'The ABC's of Size Bias': Someone Please Put a Bullet in This Fat Fucking Wasteland!

[Nile577]

Couer: So, love is assigned according to its measure!
Its scope defined by an exacting science, its sighs
By geometric place. Euclid does shape
Erotic flavour, for passion is ruled fine by
All that it can encompass and those trifles of mind
And spirit are ashen-choked with his humble pie!
The human dimensions bring forth place
And men are thus into enslavement born
Or given liberty at nature’s mandate. The foul
Formed covenant of scribe and scribble stands
But weak against its fleshy confinement and
Soars sightless to the winds to be dashed upon
A corporeal theme. I howled my love in font and speech;
Now dammed as waxen feathers waveborne to the world!
Too high my hope cast its target and friendly sun now
Blisters broken heart with its concordance of silence.
My rude aspect doth knock upon her emerald
Doors and, bursting forth such, profanes her fairness
With a cumbersome gait at odds with once fair affection.
Nor soothed by eloquence or romantic retort,
Be this beastly plainness but clothed such
In brutish hue that it does quell the merry tongue
To bashful sloth where it quakes behind teeth;
The guilty engine of its own loving inculcation!
Oh cited sight whom across your gaze love is stuck
Lance-like to the heart! I curse the light
Itself that carries envoy of my rude report
To staunch the fires which blazoned once abreast!
Light, you mercurial realist; smiter of hopes upon a form,
How support you two such countenances
So unalike in dignity yet so closely beamward-knit?
It is a fitful skein of needles to impale a happy chance,
For all the measures of love and men are undone
By a prick of doubt that wakes Mab’s fair dream,
And outcasts nomadic man to wander lonely
Under the mocking stars of love’s wooden rood.
What once were guiding angels, were but sirens on the way;
Solitude now beckons sure as night-time follows day.


(Yeth, it would have been better indeed to stick to gnawing barnacles)

 

[infoterror]

Eating is Being, for some people.

Yet ill they become.

Who can blame the tiger?

 

[OldScratch]

I agree that appearance is rather important, except that if someone I really love should be disfigured in an accident I certainly wouldn't stop loving them as a result. Would any of you? And people don't normally go off their partner as they age, since they remember them fondly how they used to be. But if the other person has "let themself go" in an inexcusable way that can be different.

As Speed already noted, of course I would not stop loving a person in such a situation - but this only underscores the point I was trying to make. Purely physical attraction and emotional(love)or more meaningful attraction are indeed two different animals to me - not mutually exclusive of course - though they can be.
I find the beauty of women to be a uniquely satisfying thing, or reward of you will, unto itself. I need have no further knowledge of these wonderful creatures to appreciate their aesthetic qualities on their own merits - like a spectacular sunrise, or work of art, etc. I'm not being facetious either - for as long as I can remember I have instinctively fancied the magnetic beauty of women, long before I had a even the slightest clue just why that might be!

 

[Norsemaiden]

As Speed already noted, of course I would not stop loving a person in such a situation - but this only underscores the point I was trying to make. Purely physical attraction and emotional(love)or more meaningful attraction are indeed two different animals to me - not mutually exclusive of course - though they can be.
I find the beauty of women to be a uniquely satisfying thing, or reward of you will, unto itself. I need have no further knowledge of these wonderful creatures to appreciate their aesthetic qualities on their own merits - like a spectacular sunrise, or work of art, etc. I'm not being facetious either - for as long as I can remember I have instinctively fancied the magnetic beauty of women, long before I had a even the slightest clue just why that might be!

That is how I imagine that a truly heterosexual man would think. Actually, its an odd thing. Speaking as a heterosexual woman (to the best of my knowledge!) I don't think I quite appreciate male beauty in so strong a way - although I do appreciate it more than female beauty, which I can appreciate aesthetically too. It is probably the case that men more often have this stronger appreciation of physical beauty because they have not evolved to require anything beyond the physical from another person.

Women have to choose an attractive mate who has other qualities, such as (normally) being at least as intelligent as they are; having the strength to make the female feel they offer protection; status (more important than looks to some and hardly important at all to those of us who spit upon the criteria to acheive status in modern society), reliability, (the makings of a good father) and other such consideratons. So we are evolved to be less overwhelmed by looks alone.

It makes sense from a genetic point of view, I expect you'll agree.

 

[speed]

That is how I imagine that a truly heterosexual man would think. Actually, its an odd thing. Speaking as a heterosexual woman (to the best of my knowledge!) I don't think I quite appreciate male beauty in so strong a way - although I do appreciate it more than female beauty, which I can appreciate aesthetically too. It is probably the case that men more often have this stronger appreciation of physical beauty because they have not evolved to require anything beyond the physical from another person.

Women have to choose an attractive mate who has other qualities, such as (normally) being at least as intelligent as they are; having the strength to make the female feel they offer protection; status (more important than looks to some and hardly important at all to those of us who spit upon the criteria to acheive status in modern society), reliability, (the makings of a good father) and other such consideratons. So we are evolved to be less overwhelmed by looks alone.

It makes sense from a genetic point of view, I expect you'll agree.

Yes, I totally agree. Woman do look for these other factors (but i would argue less so in todays feminized society, where for professional women look more for intelligence and status than these other traits you listed--these are the big things in the studies Ive read, and through observation, for professional women).

As for us men, we are terribly aesthetically based when it comes to desiring a woman to be our mate. Even if it brings our ruin.

 

[Nile577]

i would argue less so in todays feminized society.

I know a crazy punk girl reading Classics at Oxford who once said:'I have a message for women who hate feminism: drop out of college, drop out of school, quit your job, don't vote, drop out of politics, cease all intellectual discourse, put that skirt on, cover up and get back behind the sink.'

 

[OldScratch]

I know a crazy punk girl reading Classics at Oxford who once said:'I have a message for women who hate feminism: drop out of college, drop out of school, quit your job, don't vote, drop out of politics, cease all intellectual discourse, put that skirt on, cover up and get back behind the sink.'

I would think this would resonate more in say, 1975 than today, however. It is the post-feminist brand of what is called "feminism" that concerns me. Moreover one cannot compare an Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony to a Gloria Steinem or Bella Abzug!!

 

[OldScratch]

It makes sense from a genetic point of view, I expect you'll agree.

I do agree completely. Nevertheless, Speed makes a good point about a new way of thinking apparently common in modern woman that will likely challenge what has been the evolutionary "norm" for some time. Still, I know and have met many women who think very much as Nile577 does, in terms of appearance being infinitely less important than a variety of other characteristics they find desirable - including women who are in no way looking to have children, etc.

 

[Nile577]

See, I don't really think it does make genetic sense. Crudely: if a 'smart' guy [or girl] impregnates a 'bimbo,' [or 'mimbo'] according to eugenic/genetic theory, won't the intelligence of his [or her] children be vitiated? (I don't really know if I agree with such theory, but nevertheless that is my understanding of it). [Later note: I read about it in Richard Dawkins' book where he says it would work but we shouldn't do it. I think other scientists are more correct where they point at that the critieria for such ideas 'working' are completely arbitrary.. Furthermore, apart from (although related to) agreeing or disagreeing whether it would work, what is deemed 'good and healthy' is shaped by disgusting and discriminatory ideology and has obviously and without saying led to the worst parts of human history!]

I can't see myself thinking: 'I don't love you because the angle of your cheek bones is two degrees past the optimum for aesthetic stimulation,' because I simply don't know how to think that way. It has been my experience that 'aesthetics' alone can carry a relationship for about two years, at which point a messy break-up ensues.

I will admit that I tend to make assumptions about people on the quality of their speech and articulation. I find myself very attracted to eloquent women, and disinclined to pursue friendships with ineloquent and unthoughtful women.

I do think ‘physical’ thinking is enforced by pop culture though. As a grad student of literature and continental philosophy I am very accustomed to working in gas stations. The radio plays popular music constantly in such places. There is one song I remember - I don't know if you are familiar with its magnificence in America - with lyrics along the lines of 'Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?' Maybe changing it to something like 'don't you wish your girlfriend enjoyed the metaphysical poetry of John Donne?' might be amusing.

Actually the sentiment would probably be the same, but the eroticism a little more 'high brow?'

Yes, of course I feel lust but I don't really let that play a big factor in determining whether I am attracted to someone. I prefer gentle relationship to hugely passionate ones. I think they are probably stronger too. Perhaps wild, lustful Romanticism is burned out of most people after a first infatuation and a mound of shit poetry?

 

[Justin S.]

Nah, it's because you're English.

 

[speed]

See, I don't really think it does make genetic sense. Crudely: if a 'smart' guy impregnates a 'bimbo,' according to eugenic/genetic theory, won't the intelligence of his children be vitiated? (I don't really know if I agree with such theory, but nevertheless that is my understanding of it).

I can't see myself thinking: 'I don't love you because the angle of your cheek bones is two degrees past the optimum for aesthetic stimulation,' because I simply don't know how to think that way. It has been my experience that 'aesthetics' alone can carry a relationship for about two years, at which point a messy break-up ensues.

I will admit that I tend to make assumptions about people on the quality of their speech and articulation. I find myself very attracted to eloquent women, and disinclined to pursue friendships with ineloquent and unthoughtful women.

I do think ‘physical’ thinking is enforced by pop culture though. As a grad student of literature and continental philosophy I am very accustomed to working in gas stations. The radio plays popular music constantly in such places. There is one song I remember - I don't know if you are familiar with its magnificence in America - with lyrics along the lines of 'Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?' Maybe changing it to something like 'don't you wish your girlfriend enjoyed the metaphysical poetry of John Donne?' might be amusing.

Actually the sentiment would probably be the same, but the eroticism a little more 'high brow?'

Yes, of course I feel lust but I don't really let that play a big factor in determining whether I am attracted to someone. I prefer gentle relationship to hugely passionate ones. I think they are probably stronger too. Perhaps wild, lustful Romanticism is burned out of most people after a first infatuation and a mound of shit poetry?

Haha. Very funny. Love is a fickle beast though. It can strike with anyone anywhere. I just am of the opinion that there are current cultural truths that somehow alter or reduce the impact of Cupid's arrows.

 

[Justin S.]

Despite his silliness, I agree with Infoterror's post from another thread that is applicable here: "Man is many things at once: biology, a quest, a meat hunk, part of the herd."

I quote because this thread flirts too heavily with popular dualisms regarding "love" and "the body" (see uses of "superficial" vs. "deep" and so on); it strikes me as decidedly "Platonic" (shit pun not intended) which is not a good thing in this case.

Additionally, I am an absolute tyrant when it comes to pointing out people's teleological smuggling in debates of "genetics".

Lastly, as the thread on gender displayed, we have not even remotely come to terms with the effects of acculturation in relation to the "natural".

 

[Norsemaiden]

I would say that women are the sex most inclined to select a mate for the quality of their MIND, even though it does matter somewhat for men when selecting a mate as well. The thing to remember is that males can potentially have offspring with many females and need be less particular than females are. But monogamy increases the need for men to find intellectually compatible mates. A promiscuous male will care nothing for the woman's mind.
Also females are worth more than men when it comes to biological criteria of worth. It is odd how some races denigrate women, such as the Chinese who refer to girls as "maggots in the rice". This makes sense only if wealth is valued in non-genetic terms. I was going to say "materialist" terms - but genetic concerns may also be describable as "materialist"!
Quick explanation: you have a tribe with many women and few men. You will have a lot of babies. You have a tribe with many men and few women (or women who will not have babies) and the result is that you die out. When numbers are important to you, females are a precious resource.
I consider my view pro female, but by modern standards it is not "feminist" since modern feminism is all about denigrating femininity and suggesting that masculine roles are preferable. That is totally insane when you think clearly about it! It is a poisonous message that a very ethnocentric group who hated other ethnicities would dearly like their enemies to believe. The same thing I have said about the Sermon on the Mount.
Cooincidence? Or are the same people spreading both brain bombs?

 

[Nile577]

modern feminism is all about denigrating femininity and suggesting that masculine roles are preferable.

I understand that is your view but I don't really agree. I'm more inclined to think that the modern metalhead's understanding of feminism is that it is "all about denigrating femininity and suggesting that masculine roles are preferable." Which feminist intellectuals are you familiar with? Did you know that Helene Cixous extols women to 'write themselves' and utterly cease to be defined by, or emulate, masculine identities? Have you ever read Mina Loy's 'Feminist Manifesto?' In it she states 'If you honestly desire to find your level without prejudice, be brave and deny that pathetic clap-trap war cry, "woman is the equal of man." I think 'feminism' is all too often vaguely understood and assumed to fall wholly under the egalitarian banner of some of its day-time-tv advocates.

 

[MURAI]

As Speed already noted, of course I would not stop loving a person in such a situation - but this only underscores the point I was trying to make. Purely physical attraction and emotional(love)or more meaningful attraction are indeed two different animals to me - not mutually exclusive of course - though they can be.
I find the beauty of women to be a uniquely satisfying thing, or reward of you will, unto itself. I need have no further knowledge of these wonderful creatures to appreciate their aesthetic qualities on their own merits - like a spectacular sunrise, or work of art, etc. I'm not being facetious either - for as long as I can remember I have instinctively fancied the magnetic beauty of women, long before I had a even the slightest clue just why that might be!

This thread is becoming trailed off. It was originally about obesity and not offending fat people to attraction to the opposite sex.

When it comes to women, I admit I treat them more favourably when I find them to be physically attractive. Most other men, probably do the same. Norsemaiden said women tend to favour men who seem strong and reliable (wealth and status) and looks is not as heavy as a factor of looks. Yes, that's true and even more likely so when they get older when its time for them to settle down with a man. By then, they realise looks aren't what makes the man. But another point she did not mention is that women seem to naturally look at men more favourably when they show any signs of romantic interest. Another point on romantic attraction. A highschool teacher of mine, once said that most couples are generally around the same attractiveness-level. Seems true, that's why you see ugly couples, normal looking couples, super-attractive couples etc..

 

[Norsemaiden]

I understand that is your view but I don't really agree. I'm more inclined to think that the modern metalhead's understanding of feminism is that it is "all about denigrating femininity and suggesting that masculine roles are preferable." Which feminist intellectuals are you familiar with? Did you know that Helene Cixous extols women to 'write themselves' and utterly cease to be defined by, or emulate, masculine identities? Have you ever read Mina Loy's 'Feminist Manifesto?' In it she states 'If you honestly desire to find your level without prejudice, be brave and deny that pathetic clap-trap war cry, "woman is the equal of man." I think 'feminism' is all too often vaguely understood and assumed to fall wholly under the egalitarian banner of some of its day-time-tv advocates.

Yes I know there are different feminist factions. Another one is those who view porn (correctly imo) as being harmful to women, while others view porn as being liberating to women.

But the overwhelming feminist ethos that is reflected in society is that of women being barren careerists who don't really need men at all and that men who show sexually based politeness (or "chivalrous") behaviour towards women are patronising, etc.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This thread is becoming trailed off. It was originally about obesity and not offending fat people to attraction to the opposite sex.

When it comes to women, I admit I treat them more favourably when I find them to be physically attractive. Most other men, probably do the same. Norsemaiden said women tend to favour men who seem strong and reliable (wealth and status) and looks is not as heavy as a factor of looks. Yes, that's true and even more likely so when they get older when its time for them to settle down with a man. By then, they realise looks aren't what makes the man. But another point she did not mention is that women seem to naturally look at men more favourably when they show any signs of romantic interest. Another point on romantic attraction. A highschool teacher of mine, once said that most couples are generally around the same attractiveness-level. Seems true, that's why you see ugly couples, normal looking couples, super-attractive couples etc..

You're right there. It wouldn't work out at all if ugly people would settle for nothing but the most gorgeous looking. People generally know their limitations. But sometimes I have seen an attractive man with a dumpy, very plain looking woman and wondered what he sees in her. Then usually there are some kids in tow - and it seems reasonable to suspect that her willingness to have his kids may have been the deciding factor.

 

[Nile577]

Yes I know there are different feminist factions. Another one is those who view porn (correctly imo) as being harmful to women, while others view porn as being liberating to women.

But the overwhelming feminist ethos that is reflected in society is that of women being barren careerists who don't really need men at all and that men who show sexually based politeness (or "chivalrous") behaviour towards women are patronising, etc.

Well I think the 'barren careerists' notion arises from the Greenwich Village intellectuals of the first half of the C20 and their recognition of the 'New Woman,' who placed her career ahead of her family. Rather humorously there was a counter-response in which several novelists wrote of dashing romantic heroes who would save these 'isolated women' and help them rediscover love.

I don't agree that that the 'New Woman' represents the 'overwhelming ethos' of feminism, and if by 'ethos that is reflected in society' you mean 'what the mainstream interprets feminism to be,' one could easily level the same criticism at metal music; the overwhelming ethos of which is hedonistic, employment averse, drug-taking and unintelligent (see Bill & Ted or Beavis and Butthead).

If there is an overwhelming ethos of feminism I think it is that women are allowed an intellectual identity aside from that of the passive dishwasher they were once forcibly ascribed. Morag Shiach writes excellently on these issues.

 

[Nile577]

It wouldn't work out at all if ugly people would settle for nothing but the most gorgeous looking. People generally know their limitations.

uke: Totally disagree that a 'gorgeous' person is 'superior' to an 'ugly' one. Goodness, this is interesting to me! Do people really stratify themselves based on how good looking they are? Maybe they do. Thankfully I myself am a hellishly ugly person, so I must have used :zombie: necromancy:zombie: or a hypnotic gaze to woo my ravishing wife-to-be, no? Perhaps I was one of the few heterosexual English men.

Justin - Btw, I agree with your criticisms. I find myself experiencing a terrible and frequent necessity to use inverted commas here, which usually heralds setting out upon dubious grounds!

 

[Justin S.]

Great responses on feminism Nile577!

I often get into these very same discussions when I say I lean "radical feminist" and people start wailing on their strawmen.

The forum needs a feminist thread.