September 1, 2014 Leave a comment
Although Vox Day is usually on point with what he writes about when he’s not writing about the ongoing drama in the leftist cronyism in modern Sci-fi circle, I felt I should examine this post in particular.
It’s no secret that I have always tended to prefer slender women. Not for me the over-lush curves of the Earth Matrons and their over-stuffed brassieres with fatty flesh spilling out from them on every side. Now, if the well-fed curvy girl turns your crank, that’s absolutely fine by me, but she tends to leave me, if not entirely cold, generally indifferent.
Vox has a preference for women who aren’t overweight. Who doesn’t?
The problem is he’s looked at this “study” that says women with wider hipbones tend to have more sex and one-night stands, and has confused wider hipbones for overweight/obese figures.
In nature, the most fertile and most reproductively fit are going to have the most suitors attracted to them. Most everyone with a functioning limbic and reptile brain is aimed at optimum survivability of the genes. And if a woman is sexually fit, it means everyone wants a piece of that. None of this is apologetics for promiscuity simply because it does not necessitate promiscuous behavior.
Hourglass-shaped women with child-bearing hipbones are pretty much at the reproductive apex in human female terms. They are literally big-boned as explained in the study itself.
Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources?Controlling for other correlates of cognitive ability, women with lower WHRs and their children have significantly higher cognitive test scores, and teenage mothers with lower WHRs and their children are protected from cognitive decrements associated with teen births. These findings support the idea that WHR reflects the availability of neurodevelopmental resources and thus offer a new explanation for men’s preference for low WHR.
Women with “Child bearing hips” (or at least narrow waists relative to wider hips) score higher on tests and have children who score higher on these tests as well. Good genes, good environment. In the above study, the child-bearing hips are not to be confused with adipose saddlebags which are usually obscured by a more rotund waistline. The low waist-hip ratio means the waist is narrow but the ass is “fat.”
A fat ass with a narrow waist signals health and fertility and better brain development for the offspring.
What matters is the size of the hips relative to the waist. That’s because fat stored around the buttocks and thighs is high in omega-3 acids, which promote brain growth, while fat stored around the middle is loaded with omega-6 acids, which make your pants too tight.
Women with “pear” or “hourglass” shapes have greater reserves of omega-3, which nourishes their own brains and is essential to fetal brain development in the third trimester of pregnancy.
The other thing about wider pelvic bones/birth canals is that they can support larger heads. With bigger brain mass comes higher intelligence. Smaller hips and smaller fat deposits can only support development of smaller brain masses, and if that brain is too big for the hips, either you’re dead or the child is dead. It all makes sense when you look at the bigger picture. If you’re choosing a mate you want to choose one that would give your children excellent traits.
Human intelligence developed because our female ancestors had wide hips, new research suggests.
Homo erectus, a primitive relative of modern humans, had wider hips than previously believed, scientists have discovered.
This means they could give birth to babies with large brains, which allowed intelligent human to evolve.
Because of all this, I wouldn’t go so far to say as women with these traits are sluts just because one magazine maligned them. Maybe the women with wider hipbones are subject to more sexual propositions than other women because of their visible reproductive fitness. Perhaps they are asked whether or not to become the slut more often than others, or maybe they feel they can afford it thanks to prophylactics.
Of course an ugly duckling without a feminine body is going to be less propositioned and therefore has less opportunities to be the slut. But far too often have I witnessed that women with “snake hips” tend to be the sluttier ones, at least when accompanied by masculine digit ratio, jawline, and shoulder width. Even this study hints this:
[...]Moreover, another line of evidence shows that more promiscuous women are rather sex-atypical.
Actual healthy curves are okay on a woman who can take care of herself and knows how to eat well. Not feminist “curves,” but actual feminine curves like the Venus Kallipygos with feminine body yet a narrow waist.
There is still no excuse for a rotund waist or being obese — it betrays a woman’s elevated stress hormone levels and her lack of reproductive fitness. And we all know that a fat waist and high-stress prenatal environment makes her kids fucked up.
I suspect this article Vox was writing about had the intent to demonize feminine women in the way a previous study was meant to demonize masculine “oppressive” “sexist” men for preferring feminine women with T&A:
Results showed that medium breasts were rated most frequent as attractive (32.7 %), followed by large (24.4 %) and very large (19.1 %) breasts. Further analyses showed that men’s preferences for larger female breasts were significantly associated with a greater tendency to be benevolently sexist, to objectify women, and to be hostile towards women.
Ultimately, it’s a matter of pragmatism. You can have your hourglassed Venus Callipyge whom everyone wants a piece of and keep her under tight reins, or a plain Jane woman with a body like Olive Oyl whom no one passes a second glance at and you do not have to worry about as much. (or maybe she worries because she can’t pop out babies left and right. who knows)
In the case of the latter, the words of the famous song by Jimmy Soul come to mind: “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.” Whether a woman is promiscuous or not or becomes promiscuous is also a function of her culture, her peer group and the kind of household she was raised in. We’re dealing with a no-consequence culture for sexuality whether baby’s got back or not.