the stage of development of that society, the constant driver of one generation marking it's difference from the previous even when in pragmatic terms its detrimental.
                It is rather hot in Africa, i would say, for men that probably had to work long hours in the sun short hair was more of a practical choice, i had longer hair in summer (thought never really long, just a bit unkempt) and when i went to the barber i could really tell the difference.
                I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                  AFAIK, the consesus is that this is not an either/or question, but a mutual prerequisition and dependence.

                  Your genes may determine your potential height, but the level of protein in your diet as you grow up will determine your actual height.
                  No amount of food will make you taller if the genes don't allow it.
                  No genetc possibility will make you taller if you don't get enough building material to follow the blueprint.

                  M
                  Yeah it's just that the division boundary is very blurry esp on behavioural matters. When you start looking at behaviour, culture, gender traits, it's starts to get hard to nail down a causal chain, or even definitive zones of influence. This boundary is part of the feminist argument. Any blurriness interpreted against their view is interpreted as sexist, and the only evidence they present is the weight of numbers they have in agreeing with themselves. They basically want to say gender is a construct as is man made - to them quite literally man made. The evidence they lever is the blurriness especially over gender traits. More your field than mine to figure out a statement like 'women are the fairer sex'. Personally I'd rather find out the biological tendencies, then leave it.

                  I think you can find clear markers of development directions, environmental influences and strategies in nature that do apply to human behaviour too. Similarities in that you can call healthy masculinity and healthy femininity. You then get a mass of behaviour that is cultural and you don't know or can't pick out what has biological, genetic roots or is invention. Humans use contradiction to invent, that's quite an awkward innovation to track when your evidence set doesn't indicate some historical innovator's intent as it isn't recorded. Just the results.
                  "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                  Originally posted by menrppl2
                  Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
                    It is rather hot in Africa, i would say, for men that probably had to work long hours in the sun short hair was more of a practical choice, i had longer hair in summer (thought never really long, just a bit unkempt) and when i went to the barber i could really tell the difference.
                    Yes the heat factor is relevant, but hair on the head is still useful for breaking up direct heat on the skull that heats the brain. What shows is the tendency for male hair to be shorter when factors, such as availability of time for vanity grooming are available. Short hair is less work. I've had long hair for years, it can be a pain, and it's really disappointing to find that male pattern baldness can still trump inheriting my mum's hair genes. She had a full head of hair, as did both my maternal grandparents. My hair has nothing in common with my father's, but I still got the male pattern baldness emerging. Stupid whatever genes... testosterone side effects... darn.
                    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                    Originally posted by menrppl2
                    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                      Yeah it's just that the division boundary is very blurry esp on behavioural matters. When you start looking at behaviour, culture, gender traits, it's starts to get hard to nail down a causal chain, or even definitive zones of influence. This boundary is part of the feminist argument.
                      Yes, but by then they've already set up a framework that fools you into grasping the wrong end of the stick: gender as a fundamental category.
                      Maintaining that human nature consists in culture, i.e. what humans do is to produce their own basis for existence - we grow food, make pots, weave clothes, build houses and roads - we can apply economic categories as basic.


                      Any blurriness interpreted against their view is interpreted as sexist, and the only evidence they present is the weight of numbers they have in agreeing with themselves.
                      No, the one fact they have in their favour is the bewildering variety in human culture. That is their trump argument against human sexual essentialism.
                      But for that to be true, human sexuality would have to be the prime factor that shapes culture and society - i.e. that sexual roles are determined by our, I don't know what to call it, but let's try "sexual identity" or "sexual personae". The Man As Provider model should make it clear, though, that also our gender roles are, if not 100 % determined, then at least very, very heavily influenced by ecomomy, and cultural variation is much better and more economically explained by looking at property and production systems first.

                      They basically want to say gender is a construct as is man made - to them quite literally man made.
                      And they would be right, too. Sex is biological, sexual dimorphism is biological, but how much sex and dimorphism you can buy in any culture depends on the wealth of that culture.

                      A very simple thing like clothing: most cultures will have had tube-shaped lower body clothing, skirts, kilts, sarongs, djellabas, kimonos, tunikas, kitons, togas, cassocks, etc.
                      The only people who need pants are people who either live in extreme cold, like eskimos, and, notably, people who ride horses. Horse riding peoples also invented the high-heeled boot, to go with stirrups.
                      Western Europe being fairly cold and using horses for warfare has led to the prevalence of trousers as "men's wear", which became a world-wide habit in the last 200 years, and then unisex 50 years ago.
                      Whenever there are societies that are not patrilocal, patrifocal or patrilinear, where men and women "switch roles", there will always be some trait or mechanism that will explain this,
                      but it won't have much to do with sex, not to mention "gender fluidity".
                      That said, looking at history, men have had a huge reange of expression of manhood, including tears (although often tears of rage), physical closeness, make-up, slavery to fashion ....
                      At present, we labour under being limited to a John Wayne'ish model of brooding, rock chewing insociability, which I suspect is a result of having had a series of major wars in the last 100 years.
                      John Wayne would have had his as kicked by that foppish little rococco bad guy in "Rob Roy", but it's the male role model that suits army recruiters best, so ...

                      There's a lot of internalized misandry in that role, or at least internalized empathy gap and disposabilty. This is usually achieved by praising people for something they may not want - like saying "big boys don't cry" - which declares you to be a big boy and at the same time marks out "not-big-boys" as something not-to-be. My experience from the psychiatric field is that this traps people in inauthenticity, because they cannot step away from the role they do not want to have without simultaneoulsy activating the contempt for those who do not fulfill that role. Dad advice is always passed along with a serious face, because they probably knew that it sucked and hated having to pass it on, but that not being one fo the herd sucked worse, so ... swim or sink.
                      I think most of us remember where we got the most of the don't-cry-stuff, the never mind, cheer up, stop making a fuss. Why don't men take better care of their health, it must be man-flu, haha. And so on.

                      The evidence they lever is the blurriness especially over gender traits. More your field than mine to figure out a statement like 'women are the fairer sex'. Personally I'd rather find out the biological tendencies, then leave it.
                      Women are the fairer sex because we say so. This is mr E's territory, but men tend to like, desire and compliment women in thought, deed and word. We write love poems and rock ballads to win them, and blues and country songs when we've lost them.
                      "You made my life a livin' hell, and then you topped it all by leavin' ..." (twaangggg)

                      I think you can find clear markers of development directions, environmental influences and strategies in nature that do apply to human behaviour too.
                      Almost everything is explained by "resource husbandry on a timeline".

                      Similarities in that you can call healthy masculinity and healthy femininity. You then get a mass of behaviour that is cultural and you don't know or can't pick out what has biological, genetic roots or is invention.
                      Going by axiom number one, our nature is culture, then by nature we should set up a culture that fosters healthy gender roles.
                      Since Freud and the world wars everyone is a culture pessimist, though.

                      Humans use contradiction to invent
                      AFAIK invention is a straightforward darwinian process, just like the animal eye that wasn't created as-is. but is the result of a myriad generations of mutations. At one period, 100 people are tinkering with e.g. steam engines or radio or cars, and the best ideas from each generation is picked up by the next generation of 100 tinkereres, and suddenly the apparatus tips over the more-useful-that-costly barrier and is adopted generally. And still, of course, constantly developed and improved.

                      M
                      Last edited by Manalysis; 04-16-2017, 09:49 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                        "Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … "
                        M
                        Which is why I prefer my women tall, broad-shouldered, long-legged, thick-thighed, big breasted...you get the idea.

                        While I've certainly seen a good few absolutely stunning women who were either:
                        - under 5'2";
                        - cursed with bee-sting tits;
                        - cursed with Ectomorphism,
                        - cursed with chicken legs/knock knees etc

                        Such women are exceptions to the rule; BIG is beautiful. Wondrously flaring thighs, chunky calves before she ever rode a bicycle, a good glute shelf at the back, hell even voluminous, expressive eyes. All are signals of good health.
                        >>"and in other news, the Judge in the case of AVFM Vs Feminazism ruled today that the creators of 'Gender Equality' are guilty of Intent to Obtain Social Change by Deception. The Feminazi case collapsed just one day into the trial, after a 1st year medical student demonstrated that men are not, in fact, equal to women".<<


                        Newbie AVFM Member, 2 days in: "My eyes, why do my eyes hurt?"

                        Jaybee, cautious tone: "You've never used them before".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jaybee View Post
                          Which is why I prefer my women tall, broad-shouldered, long-legged, thick-thighed, big breasted...you get the idea.
                          You misread the author, mon ami: he is comparing the average of females with the average of men.

                          M

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            You misread the author, mon ami: he is comparing the average of females with the average of men.

                            M
                            No no the meaning was clear from the first read. Simply exalting smaller, subpar women just because ones sexual frustration caused a loss of discernment is plain wrong, and despite the fact I chose then not to linger on that topic in favour of expressing my own preferences, I DO agree; maybe I should add, I deliberately delight in the larger, healthier specimens of womanhood, as superior vessels for bringing into this world my future children.
                            >>"and in other news, the Judge in the case of AVFM Vs Feminazism ruled today that the creators of 'Gender Equality' are guilty of Intent to Obtain Social Change by Deception. The Feminazi case collapsed just one day into the trial, after a 1st year medical student demonstrated that men are not, in fact, equal to women".<<


                            Newbie AVFM Member, 2 days in: "My eyes, why do my eyes hurt?"

                            Jaybee, cautious tone: "You've never used them before".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jaybee View Post
                              Which is why I prefer my women tall, broad-shouldered, long-legged, thick-thighed, big breasted...you get the idea.

                              While I've certainly seen a good few absolutely stunning women who were either:
                              - under 5'2";
                              - cursed with bee-sting tits;
                              - cursed with Ectomorphism,
                              - cursed with chicken legs/knock knees etc

                              Such women are exceptions to the rule; BIG is beautiful. Wondrously flaring thighs, chunky calves before she ever rode a bicycle, a good glute shelf at the back, hell even voluminous, expressive eyes. All are signals of good health.
                              The discussion is, from a purely aesthetic perspective, is male or female human being more aesthetically pleasing? What you prefer is besides the point, i don´t think we can ever really answer this question but since it is quite obvious that male and female humans are not identical, there is enough sexual dimorphism that even a complete stranger could tell the difference, does the rule of male of the species being more aesthetically pleasing in form bear out in humans and if not then why not.
                              I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X