Comments on: Women’s Physical Standards

By: The New Thin «

The New Thin « — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:44:19 +0000

[...] have far more rigid prerequisites for what makes an acceptable man for an LTR than men do for women. Women base their estimate of a [...]

By: Nice Is Vice « nightskyradio

Nice Is Vice « nightskyradio — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:08:03 +0000

[...] 1. Culturally it is acceptable to shame guys for being shallow to overlook fatties great personalities 2. No guy puts on their profile header that they’re looking for a really great fat/plump/few extra pounds/plus sized/bbw person (unless it’s their fetish) [...]

By: The Crime of Being Nice « M3

The Crime of Being Nice « M3 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:14:40 +0000

By: Sugar

Sugar — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:13:40 +0000

Actually some women DO have fetishes for the unconventional.

For example, I know several hot women who are SPECIFICALLY attracted to bald men, and I know some hot women who are SPECIFICALLY attracted to big bearish, fat looking men, a.k.a. “teddy bears.” Not the muscular lean guys, big bouncer looking guys.

That said, I mainly agree with every fiber of this article. The guy who looks like a romance-novel cover model will not need to learn much about pickup. He’ll only need develop a mindset of abundance, non-neediness, and persistence, and he will be riding high.

By: André

André — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 06:38:48 +0000

Six months of smart training and nutritional intervention can completely transform a man’s body. The physique is attainable, perhaps not the model cover body, but a downsized version of that. The tools are available it’s just that most people in the gym are not really doing it right.

By: Women Studies «

Women Studies « — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:34:10 +0000

[...] more advantageous to his personality type. Nor will I speculate that it may have been his Look and physique that led to a 5 minute kiss-close. I don’t have to because all of this was predictably [...]

By: Wilson

Wilson — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:07:14 +0000

Women with a “few pounds” of fat are indeed usually more attractive and fertile, but “a few pounds” means a few pounds, not sixty. Men’s standards have certainly not become more strict. Roissy is just emphasizing that men should have some standards, which is what has become an alien concept in our diseased and debased culture. The standard hasn’t changed, it’s just that men take what they can get, even though it means going against their nature and being disgusted with themselves. Hypergamy, on the other hand, is more stable because it doesn’t care.

By: De-lurking

De-lurking — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:33:10 +0000

First time commenting here, and I’m obviously very late to the party. I think this post unintentionally debunks the Roissyian claim that today’s ideal of feminine beauty is immutable and has been consistent across time and culture. Roissy claims that a woman is practically worthless once her BMI creeps above 20, and much of the Manosphere would have you believe that it’s the Mighty God Evolution that dictates this—not the standards imposed by our technologically driven, hyper-visual culture, coupled with a yearning toward the extreme opposite of our collectively obese state. (The fatter we get, the thinner our ideal gets.)

It’s true that real obesity never conferred a genetic advantage, but male standards were not always as strict as they are now. Many reproductive endocrinologists will tell you that your chances of conceiving are actually better if you’re a few pounds overweight, and I think men in the past recognized this at some level. Perhaps some still do, but despite this post, even a glancing acquaintance with the Manosphere will show you that things have changed.

In contrast, the masculine ideal—strong, broad-shouldered, tall, etc.—which telegraphs the ability both to breed and protect, appears to have remained less subject to the whims of culture. So if you accept Rollo’s contentions here, maybe it’s actually women who are truer to their prehistoric roots.