site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3608 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 2, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Before you over think it, research suggests that women are far more diverse in their preferences in men than the obverse.

Men tend to be very consistent in their ratings of female attractiveness, with most men concurring in terms of what they like.

I believe the going hypothesis is something to with reducing intrasexual competition for mates for women, since they won't end up coveting each other's husbands all the time.

So you have women liking all sorts of niche and inane shit. Some of them like muscular dudes, some like dad bods, some of them are a fan of androgyny or twinks.

So you might have a small vocal minority gushing about silver foxes while the majority of women are merely meh in that regard.

Before you over think it, research suggests that women are far more diverse in their preferences in men than the obverse.

If I squint a bit I could see how this could be true in a vacuum, hence the concept of niche-maxxing for men on the red/purple/blackpill interwebs. However, in practice, female mate choice-copying leads to women wanting the same men, whether via OLD, social media, or meat-space social circle.

If I had to reconcile the two, I'd say that mate choice-copying works primarily when someone is already predisposed to like that kind of person to some degree.

So, sensitive theater kid gets a girlfriend and that bumps up his value the most for other women who have a degree of preference for theater kids.

research suggests that women are far more diverse in their preferences in men than the obverse.

????

This couldn't possibly align more poorly with all my experience.

There are men who are into cheerleaders, and homely nerds, and fit yoga/gym addicts, and obese landwhales, and MILFs and GILFs, and amputees, and big boobs and small boobs, and every race creed class and color... a quick perusal of any porn site will confirm this. Show me any woman on planet earth and I will find you a man who fetishizes exactly that type of woman.

Not to say that there isn't also a diversity in women's preferences. But suggesting that they exceed the diversity of men's preferences seems nonsensical on the face of it.

I linked the article, so you'll have to take it up with them haha

It doesn't seem so implausible to me, if I had to model it, it would look like women being more uncorrelated with each other, such that say, for any given man only 50% of women agree on his attractiveness. The other 50% have diverse interests.

On the other hand, perhaps 90% of men find the same cluster of women attractive, while the remainder are hog wild and will jerk it to anything that's not a platonic ideal (and maybe even that).

I don't think the study even bothered to test such an insane diversity in sexual preferences, but a few thousand people into midgets and amputees doesn't really disqualify the general idea.

I'm not particularly invested in this, but it at least doesn't seem glaringly incorrect to me!

Edit:

To clarify further, I envision women being into like 50% muscular classically handsome dudes, 30% twinks, 10% KPOP stars and so on. They don't splinter into millions of sub groups with vanishingly small fractions of the total.

On the other hand, 90% of men will fuck any woman who isn't morbidly obese (depending on how many beers they drink first), they might be guys who prefer ass over tits (or cultured thigh men like me), but they're not that picky at the end of the day. And then the rest are a fractal mess of everything else, shemales, midgets, ball busting and whatever nonsense can tingle the overactive horny receptors men are blessed with.

So you can with a straight face say that men are more consistent while simultaneously having far more varied tastes in the corners.

There’s a few different ways of looking at it.

We know that a certain X% of top males end up getting the majority of female sexual partners. So in actuality, women’s mate choices converge a good deal.

Physical attractiveness also matters less to women than it does to men. Social status is more relevant to women. Ask them about the axis they actually care about - “who’s more attractive, this rich CEO or this poor McDonald’s worker” - and their preferences will start converging very quickly.

Finally for what it’s worth, /r/bbw has 760k subscribers to /r/nsfw’s 4mil subscribers. Not an absurd difference.

While I broadly agree, I think it's an error to simply compare /r/bbw to a single subreddit.

There are at least dozens of large subs catering to the "vanilla" taste in female nudes, and a couple more ones for the chubby chasers too.

So the end comparison might be 1 million of the big lads to 20 million of the normal degenerates 🙏

But many of those subscribers are the same people.

Your guess is as good as mine, unless you want to pay for the Reddit API.

I would hope that if you do a good enough job of digging down all BBW subs and all NSFW subs, they'd largely cancel out, but I can't say for sure.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm

I'm not saying that men are a homogeneous bunch who like only one body type in women, of course there are ass men and boob guys.

What the research showed was that they were significantly less heterogenous than women.

I'll see if I can rustle up the study later.

Edit: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats