Quote: (04-12-2011 11:09 PM)deebow Wrote:
I think that you are missing the entire point. My preference isn't driving women to over eat.
I don't know about you specifically, but I do know about the general trends in society(outlined in my previous posts) that helps to facilitate a growing trend towards obesity.
Quote:Quote:
Women can build a larger and more shapely ass and don't have to over eat to do it.
It is possible, but less common in practice. 10-15 pounds of fat usually do the trick.
Most women aren't into the type of strength training it takes to build that type of thigh muscle. When you see it in reality, that's probably not where it came from. She is either a rare genetic specimen, a padder or a girl who eats a little extra. Female physiology favors the last option.
Quote:Quote:
I don't care that eating is the fastest way to a bigger ass. It's also the fastest way to a bigger stomach
Not if you're a woman.
One more time: Estrogen causes fat to travel rapidly to the hips and posterior in women.
Fat hits male stomachs first. In women, it goes to their thighs first. For MEN, consuming more fat is the fastest way to a bigger stomach. For WOMEN, it is the fastest way to bigger thighs. The stomach will come if they eat enough, but the thighs will get it earliest and hardest(as well as most persistently). There is a big difference.
Quote:Quote:
Working out in the gym could and at times does lead to building larger more shapely gluteus muscles.
I don't recall stating otherwise.
Quote:Quote:
You are making the assumption that thicker more curvaceous ass is directly correlated to overeating or that most women over eat to get large asses. This is not true in most cases (prove that to me).
1. Once again, the difference in female physiology must be noted. Fat travels to the thighs more regularly in women due to estrogen.
A woman who consumes excess fat is going to see that fat travel to her thighs first because that is the nature of female physiology.
Therefore yes, there is indeed a correlation between overeating and the thickness of a woman's thighs by virtue of nature. The first sign of overeating in a woman will likely show in her hips, because
that is where the bulk of her extra fat will go first.
A simple google search entitled "women fat thighs" or "women fat hips" will reveal an abundance of substantiation for this. The correlation here is not that difficult to find.
I can't believe I'm still arguing over such a basic point.
2. As a woman, you have three options when it comes to developing a larger rear end.
a. Pads/Injections
b. Strength training
c. Eat a little more and let your physiology take care of it(read: female fat goes to the thighs).
Take a wild guess as to which is the most simple, affordable, and time-efficient route and you have your answer. If you are genetically blessed(J-Lo, Beyonce, Rosa Acosta) and you also have the money to pay top trainers, beuaticians and buy the best training and cosmetic equipment money can buy, this won't be an issue.
If you're a normal chick, your options are less varied. You probably can't afford quality injections. Women don't build muscle like men, so the strength training route will take an inordinate amount of energy for you(high time investment).
Your physiology lends itself to option 3, and fatty food is not that expensive.
The logical path here is pretty clear.
Quote:Quote:
I guess you figured if you wrote enough, it would give the impression that you had little bias and were somewhat objective.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Quote:Quote:
You also assume that women will do anything to get it and will risk a large stomach and just being plain fat in order to do it (I don't think that this is true of most women).
And here we go...
A young woman is at less risk of gaining that stomach than a man with a similarly fatty diet is because, as I have noted repeatedly in this thread, fat settles in different parts of the body for women. Their fat hits their thighs FIRST.
If you cannot grasp this rather basic physiological fact, then there is no point in talking.
Quote:Quote:
Also, you gave no evidence that a larger posterior leads to obesity before pregnancy. You in no way showed that a correlation exists. All you did was say that it does.
And again...
Female fat travels to the thighs. A larger posterior in a woman is often one of the first signs of current or impending obesity-that is the first place that the extra fat will go before showing up elsewhere.
An obese male shows it more in his stomach and midsection. An obese woman will show it in her thighs. There is a correlation due to physiology.
It would not be correct to say that a larger posterior leads to obesity-rather, it often serves as a SIGN of obesity, one of the earliest ones in a woman.
Quote:Quote:
Also you called the preference itself "phenotypical" (a phenotype can manifest itself as a genetic trait - smart guy), which is why I said that a phenotypical preference could be interpreted as a genetically derived preference.
And we have more semantics. Lovely.
It was termed a "phenotypical preference" in reference to its status as a preference for a certain phenotype, a phenotype being an observable trait.
Once again, in summary: a phenotypical preference is intended to refer to a preference for an observable trait.
You can interpret it anyway you'd like-I am using the words according to their definition, and seek to establish no genetic connotation.
Any notion to the contrary is of your own making, and I do not intend to entertain it.
Quote:Quote:
I also don't care that you're black. So am I. I don't know why you felt the need to mention that.
It was "for the record", not "for your pleasure". There is a difference.
Quote:Quote:
Regarding your comments about the black community, one could get the assumption that you were speaking about the majority of black men. I don't believe that the majority of them like obese very large asses. I believe that this implication is wrong (intentional or unintentional).
Black American men tend to put an inordinate amount of emphasis on the size of the female posterior, which has manifested itself in the frequent celebration of very large posteriors that don't embody the firmer, more curvaceous tone you've cited with girls like J-Lo(ex: Maliah Michel, Lastarya, Buffy the Body, etc).
Watch the media. Look at the magazines and the models in them. Go to college and watch who they tend to approach and prefer on average. I assume you've done this to some extent already, so you've probably already seen it. The majority of black american men favor thickness as a primary factor-this trend is blatantly obvious, which is why women who really don't have the type of firm "curvaceous defnition" you're citing and are clearly overweight get the attention they do.
Quote:Quote:
Lastly, I could make assumptions and load my responses with them just like you did.
For example I could say that you are encouraging bulimic behavior which ultimately leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. I could also give you some bullshit like, because you prefer women who have a particular BMI, incentive drives behavior for them to become bulimic, because that is the fastest way to loose weight after all. I then go on to say that because bulimic behavior was incentivized by your preference for a thinner woman with a smaller hip and glute areas, these women are more likely to have pancreatic and extreme dental problems as those are some of the long term effects of bulimia that stemmed from your preference. That would be a bunch of bullshit, but of course I'd load it with assumptions such as, most women that want to be skinnier are bulimic.
False dichotimies, strawmen, etc...I don't even have time to outline all that is wrong with this analogy. To try and keep it simple:
1. I'm coming from the position that represents the norm. The type of body-type I claim to encourage is among the most common. The vast majority of women do not have especially wide hips or great posterior depth and, by your own admission, the blonde model posted earlier is typical enough to "see in the supermarket".
Your analogy would work if I were citing women with below average bmi's and/or visible emaciation, but such is not the case. It makes little sense to imply that someone who is promoting the physical norm is incentivizing an extreme disorder.
2. I have substantiation rooted in female physiology. You wouldn't have such a case against me in your analogy.
I'll leave it at that.
Quote:Quote:
Antoine, all respect to you, I have nothing against you.
Then get my name right.
Quote:Quote:
Let's just stop putting everything it a statistical, empirical based type of box.
...or let's not? I don't see any reason to do so.