Body matters more for women

[VoniLa]

In high school, there was this thick MTB in my class that literally every male wanted to smash, meanwhile girls who looked better than her (but flat) were given less attention. Like yea they're beautiful but you can't get your shit hard by face

 

[slenderpill]

In high school, there was this thick MTB in my class that literally every male wanted to smash, meanwhile girls who looked better than her (but flat) were given less attention. Like yea they're beautiful but you can't get your shit hard by face

yeah but thats just common law id rather ltb bodymaxxef over lhtb

 

[Huntergirl]

All fun and games until you get called butterface

 

[ShitUsername]

yes in "high school"

 

[tonisworld]

Breaking news: Horny teens are horny.

 

[VoniLa]

yeah but thats just common law id rather ltb bodymaxxef over lhtb

Funny seeing females glazing anorexic models because muh striking features, just for males to prefer MTB with big ass and tits

All fun and games until you get called butterface

Butterface >>Ironing board

yes in "high school"

High school is a microcosm of adult life and relationships, people think and feel the same in HS as they do in adulthood. They only learn to control and behave.

 

[VoniLa]

Breaking news: Horny teens are horny.

Men think with their dick their whole life, nothing changes

 

[Gargantuan]

Who cares what normgroids think is ideal. They also think Sydney Sweeney is the most beautiful woman in the world or sum shit

 

[Kingdom of Lotharingia]

In high school, there was this thick MTB in my class that literally every male wanted to smash, meanwhile girls who looked better than her (but flat) were given less attention. Like yea they're beautiful but you can't get your shit hard by face

 

[aesense]

yes in "high school"

if anything it matters more after high school

 

[Penalizer69]

Yeah they'll get used face is law, but if you have a good face you probably have a good body

 

[VoniLa]

Who cares what normgroids think is ideal. They also think Sydney Sweeney is the most beautiful woman in the world or sum shit

Well normies decide what’s good/attractive and what’s not
If majority of people agree that Sydney is hot, she is

Yeah they'll get used face is law, but if you have a good face you probably have a good body

Everyone gets used somehow, every relationship is reciprocal

As for good face = good body, I disagree. Good looking women are usually slim with no curves

 

[Gargantuan]

Well normies decide what’s good/attractive and what’s not
If majority of people agree that Sydney is hot, she is

That’s just “majority = truth”, which is about as braindead as it gets.

By that logic, lynching were also good because at some point in time, most people also approved of them. Consensus only tells you what’s normal in a given era, not what’s true, good, or attractive. Normies don’t decide reality, they just echo whatever signal is loudest.

 

[SentimentaI]

Not real attraction

 

[TonyDr]

In high school, there was this thick MTB in my class that literally every male wanted to smash, meanwhile girls who looked better than her (but flat) were given less attention. Like yea they're beautiful but you can't get your shit hard by face

Hence why women should go to the gym and not starve themselves just to please the proana girls.
Good lower body on girls is like shoulders width & height on men, doesn't replace the facecard but give you a serious leverage on the dating scene

 

[VoniLa]

That’s just “majority = truth”, which is about as braindead as it gets.

Truth doesn't matter, perceived truth is what's important. Society revolves around it's beliefs, not indisputable facts.
In addition, if most people believe in something, it's usually not far from the actual truth.

By that logic, lynching were also good because at some point in time, most people also approved of them.

Lynching was seen as good by some because it made people think twice before committing crimes. But how do we know how the average person really felt? Any critique could have resulted in being lynched yourself, fear factor.

Consensus only tells you what’s normal in a given era, not what’s true, good, or attractive.

First two, debatable.

Attractiveness, absolutely not. Sexual attraction was always the same. Faces and body shapes considered attractive today would have been attractive at any time in history. Dimorphism and youth indicators were always law.

Not real attraction

And how is liking someone's face but not body "real attraction"?

 

[Balian]

Difference is they want to sleep with the mtb
It’s very sexual
Gl foid would get guys that like her

 

[YeahImNawtHuman]

Breaking news: Horny high schoolers acting like horny high schoolers

 

[Exile]

Porn watcher ramblings.

 

[Gargantuan]

Truth doesn't matter, perceived truth is what's important. Society revolves around it's beliefs, not indisputable facts.
In addition, if most people believe in something, it's usually not far from the actual truth.

Perceived truth only explains behaviour, not validity. Yes, societies do run on shared beliefs, but that says nothing about whether those beliefs track reality or quality. Propaganda works for the same reason since effectiveness does not equal correctness.
If “most people believe it” were a reliability filter, mass delusions wouldn’t exist, yet they do constantly on a grand scale.

Most people believed the sun orbited earth for the longest, or that smoking was healthy. Smoking is actually a great example here since it was an idea deliberately manufactured by Edward Bernays, who literally wrote a book about using propaganda and social proof to engineer mass perception. Majority belief correlates with exposure, repetition, and incentives, not the truth, because reality is not a democratic process.

Lynching was seen as good by some because it made people think twice before committing crimes. But how do we know how the average person really felt? Any critique could have resulted in being lynched yourself, fear factor.

That invalidates your own premise. If dissents risked social exclusion, injury, or even death, that just means that the consensus was artificially enforced and not organic.

Apparent agreement does not equal genuine belief. You can’t cite social agreement as evidence when agreement is enforced or manufactured, which is exactly how most mass beliefs form all the time.

First two, debatable.

Attractiveness, absolutely not. Sexual attraction was always the same. Faces and body shapes considered attractive today would have been attractive at any time in history. Dimorphism and youth indicators were always law.

Ofc youth indicators and dimorphism matter, I'm not denying baseline biology. But that does not mean specific bodies or faces are universally preferred across time and class. Preferences shift all the time through status signalling, scarcity, and culture. For example, being fat was considered attractive at stages when food was scarce.

 

[VoniLa]

Perceived truth only explains behaviour, not validity. Yes, societies do run on shared beliefs, but that says nothing about whether those beliefs track reality or quality. Propaganda works for the same reason since effectiveness does not equal correctness.
If “most people believe it” were a reliability filter, mass delusions wouldn’t exist, yet they do constantly on a grand scale.

I mostly agree, except for this part. Mass delusions are apparent, but they usually only occur in cases where a newly adopted belief either positively or neutrally affects everyday life. For example, you could convince the masses that weightlifting is unhealthy because it resonates with the inherited human tendency to avoid pain. On the other hand, you could never convince them that the sky is green.

Raw sexual attraction, uninfluenced by other factors, is pretty straightforward. Young and dimorphic individuals are more desired. No amount of propaganda will ever make an old short male more desirable than a taller younger male.

That invalidates your own premise. If dissents risked social exclusion, injury, or even death, that just means that the consensus was artificially enforced and not organic.

Apparent agreement does not equal genuine belief. You can’t cite social agreement as evidence when agreement is enforced or manufactured, which is exactly how most mass beliefs form all the time.

Ultimately, does it matter? Would society behave any differently if acceptable and punishable actions were artificial rather than inherited?
Cohesively perceived truth >> "objective truth".

But that does not mean specific bodies or faces are universally preferred across time and class. Preferences shift all the time through status signalling, scarcity, and culture. For example, being fat was considered attractive at stages when food was scarce.

Objective beauty transcends cultures. Brad Pitt is globally attractive, thus would have easy time getting laid in any part of the world. With that being said, it doesn't mean his relative appeal would be the same everywhere.

Subjective type is more complex. A high-class individual might place more emphasis on factors outside of raw sexual attraction when choosing a partner, but that's just the mating strategy. True raw desire stays the same.
This explains why short-term and long-term mating preferences are never identical. Being fat was more long-term desired, but not short-term (which in my opinion reflects the true desire).

 

[Gargantuan]

I mostly agree, except for this part. Mass delusions are apparent, but they usually only occur in cases where a newly adopted belief either positively or neutrally affects everyday life. For example, you could convince the masses that weightlifting is unhealthy because it resonates with the inherited human tendency to avoid pain. On the other hand, you could never convince them that the sky is green.

Raw sexual attraction, uninfluenced by other factors, is pretty straightforward. Young and dimorphic individuals are more desired. No amount of propaganda will ever make an old short male more desirable than a taller younger male.

That only shows that some beliefs are easier to enforce than others, not that they’re inherently true. Constraints determine which delusions are viable, not which beliefs track reality. Difficulty of manipulation does not equal objectivity.

Ultimately, does it matter? Would society behave any differently if acceptable and punishable actions were artificial rather than inherited?
Cohesively perceived truth >> "objective truth".

It matters if we’re talking about validity rather than coordination. Social order can run on enforced narratives, but that doesn’t turn those narratives into truths, just stable equilibria.

Objective beauty transcends cultures. Brad Pitt is globally attractive, thus would have easy time getting laid in any part of the world. With that being said, it doesn't mean his relative appeal would be the same everywhere.

Subjective type is more complex. A high-class individual might place more emphasis on factors outside of raw sexual attraction when choosing a partner, but that's just the mating strategy. True raw desire stays the same.
This explains why short-term and long-term mating preferences are never identical. Being fat was more long-term desired, but not short-term (which in my opinion reflects the true desire).

Fair enough, at the short-term impulse level, there are indeed obvious universals. That’s not really where my disagreement is. My point is about how quickly people elevate one behavioral layer into "objective truth" and dismiss everything else as a distortion or a strategy.

 

[snoblomov]

That only shows that some beliefs are easier to enforce than others, not that they’re inherently true. Constraints determine which delusions are viable, not which beliefs track reality. Difficulty of manipulation does not equal objectivity.

It matters if we’re talking about validity rather than coordination. Social order can run on enforced narratives, but that doesn’t turn those narratives into truths, just stable equilibria.

Fair enough, at the short-term impulse level, there are indeed obvious universals. That’s not really where my disagreement is. My point is about how quickly people elevate one behavioral layer into "objective truth" and dismiss everything else as a distortion or a strategy.

are you the real gargantuan?

 

[emeraldpill]

Retarded

 

[Deleted Member 101633]

None of the retards here have ever been with a girl, they have no idea how shitty it genuinely feels to sleep with a skinny flat bih

 

[VoniLa]

That only shows that some beliefs are easier to enforce than others, not that they’re inherently true. Constraints determine which delusions are viable, not which beliefs track reality. Difficulty of manipulation does not equal objectivity.

Care to share some 'truth' which the masses may not agree with? I see your point, but I just can't apply it in my mind.

My point is about how quickly people elevate one behavioral layer into "objective truth" and dismiss everything else as a distortion or a strategy.

Well it's easy. Would you rather be desired for your money and status or for your physical appearance? Which one of those feels like a 'truer' reflection of who you are?

 

[tjlfmz]

shape over size u lot are the type to fuck a fat bitch cuz her ass is big thirsty guys

 

[Gargantuan]

Care to share some 'truth' which the masses may not agree with? I see your point, but I just can't apply it in my mind.

Lifestyle and health would be one. At least in the West, there is this dominant consensus which states that sunlight is dangerous and should be minimized/avoided. There is also a consensus around diet which states that saturated fat, cholesterol, red meat, etc. are all unhealthy and should be severely limited, whilst plants, grains & processed foods are deemed "healthy"

These narratives (inversions) gained dominance because they were administratively convenient and risk-manageable at scale. Yet during the same period, chronic disease and metabolic dysfunction became the norm rather than the exception. That divergence is the point since beliefs can win institutionally and be enforced while losing biologically simultaneously.

Well it's easy. Would you rather be desired for your money and status or for your physical appearance? Which one of those feels like a 'truer' reflection of who you are?

Physical appearance/attraction feels truer, sure, it’s immediate and unmediated after all. But I don’t think truth lives in a single signal. Appearance, competence, status, resources, character, etc. all operate at different layers and timescales.

Elevating one as the ‘real’ one is more a preference about which layer we value, not an objective cutoff.

 

[Gargantuan]

are you the real gargantuan?

Never heard of her

 

[Newday]

No