Before we get to what I considered to be some of the most interesting comments, let's recap: the single biggest problem I have with Roissy/Heartiste, and by extension his "sphere" is the deliberate way in which they distort and/or misrepresent the facts about EvoPsych, deliberately passing off their personal opinions as some kind of scientific fact. No one is hating on them for their personal preferences - I'm certainly not - but for any of them to try to argue that Women like Ms. Gabi aren't attractive, do nothing more than to either reveal just how woefully ignorant of and/or deliberately disengenuous about EvoPsych they truly are. As Buss and many, many others have clearly pointed out in works such as "The Evolution of Desire", dress size has little to do with what Men *universally find most desirable in Women*, which are:
- Beauty (facially, especially: clear, supple/tight skin, wide eyes, high cheeks, minimal distance between mouth and jawline, longer and more lustrous hair rather than shorter, etc.)
- Waist to Hip Ratio, or put another way, the "hourglass" shape
One look at Ms. Gabi confirms that she has all of these things, and Chuck (and others) have noted as much in his original post on the topic. That there are keyboard jockeys in the 'sphere who whine and moan about Women like her only reveal themselves to be outliers and guys who most likely don't get laid to begin with. Again, there is nothing wrong with one's personal preferences, but we're not talking about those here; we are talking about actual EvoPsych and the desires of Men sexually. On that score then, Ms. Gabi has more of that than not, evidenced by the fact that she has a Man (and lives in NYC!), nor would she have much trouble attracting Men, be it NYC or anyone else. Let's put this another way: I've gone on record on more than one occasion, that I'm not particularly crazy about Asian chicks. I don't have any axe to grind about them; they just don't factor all that much on my radar screen. Having said that, it doesn't mean that Asian Women aren't attractive, and there are much more than ample examples of Men - primarily but not in any way solely limited to White - who have proven just how attractive Asian Women are. For me to put up an "Oriental Girl Jihad" and the like, railing and ranting for years about how unattractive Asian Women are/were, would be just downright and flatout ridiculous. The same can be said for notions of Roissy/Heartiste's "Hungry, Hungry Hippos" neverending rants about "fatties" and Roosh's "Fat Girl Jihad" website (which I've read and think is really pathetic to be frank). As I've said below, the problem these guys either won't or can't face, isn't that Women are getting heavier - their "shaming" campaign(s) haven't proven to work in getting Women to slim down and I predict that they will fail...badly - but the gorilla in the middle of the room for both these gents, is that guys will still bang these Women no matter what. This is why Lena Dunham's "Hannah" can get all kinds of action from guys (and why the Manosphere is up in arms about it, I might add) - because evolved Male sexual psychology is such that the standards for sexual acceptance are much lower for Men than for Women. If Roissy/Heartiste and Roosh were really serious about their "jihad", they would focus all of their attention on shaming Men into not having sex with any Woman who's dress size went into the double digits. But, as we all know, their reader/commenter counts would drop like a stone were they to even suggest such a thing. The whole "jihad" is really a ruse - an excuse to keep guys from doing the actual work of improving themselves. It's always easier to scapegoat others for the failings you possess yourself. This is NOT Game; not once did Style go on a rant about "fatties" in his book The Game; not once did Mystery do the same in his many, many bootcamps, workshops nor his book, The Mystery Method. I'll have more to say about both these gents on this and other fronts, in due course, so stay tuned.
And now, to the reader's comments from the previous post...
"Fat Chick With Hot Chick Attitude" = Fat chicks who think they're hot, or some vapid notion of being empowered. Mistaking arrogance for confidence. Loud outward displays masking a hollow character."
O: Fair enough. Question - would the "hot chick attitude" be any better if indeed, it was done by an ostensible "hot chick"? The question is in part rhetorical, of course - but I trust you get my point. For me, a Woman with Attitude is just that, regardless of her dress size; but by all accounts, clearly I am in the distinct minority of guys on that front.
What say you?
"Posted by Obsidian:
Hey, how are you doing? I haven't forgotten about what we've discussed offlist either; it'll be up next week.
As for your comments...
Well, yea, it makes sense - after all, most of the light skinned Black folk in America today, came about as a result of sexual liasons between White guys and Black Women who look a lot like...you. So yea, it makes sense to me."
If you go back far enough in time maybe but while the initial pairing involved darker skinned black females and white men we don't know the age or weight of these women. They might have been mostly thin teenagers."
O: They might have been. However, what we do know is that Black Women from West Africa are more likely to be "thicker" than their Northern European counterparts, ie., White American Women of the era. Then there's Sistas like Reecy Taylor and the like, too. EvoPysch says that Men will screw pretty much anything when given the chance and that includes barn animals and inanimate objects.
"Second, most lighter skinned blacks today have 2 black parents and 4 black grandparents. So what has also happened over time is mating where lighter blacks are selecting each other and reproducing those related genes even to the point of increasing these "White" gene frequencies in future generations of blacks."
O: Again, fair point, but a tangential one to the one I am making - that the fact remains, that for much of American, even pre-American history, the overwhelming majority of "race mixing" that occured between Blacks and Whites, was in fact, between Black Women and White Men. No matter how you want to slice it, them there's the facts. I am always amazed by how an entire sector of the internet prides itself on hard data and evidence being sacrosanct on one hand, and bemoans (Liberal) ideology on the other, then turns around and balks and hem and haw when actually presented with some very simple facts about the history of our country. It is, what it is, Ahab. Get. Over. It.
"If lighter blacks have kids together for enough generations they will actual have more "White genes" than the first offspring of a white/black pair. That can happen."
O: Sure. But that still doesn't change what I said. See above.
"But historically where White women were available in the New World slave based cultures they were preferred by white men and mixing was rarer, compare North America vs Latin America."
O: Why? My comments didn't have anything to do with Latin America, though that history is interesting in its own light; see Skip Gates' very insightful PBS special "Black in Latin America" for more on that point. We're not talking about who White Men choose for wives; we're talking about the fact that sexual liasons between White Men and Black Women were in fact quite common - more than many guys like you would like to admit, though the evidence of this abounds. Right here in the USA, I mean. Not Latin America.
"But we still don't know the ages or body types of the black females involved. I wouldn't be surprised if they tended to be younger and thinner versus older and fatter."
O: My comments had nothing to do with age, though I don't disagree with you at least in theory; and I maintain that Black Women from West Africa, where the bulk of American Slaves were taken from, are going to be thicker than White Women of the era. Race mixing still occured nonetheless. Get. Over. It.
THAT BLACK GUY says:
"I think you missed the point here. Whether fat women have been seen as attractive in the past is irrelevant to today's society."
O: Why? On what EvoPsych-informed basis so you say this? It's a known fact that Women overall have gotten heavier, but has that had a direct impact on their ability to secure sexual partners? If so, what evidence can you provide that this is indeed the case? Or are you just stating your own personal preferences here?
"As you state, of it can still be very much Personal preferance, however the current preference is slender women. Yes, hip to waist ratio is prOven by Eco psych, and that shows that humans do assert mate selectiion by Physical attributes, so also by extension, there is a possibility fat/skinny does not subjectively alter attractiveness. It's possible it does, but as there is no 100% proof of it or the opposite, it's silly to even have this discussion."
O: No, it's "silly" to keep trying to make up facts when none exist. Let's try this again - there are NO evolutionary psychologists worth the name who go on and on about "fatties" they way certain voices in the Manosphere do. NONE. Buss certainly doesn't and he's widely regarded as among if not thee definitive voice in the field. What you guys are droning on about are personal/cultural preferences, which is again is fine, but have zilch to do with EvoPsych. We need to be crystal clear on this point.
"Even if polled in the us, that still would not please you because you could still argument other cultures don't care if women are fat or skinny, thereby reasserting that it's individual preference of what beauty is. All you need to know and accept, that generally in todays society, slender women and men with the body of swimmers are seen as most attractive"
O: Nope. What matters is what Buss and other EvoPsych researchers have found throughout the world's cultures - that waist to hip ratio matters more than sheer dress size and holds constant, whereas dress size does not. If that weren't the case, Christina Hendricks wouldn't have such a huge following of guys on Mad Men, Black Women like Cotton Candy wouldn't be able to make a living in Hong Kong, the Japanese porn business wouldn't have an entire section devoted to it with homegrown and imported BBWs, the non-porn BBW modeling business would be nonexistent, etc.
"On your original post on 5/16/12, you wrote that you were shocked by the ferocity with which white commenters castigated overweight black women. The proof you provide is an entry written by Chuck Ross in which he links to several articles that he found interesting."
O: Indeed; go on...
"Chuck's entry only generated 11 comments; only 4 readers responded to the linked NYTimes article: "Why Black Women Are Fat". One commenter ridiculed the idea that black women are gaining weight as a political statement. Two others agreed with the premise that black men prefer their women on the heavy side. The last guy took a crack at you by jokingly blaming the black female obesity epidemic on you, since you have made no secret of your sexual preference. None of them singled out fat black women as objects of disgust."
O: True, and here please allow me to apologize for being a bit imprecise; what I meant was the general tone and tenor of certain quarters of the Manospehere along these lines. What I was speaking to was that, and even Chuck talked about this in the post I referred to and several others since. On that note it is undeniable, the initial charges I made. I stand by them and what I wrote in that light.
"Regarding the phrase "Fat Girl Jihad", perhaps you are unaware that this is the name of the humorous website that Roosh created to mock fat women. If you want to criticize manosphere bloggers for attacking fat women, you should probably go after Roosh and Roissy. Roissy has an entire searchable category attacking fat women called "hungry hungry hippos"."
O: Indeed I was ignorant of the backstory of "Fat Girl Jihad" and Roosh's involvment; but putting that together with Roissy's constant rants, it raises all kinds of interesting questions. For one thing, both of these Men are supposedly quite successful with Women who aren't "fatties"; why they both then spend considerable amounts of time denouncing Women who both claim far and wide they have no sexual interest in is to my mind, fascinating. Clearly, some subcommunication (or is it cognitive dissonance?) is going on here. Neither Mystery nor Style ever ranted and went on and on about "fatties" the way Roosh and Roissy do, probably because both are too busy actually going after the Women they want and teaching guys how to do same. I suspect one reason why Roosh and Roissy do the "fat girl jihad" thing is because its red meat to the keyboard jockeys out there who aren't getting any action at all; giving them straight ahead Game advice is near-futile since they're highly unlikely unable to make good on it and besides, "going negative" is always easier than the opposite.
"There's no doubting that these titans of Game are sincere and merciless in their mocking of overweight gals, but I don't sense a racial component behind the attacks. If you search Roissy's archives, most of the pictures he posts of the ungainly are white women."
O: Yes, I'm very familiar with Roissy's writings, which informs why I said what I did earlier; when the conversation turned to Black Women it invariably went down the road of hating on them for being fat and so forth. I don't have a problem with discussing that dimension of things, but it all seemed to have another underlying tone going on that I just felt didn't make much sense, if again the goal is trying to learn ways to get the Women one actually does want. Why then does it make sense to devote so much time to discussing Women whom you so absolutely loathe? Please explain?
"You ask a good question: why are these writers (and the commenters who cheer them on) so vehement and prolific in making their disgust with fat girls known?
One: the growing number of fat women thins out the field of sexual partners that they find acceptable."
O: While that may be regrettable, how is a neverending circle jerk of guys on either Roosh's or Roissy's blogs going to change things in this regard? It all comes across as a bunch of losers crying into their beer. Please explain?
"Two: they believe that the remaining non-fat women have grossly swollen egos due to the reduced competition, which creates a Game "arms race" and leaves many single men without any partners they can stomach.
O: Newsflash - the sexes have been and will forever be in an "arms race" - read your Buss. Second, most males of any species never mate. Third, females of just about any species will have more exacting standards as to who they will or won't mate with (as opposed to males, whose sexual standards are much lower), hence the major reason as to why so many males don't mate to begin with down through world history. And fourth, the most desirable members of *either sex* will have "grossly swollen egos" and will be able to command their "price" out on the SMP. This is all simple EvoPsych 101. The problem then, is at least as much as to why so many males don't measure up, rather than why so many females are so fat. Of course, neither Roissy nor Roosh will get anywhere near the kind of activity on their blogs if they discussed that...
"Three: they believe that a widespread cultural shaming movement against fat women would influence many of these women to lose weight, and would encourage already thin women to be vigilant against putting on the pounds."
O: That's a novel idea; the problem lies in what Thomas Sowell says, in measuring the outcome of such notions. For example, Roissy has been on his "fat girl jihad" for the better part of five years now, and is based largely in the DC area. Question: has his writings had any impact in that area in the years since he began his "jihad"? If so, can you present any such evidence? If anything, the evidence we do have nationally, points to the fact that the average American Woman is getting heavier not lighter, and this doesn't seem to impede the average American Woman's ability to get sex whenever she wants it. This is again the major problem Roissy and Roosh are facing: not that Women are getting heavier, but rather that so many Men will have sex with them despite this fact. The reasons why come as no surprise if one understands the rudiments of EvoPsych - indeed, Roosh himself clearly acknowledes this, as does Tucker Max. Therefore, if anything, if these guys were really serious about their goal, they would do well to focus their "shaming" on Men, especially since EvoPsych gives clear evidence about the role such "shaming" plays when Men select mates. All of the evidence we have across world cultures and history suggests that they will fail miserably here as well, because of EvoPsych, in this case, evolved Male sexual psychology, so good luck with that. Of course, doing so on either of their parts would mean that their comment-counts would dwindle; keyboard jockeys don't like being told the truth about themselves.
Now adjourn your miserable arses...