Fat. The word you’re looking for is fat. Most “curvy” women have an hourglass figure, which typically requires for people to have a normal body fat percentage. These women, although fat, are exceptions to the rule.
Fat women are not curvy as a rule. Curvy is separate from fat. Fat people are fat. They carry fat on the bodies. The only way to truly see if they have curves the majority of the time is to get them to lose their fat.
Oh wow, thanks! I didn't see this until recently. Very nice work, thank you so much! I can kind of see why you were cagey about it.
I suspect you're leaving me to take the bait and say all the un-PC stuff, but I got a lousy 28 subscribers so...
(Warning: long comment incoming)
To recap, we have:
Factor 1: Size
Factor 2: Smarts (the two rightward ends are 'educated' and 'brilliant')
Factor 3: Sexy ('desire to attract', really, negative end 'girl next door')
Factor 4: Seasoned (I prefer this to 'MILF factor', negative end 'young'). There's also a significant masculine edge to this one--'broad shoulders', 'short hair', 'T-shirt & jeans', 'extremely tall', and even 'dominant'.
Factor 5: SAHM ('tradwife', negative end 'temptress')
(The first 2 came out starting with S and I couldn't resist.)
(Of course these are the male fantasies of women rather than the actual women! It would be interesting to see the female fantasies of men, but you're going to have a much harder time getting the data.)
Now from your descriptions (and the correlations in the text) it seems like the 'conservative' end of factor 2 is negative and the 'conservative' end of factor 5 is positive, but you've got that axis listed as 'factor 2-factor 5'. I'm going to guess this is a typo, so:
5-2: Conservative (good wife)
2-5: Liberal (good date)
5+2: General desirability factor (correlates well with popularity)
-2-5: General undesirability factor
OK, now for the new ones.
1 vs (5-2): The cross-shaped distribution suggests these are roughly independent, with few traits loading heavily on both...except for (5-2)-1, small and conservative. Seems to be the 'conventionally attractive' archetype--'narrow hips', small behind, delicate features, small hands, fair skin, shy. I suspect if you did one of these dendrograms looking for higher-order correlations (5-2) and -1 would fall out together as a single factor.
1 vs 3: 1+3 seems to be the sort of 'BBW' dimension, whereas with 3-1 you get the 'small and shy' archetype above. The negative end of 1 doesn't seem to have a lot of traits.
(5-2) vs 3: Heavily loaded toward the upper end. The upper ends on 3 give you two different sexy archetypes, which we've seen in lots of films:
(5-2)+3: 'Conservative sexy'--high heels, not too bright (hey, it's in the data), red lipstick, nail polish, jewelry, cheerleaders. The 'nice girl' we see in mid-20th century movies.
3-(5-2): 'Liberal sexy'--life of the party, dangerous, artistic, adventurous, extremely amorous. The 'cool girl' we see in late 20th century movies.
The bottom end has fewer traits but we do see sort of archetypes emerge:
-(5-2)-3: 'Liberal girl next door'--educated, witty, brilliant, humorous, short hair, broad shoulders. ('Glasses' is over in the 'conservative sexy' quadrant before it sounds like I'm describing my exes...uh, the nerd fantasy.)
(5-2)-3: 'Conservative girl next door'--shy, kind, comfortably overweight, sympathetic, short.
(5-2) vs 4: As you said we have a correlation (the graph is clearly diagonal) with liberals preferring 'seasoned' (-(5-2)+4: highest loadings for joint factor are broad shoulders, dominant, short hair, older women, extremely tall--I'm getting a real dominatrix vibe here) and conservatives preferring 'young' (highest loadings for joint factor (5-2)-4 are submissive, fertile, young...I'm going to stop before this triggers some AI filter).
But there is a sort of off-diagonal 'conservative seasoned' at (5-2) + 4: not so bright, uneducated, simple spoken, pony tails, shy, and, oddly enough, 'glasses', which seem to have lost their intellectual associations. Simple stereotypical tradwife I guess?
3 vs 4: again, most attributes on the +3 'Barbie' or 'Sexy' end.
3 + 4: High heels, long legs, sexy, older women, dangerous, red lipstick. Sounds like a midlife crisis fantasy.
4 - 3: Broad shoulders, short hair, t-shirt and jeans, comfortably overweight, heavyset, humorous. Notably most of these are blue, implying lower popularity, so this isn't a particularly popular archetype. (Ironically I like it).
-4-3: This one's almost empty except for 'sympathetic'.
I'm probably a -(5-2)-3+4. Probably more +2 than -5 to be honest.
Keep in mind these are fantasies rather than reality...it'd be nice to see the female fantasies of men. I don't know if you have the sample size for that though. (I have some hypotheses about how it would shake out.)
Ironically this probably leaves conservatives coming off worse in some ways, what with 'uneducated', 'not so bright', and variations of 'young' being reliably in the conservative end. You wonder if the whole 'groomer' thing is a bit of projection, just like those anti-gay crusaders who get outed as gay. To be an equal-opportunity offender, a lot of liberal guys seem to have self-destructive impulses ('dangerous', 'unfaithful')...so perhaps the conservative jokes about cucks have some truth to them too.
I thought you might enjoy doing that - that's the fun of factor analysis.
I agree that the first of the new graphs isn't very interesting, and the second is only passingly interesting to note the way bands of traits show up for high, middle, and lowish on factor 1.
The third graph, Barbe vs Conservatism, is one I found interesting. I agree with your reading, and think it's interesting that the upper right area is so strongly loaded on physical traits; this seems like the damsel in distress, the princess to be won, the bland feminine archetype without too much personality. At the opposite side, the liberal girl next door is all personality. Meanwhile the upper left is a whirlwind romance, in contrast to the safe and unthreatening shy conservative girl next door.
But the fourth graph was the one I think has the most obvious message. In the original post I plotted factor 4 against factor 1 (slim vs BBW), but plotting factor 4 against conservatism seems even more telling: there's an attraction to clearly unfeminine traits at the upper left quadrant, and conservative hebephilia becomes pronounced in the lower right quadrant. Left to their own devices, leftists high in factor 4 would likely reduce sexual differences in personality and physique, while the preferences of conservatives low in factor 4 are probably the reason why human females look and act so neotenous, after thousands of generations of evolutionary time.
Yeah. Nice job! These do kind of map onto archetypes, but is that the archetypes falling out of the data, or us forcing the data into existing archetypes? It's hard to tell with something so subjective!
So tell me, how many responses about men do you have, and can you do *anything* with them? Some statistical techniques are presumably more robust to small data sizes than others; this is out of my field, though.
I now have 200 women, which is enough for a principal components analysis as I used on the romantic preference data we're discissing here, although I ought to trim the items with low loadings (the more items, and the more factors you extract, the higher n you need). I've actually just started and am currently in the trimming process.
Although the specific reading one gives does have an element of creativity to it, some factors are really fairly obvious, and the main question is seldom "are we reading them correctly" as much as "will these factors replicate?" I carried out an earlier study with only n ~ 100 men and n ~ 60 women, and while those results did echo into what I'm looking at now, it was always clear that with such a small sample the results would be in question.
Well, if we have a Big Five of the Male Gaze maybe we can at least get a Big Three for the Female Gaze. (I am assuming you don't have enough gay/bi men to say anything.) Good luck!
Search online, and find at the American Heritage Dictionary 5th Edition "Something, such as a material object or nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification." Or wikipedia "Sexual arousal a person receives from an object or situation." Closely related are paraphilias, "sexual interests in objects, situations, or individuals that are atypical."
That's why I'm saying attraction to curvy women, or slender women, isn't really a fetish; they aren't atypical and don't involve nonsexual objects or situations. In fact "unusually curvaceous," "very large breasts," "bulging booty" and "slender" were all quite common, liked by more than half of my sample. On the other hand I wrote to Ben Shudov-Gonne that "ignoring slenderness entirely, diving into feederism, and speculating breathlessly about whether an obese model is reaching a newer, higher weight probably is: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBBW_400lb_plus/comments/17yysko/boberry_taking_up_two_seats/ " because we're now looking at unusual people getting aroused by food, eating, or a number on a scale.
This is very interesting information, but I can't seem to get past the term "curvy" being used to mean a spectrum that can from an "hourglass figure" to "plus sized model." Before "curvy" was claimed as a euphemism by the fat acceptance movement, where every lump and fold is counted as a curve, the word referred to a lady with shapely bust and hips. Excess body fat distorts those feminine curves. In my view an obese woman is the antithesis of curvy.
For the record, all body types are equally good ✌️☮️🕊️
The point I'd like to make is that, if we are categorizing male desire, I hesitate at putting "curvy" in the same category as "BBW" because I personally am attracted to the former, and not the latter, so how can they be the same? That sounds adolescent but I guess it comes with the territory.
And while to a certain extent you are correct that curves are made of fat, there are other factors at play. Primarily, waist to hip ratio. Also body fat percentage. (Can I pause to say I don't often analyze female bodies this way, but I am certainly able to).
I think it was the Wu Tang who said, there's a difference between a fat ass, and an ass that's fat. Weight in no way provides sufficient information. Curviness is about shape, it's about proportion, it's an elegance of line, it's a woman having more than her fair share of Womanly Attributes. Only to a point are these attributes enhanced by body fat
> if we are categorizing male desire, I hesitate at putting "curvy" in the same category as "BBW" because I personally am attracted to the former, and not the latter, so how can they be the same?
Most people attracted to women are somewhere around the middle of factor 1, where they balance both drives for A) thinness, prettiness, and athleticism with B) drives towards curviness. This combination of curviness and slenderness picks out fertile women. If you only have one of the two drives, then you're going to be atttracted to females who aren't menstruating - they're either too young or undernourished, or else they're too fat.
In other words, of course, *absolutely,* "BBW" and "curvy" are not the same, despite a clear overlap. What makes curvy women more attractive than BBWs to most people is not that BBWs lack curves, but that they lack the slenderness that shows they are youthful, athletic, and healthy. Attraction to curvy women isn't a fetish, any more than attraction to slender women is a fetish. On the other hand, ignoring slenderness entirely, diving into feederism, and speculating breathlessly about whether an obese model is reaching a newer, higher weight probably is: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBBW_400lb_plus/comments/17yysko/boberry_taking_up_two_seats/
Not all curvaceous women are fat; some fat women are not curvaceous, particularly as their belly expands and they lose the hourglass. However, Sophia Rose (#5) is pretty clearly obese, and just as clearly has a curvaceous figure, with a large bust and hips for her waist. Meanwhile Twiggy is, well, twiggy. My guess is that you are thinking "curvy = good, fat = bad" but biologically speaking it's pretty obvious that these things are linked. Curves are made of fat.
In the 80s and 90s, society had a very strong bias against overweight people, especially overweight women. Conservatives tend to be fatter overall so their beauty standard for both men and women is probably heavier than blue state residents where people are thinner on average.
There seems to be a fair bit of space between #2 and #3 on the table of pictures.
My thoughts on this have always been 'if she has a shape, that is adequate. Pears and blobs are not acceptable. Lacking secondary sexual characteristics - some form of hourglass shape, basically, is also not acceptable'. I think a lot of people are in the same place I am.
#1, #5, #6 are unacceptable. #2 and #4 are marginal. Pretty face can make up the difference in the edge cases.
No, no - I'm a *pie* filled with chopped up *bits* of apple. As you're a regular human I wouldn't expect you to follow these kinds of technical details, though. I can only say that I envy you your bipedalism and ability to stay fresh outside of the refrigerator!
When you write "Conservative" are you lumping social conservatives & libertarians?
If not, I'd love to see their respective differences.
My prior is that social conservatives prefer curvy women and libertarians prefer thinner women which is perceived as more athletic & healthier, indicating choosing to live a "healthier" lifestyle.
No lumping in that sense - libertarianism is orthogonal to conservatism. However, I didn't find conservatism correlating with the thin vs curvy factor 1 of romantic preferences (and Libertarianism didn't correlate meaningfully with anything). The correlations are written up in the previous post https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/what-do-we-desire-in-a-woman
There's a certain feedback loop, though. If you're gay you find yourself getting pushed strongly left by the anti-gay sentiments on the right. (In subtler ways, there may be so many Jewish libertarians because the more authoritarian parts of the right are often antisemitic.) If you're bi you might very well wind up picking gay or straight depending on your politics--a left-leaning bi person might embrace a queer identity, whereas a right-leaning one might date the opposite sex and keep their mouth shut.
But does that go on within heterosexuality? Well, we've seen conservative and liberal men prefer different things in women. Women are going to shape themselves to those preferences (especially on the right where that's part of the ideology) and also pick an ideology that fits the preference they feel most comfortable catering to. I don't think there's really a chicken-or-egg question; people drift toward groups they feel comfortable with or can fit into and will often adopt their political views to fit in. There isn't much the average person can do about tax policy or Palestine anyway, so you might as well take the same opinion as your friends.
The same's true for men, of course, but we don't have those graphs.
Fat. The word you’re looking for is fat. Most “curvy” women have an hourglass figure, which typically requires for people to have a normal body fat percentage. These women, although fat, are exceptions to the rule.
Fat women are not curvy as a rule. Curvy is separate from fat. Fat people are fat. They carry fat on the bodies. The only way to truly see if they have curves the majority of the time is to get them to lose their fat.
Oh wow, thanks! I didn't see this until recently. Very nice work, thank you so much! I can kind of see why you were cagey about it.
I suspect you're leaving me to take the bait and say all the un-PC stuff, but I got a lousy 28 subscribers so...
(Warning: long comment incoming)
To recap, we have:
Factor 1: Size
Factor 2: Smarts (the two rightward ends are 'educated' and 'brilliant')
Factor 3: Sexy ('desire to attract', really, negative end 'girl next door')
Factor 4: Seasoned (I prefer this to 'MILF factor', negative end 'young'). There's also a significant masculine edge to this one--'broad shoulders', 'short hair', 'T-shirt & jeans', 'extremely tall', and even 'dominant'.
Factor 5: SAHM ('tradwife', negative end 'temptress')
(The first 2 came out starting with S and I couldn't resist.)
And from your quadrants, the archetypes emerge:
1+4: Mature 1-4: Childbearing -1-4: Youth 4-1: Athleticism
(Of course these are the male fantasies of women rather than the actual women! It would be interesting to see the female fantasies of men, but you're going to have a much harder time getting the data.)
Now from your descriptions (and the correlations in the text) it seems like the 'conservative' end of factor 2 is negative and the 'conservative' end of factor 5 is positive, but you've got that axis listed as 'factor 2-factor 5'. I'm going to guess this is a typo, so:
5-2: Conservative (good wife)
2-5: Liberal (good date)
5+2: General desirability factor (correlates well with popularity)
-2-5: General undesirability factor
OK, now for the new ones.
1 vs (5-2): The cross-shaped distribution suggests these are roughly independent, with few traits loading heavily on both...except for (5-2)-1, small and conservative. Seems to be the 'conventionally attractive' archetype--'narrow hips', small behind, delicate features, small hands, fair skin, shy. I suspect if you did one of these dendrograms looking for higher-order correlations (5-2) and -1 would fall out together as a single factor.
1 vs 3: 1+3 seems to be the sort of 'BBW' dimension, whereas with 3-1 you get the 'small and shy' archetype above. The negative end of 1 doesn't seem to have a lot of traits.
(5-2) vs 3: Heavily loaded toward the upper end. The upper ends on 3 give you two different sexy archetypes, which we've seen in lots of films:
(5-2)+3: 'Conservative sexy'--high heels, not too bright (hey, it's in the data), red lipstick, nail polish, jewelry, cheerleaders. The 'nice girl' we see in mid-20th century movies.
3-(5-2): 'Liberal sexy'--life of the party, dangerous, artistic, adventurous, extremely amorous. The 'cool girl' we see in late 20th century movies.
The bottom end has fewer traits but we do see sort of archetypes emerge:
-(5-2)-3: 'Liberal girl next door'--educated, witty, brilliant, humorous, short hair, broad shoulders. ('Glasses' is over in the 'conservative sexy' quadrant before it sounds like I'm describing my exes...uh, the nerd fantasy.)
(5-2)-3: 'Conservative girl next door'--shy, kind, comfortably overweight, sympathetic, short.
(5-2) vs 4: As you said we have a correlation (the graph is clearly diagonal) with liberals preferring 'seasoned' (-(5-2)+4: highest loadings for joint factor are broad shoulders, dominant, short hair, older women, extremely tall--I'm getting a real dominatrix vibe here) and conservatives preferring 'young' (highest loadings for joint factor (5-2)-4 are submissive, fertile, young...I'm going to stop before this triggers some AI filter).
But there is a sort of off-diagonal 'conservative seasoned' at (5-2) + 4: not so bright, uneducated, simple spoken, pony tails, shy, and, oddly enough, 'glasses', which seem to have lost their intellectual associations. Simple stereotypical tradwife I guess?
3 vs 4: again, most attributes on the +3 'Barbie' or 'Sexy' end.
3 + 4: High heels, long legs, sexy, older women, dangerous, red lipstick. Sounds like a midlife crisis fantasy.
3 - 4: Fertile, submissive, shaved legs, jewelry, young. Stereotypical antifeminist? I really don't know.
4 - 3: Broad shoulders, short hair, t-shirt and jeans, comfortably overweight, heavyset, humorous. Notably most of these are blue, implying lower popularity, so this isn't a particularly popular archetype. (Ironically I like it).
-4-3: This one's almost empty except for 'sympathetic'.
I'm probably a -(5-2)-3+4. Probably more +2 than -5 to be honest.
Keep in mind these are fantasies rather than reality...it'd be nice to see the female fantasies of men. I don't know if you have the sample size for that though. (I have some hypotheses about how it would shake out.)
Ironically this probably leaves conservatives coming off worse in some ways, what with 'uneducated', 'not so bright', and variations of 'young' being reliably in the conservative end. You wonder if the whole 'groomer' thing is a bit of projection, just like those anti-gay crusaders who get outed as gay. To be an equal-opportunity offender, a lot of liberal guys seem to have self-destructive impulses ('dangerous', 'unfaithful')...so perhaps the conservative jokes about cucks have some truth to them too.
I thought you might enjoy doing that - that's the fun of factor analysis.
I agree that the first of the new graphs isn't very interesting, and the second is only passingly interesting to note the way bands of traits show up for high, middle, and lowish on factor 1.
The third graph, Barbe vs Conservatism, is one I found interesting. I agree with your reading, and think it's interesting that the upper right area is so strongly loaded on physical traits; this seems like the damsel in distress, the princess to be won, the bland feminine archetype without too much personality. At the opposite side, the liberal girl next door is all personality. Meanwhile the upper left is a whirlwind romance, in contrast to the safe and unthreatening shy conservative girl next door.
But the fourth graph was the one I think has the most obvious message. In the original post I plotted factor 4 against factor 1 (slim vs BBW), but plotting factor 4 against conservatism seems even more telling: there's an attraction to clearly unfeminine traits at the upper left quadrant, and conservative hebephilia becomes pronounced in the lower right quadrant. Left to their own devices, leftists high in factor 4 would likely reduce sexual differences in personality and physique, while the preferences of conservatives low in factor 4 are probably the reason why human females look and act so neotenous, after thousands of generations of evolutionary time.
Yeah. Nice job! These do kind of map onto archetypes, but is that the archetypes falling out of the data, or us forcing the data into existing archetypes? It's hard to tell with something so subjective!
So tell me, how many responses about men do you have, and can you do *anything* with them? Some statistical techniques are presumably more robust to small data sizes than others; this is out of my field, though.
I now have 200 women, which is enough for a principal components analysis as I used on the romantic preference data we're discissing here, although I ought to trim the items with low loadings (the more items, and the more factors you extract, the higher n you need). I've actually just started and am currently in the trimming process.
Although the specific reading one gives does have an element of creativity to it, some factors are really fairly obvious, and the main question is seldom "are we reading them correctly" as much as "will these factors replicate?" I carried out an earlier study with only n ~ 100 men and n ~ 60 women, and while those results did echo into what I'm looking at now, it was always clear that with such a small sample the results would be in question.
Well, if we have a Big Five of the Male Gaze maybe we can at least get a Big Three for the Female Gaze. (I am assuming you don't have enough gay/bi men to say anything.) Good luck!
Perhaps you could provide a philosophical analysis of the concept of a fetish, since that's the part I'm now confused about.
Search online, and find at the American Heritage Dictionary 5th Edition "Something, such as a material object or nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification." Or wikipedia "Sexual arousal a person receives from an object or situation." Closely related are paraphilias, "sexual interests in objects, situations, or individuals that are atypical."
That's why I'm saying attraction to curvy women, or slender women, isn't really a fetish; they aren't atypical and don't involve nonsexual objects or situations. In fact "unusually curvaceous," "very large breasts," "bulging booty" and "slender" were all quite common, liked by more than half of my sample. On the other hand I wrote to Ben Shudov-Gonne that "ignoring slenderness entirely, diving into feederism, and speculating breathlessly about whether an obese model is reaching a newer, higher weight probably is: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBBW_400lb_plus/comments/17yysko/boberry_taking_up_two_seats/ " because we're now looking at unusual people getting aroused by food, eating, or a number on a scale.
This is very interesting information, but I can't seem to get past the term "curvy" being used to mean a spectrum that can from an "hourglass figure" to "plus sized model." Before "curvy" was claimed as a euphemism by the fat acceptance movement, where every lump and fold is counted as a curve, the word referred to a lady with shapely bust and hips. Excess body fat distorts those feminine curves. In my view an obese woman is the antithesis of curvy.
For the record, all body types are equally good ✌️☮️🕊️
The point I'd like to make is that, if we are categorizing male desire, I hesitate at putting "curvy" in the same category as "BBW" because I personally am attracted to the former, and not the latter, so how can they be the same? That sounds adolescent but I guess it comes with the territory.
And while to a certain extent you are correct that curves are made of fat, there are other factors at play. Primarily, waist to hip ratio. Also body fat percentage. (Can I pause to say I don't often analyze female bodies this way, but I am certainly able to).
I think it was the Wu Tang who said, there's a difference between a fat ass, and an ass that's fat. Weight in no way provides sufficient information. Curviness is about shape, it's about proportion, it's an elegance of line, it's a woman having more than her fair share of Womanly Attributes. Only to a point are these attributes enhanced by body fat
> if we are categorizing male desire, I hesitate at putting "curvy" in the same category as "BBW" because I personally am attracted to the former, and not the latter, so how can they be the same?
Most people attracted to women are somewhere around the middle of factor 1, where they balance both drives for A) thinness, prettiness, and athleticism with B) drives towards curviness. This combination of curviness and slenderness picks out fertile women. If you only have one of the two drives, then you're going to be atttracted to females who aren't menstruating - they're either too young or undernourished, or else they're too fat.
In other words, of course, *absolutely,* "BBW" and "curvy" are not the same, despite a clear overlap. What makes curvy women more attractive than BBWs to most people is not that BBWs lack curves, but that they lack the slenderness that shows they are youthful, athletic, and healthy. Attraction to curvy women isn't a fetish, any more than attraction to slender women is a fetish. On the other hand, ignoring slenderness entirely, diving into feederism, and speculating breathlessly about whether an obese model is reaching a newer, higher weight probably is: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBBW_400lb_plus/comments/17yysko/boberry_taking_up_two_seats/
That makes a lot of sense, thank you
Not all curvaceous women are fat; some fat women are not curvaceous, particularly as their belly expands and they lose the hourglass. However, Sophia Rose (#5) is pretty clearly obese, and just as clearly has a curvaceous figure, with a large bust and hips for her waist. Meanwhile Twiggy is, well, twiggy. My guess is that you are thinking "curvy = good, fat = bad" but biologically speaking it's pretty obvious that these things are linked. Curves are made of fat.
guys will call a girl “curvy” and she’s 208 pounds
True, and thank you for providing an example of what the other half of the commenter distribution looks like for when Anonymous Dude reads this post.
In the 80s and 90s, society had a very strong bias against overweight people, especially overweight women. Conservatives tend to be fatter overall so their beauty standard for both men and women is probably heavier than blue state residents where people are thinner on average.
Except that conservatism doesn't correlate with factor 1.
There seems to be a fair bit of space between #2 and #3 on the table of pictures.
My thoughts on this have always been 'if she has a shape, that is adequate. Pears and blobs are not acceptable. Lacking secondary sexual characteristics - some form of hourglass shape, basically, is also not acceptable'. I think a lot of people are in the same place I am.
#1, #5, #6 are unacceptable. #2 and #4 are marginal. Pretty face can make up the difference in the edge cases.
YOU LIKE FAT BITCHES AND ARE COPING
NO I DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE
I DONT HAVE TO
I
CAN
READ
YOUR MIND NIGGA
I SEE YOU JIZZING TO LIZZO FOOL YA FOOL
THIS ARTICLE IS COPE AND YOU ARE FAT + you like FAT BITCHES
It's lovely to know that even the simplest among us can appreciate Things to Read.
To be fair you are an apple, though.
No, no - I'm a *pie* filled with chopped up *bits* of apple. As you're a regular human I wouldn't expect you to follow these kinds of technical details, though. I can only say that I envy you your bipedalism and ability to stay fresh outside of the refrigerator!
AYO IM REAL COMPLICATED NIGGA
I GOT A DAMN LARGE CRANIUM
IM A EINSTEIN ASSSSSS NIGGA
YOU LOVE FAT BITCHES DONT YA
YES
YOU
DOOOO
When you write "Conservative" are you lumping social conservatives & libertarians?
If not, I'd love to see their respective differences.
My prior is that social conservatives prefer curvy women and libertarians prefer thinner women which is perceived as more athletic & healthier, indicating choosing to live a "healthier" lifestyle.
No lumping in that sense - libertarianism is orthogonal to conservatism. However, I didn't find conservatism correlating with the thin vs curvy factor 1 of romantic preferences (and Libertarianism didn't correlate meaningfully with anything). The correlations are written up in the previous post https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/what-do-we-desire-in-a-woman
I suspect that many professed libertarians & social conservatives are wearing their political identities as skinsuits.
Similar to how Influencers reinvent themselves as Tradwives, Catholics, or Neoreactionaries.
In which case their sexual preferences might be more fundamental than their political beliefs.
There's a certain feedback loop, though. If you're gay you find yourself getting pushed strongly left by the anti-gay sentiments on the right. (In subtler ways, there may be so many Jewish libertarians because the more authoritarian parts of the right are often antisemitic.) If you're bi you might very well wind up picking gay or straight depending on your politics--a left-leaning bi person might embrace a queer identity, whereas a right-leaning one might date the opposite sex and keep their mouth shut.
But does that go on within heterosexuality? Well, we've seen conservative and liberal men prefer different things in women. Women are going to shape themselves to those preferences (especially on the right where that's part of the ideology) and also pick an ideology that fits the preference they feel most comfortable catering to. I don't think there's really a chicken-or-egg question; people drift toward groups they feel comfortable with or can fit into and will often adopt their political views to fit in. There isn't much the average person can do about tax policy or Palestine anyway, so you might as well take the same opinion as your friends.
The same's true for men, of course, but we don't have those graphs.