Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you look closer, they're still at the magic 0.7 htwr during that phase, which was an exception to the rule I might add.
Exactly. There's a reason men's magazines all have curvy women, and I mean actual curvy women, not the euphemism for being fat as the word is coopted for so often these days. This is a good idea of what we're all talking about: the woman on the left is skinny, the woman on the right is, well, "thick", and quite possibly straight up obese. Finally we have the woman in the middle who is exactly what we're talking about in terms of what has the greatest appeal to men:
Woman on the right is my preferance over the other two and how in the world can you tag her as "obese"? That is just insane.
I like the way they have clothing sizes on those pics, as if those clothing sizes were meaningful measurements of curvature and chunkiness--a short woman who wears a size "12" is going to have a really different body shape than a tall woman who wears a size "12". I am short and when I wear a 12, I look more like the woman on the right (who I think is the most attractive of the bunch, but I am not a man).
FYI those are UK sizes. US sizes will be a bit different.
In my opinion and in modern times, I believe women may be better off by insisting they need to fornicate us into relationships whenever they find us in between girlfriends, simply so we won't have to lie to them about it.
And for the record, for raw biological attraction the one in the middle is going to have the most widespread appeal. Those saying the one on the right is attractive are entitled to their opinion, and I agree she's still attractive, just nowhere near as attractive as the others IMO. I personally suspect a lot of the fat acceptance we're seeing is the result of becoming acclimated to our obesity epidemic. The last time I checked the numbers the average American woman stands 5'4" and weighs 150-160lbs and has a 34-35" waist! That's clinically overweight via BMI and is a tad larger waist size than what the average man's waist size should be!
Great post. It makes complete sense. Humans are certainly pack oriented. It might behoove the opposing argument to find another species with a similar gestation period and growth curve that behaves as suggested in this thread.
Yes and brain development. A human child is pretty helpless for at least 10 years, and the promiscuous primitive woman would be more likely to be impregnated at all times and if she had to leave her infants and toddlers laying on the ground while she went and foraged for food for her pregnant self, her infant, and toddlers and small children, the chances for survival go way down.
Look at even today where the children most at risk of physical and sexual abuse are those where the door to the home is a revolving door to men looking for sex who have no relationship to the children. There is no way in the natural world that men just looking for a good one-night-stand would want to stick around and raise and feed the children sired by others.
As for those body types in the pictures, those were not the shapes of pre-historic women. For one if the women were promiscuous, their shapes would have already become the shapes of women who have had 5 or 6 kids by age 18 and living very meager existences. Their breasts would already be stretched down to their waists and there would be babies clinging to them.
Yes and brain development. A human child is pretty helpless for at least 10 years, and the promiscuous primitive woman would be more likely to be impregnated at all times and if she had to leave her infants and toddlers laying on the ground while she went and foraged for food for her pregnant self, her infant, and toddlers and small children, the chances for survival go way down.
Hunter-gatherer women tend to use natural child-spacing techniques (such as extended breastfeeding). Remember that hunter-gatherer groups are very mobile and more than one non-walking child pretty much impossible to deal with. !Kung child-spacing is as much as nearly 4 years between children with no artificial birth control. The sedentary lifestyle of an agricultural (i.e. civilized) woman with more excess of calories, especially when combined with a shorter breastfeeding duration (wet nursing or early weaning), is what is likely to increase fertility in the manner you describe.
Quote:
As for those body types in the pictures, those were not the shapes of pre-historic women. For one if the women were promiscuous, their shapes would have already become the shapes of women who have had 5 or 6 kids by age 18 and living very meager existences. Their breasts would already be stretched down to their waists and there would be babies clinging to them.
Promiscuity is not so much defined by sex-frequency as it is of number of partners. Monogamous women probably have more sex then and now, as no time is wasted looking for a new partner once the old one is gone. (i.e.the promiscous woman may have 3 babies and 3 baby-daddies, while a monogamous woman could have 4 babies in the same amount of time with 1 baby-daddy.)
Look at even today where the children most at risk of physical and sexual abuse are those where the door to the home is a revolving door to men looking for sex who have no relationship to the children. There is no way in the natural world that men just looking for a good one-night-stand would want to stick around and raise and feed the children sired by others.
Forgot to address this--this can also be the case when the woman is not promiscuous, but also in any situation where the mother's partner is a male who is unrelated to her child/ren. Stepfathers and mothers' long-term boyfriends are also dangerous to children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
