[somamasoso]

whatever, I'll just copy/paste...

No, it's just that some of us have brains that have evolved since the days of hunting on the savanna and realize that the viability of a mate in a modern economy has little to do with how much she can squat.

gribbler summed it up very well with these posts.

As for why we aren't attracted to women who look like they could make it in the savanna, it's because we aren't hunter-gatherers living in a savanna culture. Thank God.

..................

Culture plays a huge role in what people find attractive.

Uh, in fairness, I think you guys are missing what Alby's getting at here. At no time did he say or suggest a damned thing about "viability of a mate in a modern economy" or modern culture, or who would be most preferable for a long-term relationship, or who would be most stimulating on a personal and intellectual level, or who would be most able to financially support offspring. I think even he would agree that these goals are entirely irrespective of physical appearance.

What he's talking about, rather, is who would, before that captain buzzkill known as the intellect muddies the water with such considerations, catch one's eye in the first instance and make one immediately think "holy crap would I like to bang the **** out of her," which is and always has been, after all, the sole purpose of th[e babe] thread. That has nothing to do with the intellect and is strictly a question of baser instincts, which developed in an evolutionary laboratory eons ago and could not possibly have been significantly impacted by the mere blip on the radar screen that the past ten thousand years of "civilization" have been in the overall history of primates. In that sense he is surely correct that conduciveness to successful procreation and survival in the wilderness would tend to be the strongest triggers to initial sexual attraction at the most basic, instinctual level, before the intellect chimes in. I'm surprised that anyone would dispute that. It is surely true that once the intellect chimes in one may hypothesize all sorts of scenarios and conditions in which a less biologically "worthy" mate would nonetheless be extremely fulfilling personally and sexually, but that's separate from the very limited issue Alby is addressing. FFS.

[luspikals]

I don't think you give enough credit to just how similar humans are. Someone like Heraclitus likes to drone about the supposed extreme variation and biodiversity of humans but I think and there's evidence that shows that we are all very much the same. A few ten thousand years of separation into the continents (which was not as much separation as people think since humans have gotten around) has not been enough to really differentiate humans, especially not in an area as basic as sexual attraction.

[Kiariitf]

There, SB, you can have your babe thread back. Now, where were we, Al?

Here:



If you don't want to hit that, try Asher, he's probably more your type.

[sarasmid]

Here:





If you don't want to hit that, try Asher, he's probably more your type.

Oh, FFS. It's not the mohawk that's the problem and it's not even the cumbersome-to-remove whatever-the-hell-that's-supposed-to-be-that-she's-wearing that's the problem. It's the straight-up butherface and gender ambiguity. Viewing the southern hemisphere and chest from this angle and seeing that face I simply have no occasion for confidence that that is not a dude, and therefore the chubby goes away. You joke about Asher, but I know for a fact that he looks slightly more effeminate than that thing, and I'd feel straighter banging him than it. That's the bottom line here.

[Lymnempomma]

No, it wasn't an X-post, because people are still polluting the Babe Thread. Gah.

To continue based on my re-reading what was said there, why on earth should biological adaptations related to physical strength and endurance have anything to do with sexual attraction (beyond "wow, I bet she could go for hours")? As I've said, in other animals sexual selection frequently hinges on things totally unrelated to viability, if not counter to it. The explanation I've heard for some traits, like peacock tails, is that the creature looks at the opposite sex, sees a being with a ridiculous handicap, and assumes it must be pretty tough if it can survive dragging that sucker around. That is, apparent lack of viability is ATTRACTIVE in such cases.

Or maybe it's just biologists grasping at straws, and sexuality makes no sense. There are some other things, like bowerbirds (yeah, another bird example--I don't know much about mammal sexual displays, by weird coincidence), that have nothing to do with it one way or another. "Ooh, he can assemble twigs and petals in a tidy way, I'd better have sex with him!" Come to think of it, most of the choosiness in the animal kingdom is on the part of females, which makes this all the stranger. In a...state of nature, or whatever you want to call it, men of most species can chuck sperm around wherever they please without worry.

Beyond that, supposing we are "defective," why should it be a matter of any concern to us? It's not like I need a woman who can run across the savannah like an antelope.

And now THIS is an X-post. Quit screwing with me!

[BenWired306]

Oh, FFS. It's not the mohawk that's the problem and it's not even the cumbersome-to-remove whatever-the-hell-that's-supposed-to-be-that-she's-wearing that's the problem. It's the straight-up butherface and gender ambiguity. Viewing the southern hemisphere and chest from this angle and seeing that face I simply have no occasion for confidence that that is not a dude, and therefore the chubby goes away. You joke about Asher, but I know for a fact that he looks slightly more effeminate than that thing, and I'd feel straighter banging him than it. That's the bottom line here.

You've gotta be ****ing kidding me. You have doubts about the femaleness of that hot piece of ass?

Consult your doctor. You may have hidden gender confidence issues.

[HaremShaih]

Al: after reviewing your last three pics in the babe thread, my wife speculates that your preferences may have less to do with body build than with posture; in all three pics, the women are sticking their back ends out like they're big rigs. She adds that this might be a bonobo-chimp type deal where presenting booty is a signal for coitus.

And whatever gifts that mohawk chick was born with are utterly neutralized by the abnormal getup. Show me a perfectly grilled porterhouse steak smothered in marmalade and pickles, I won't be interested. Also, yeah, that face is not attractive.

[ladleliDypenue]

I don't think by muscular he actually means "ripped" in the bodybuilder sense, as that's just too masculine. It's more about size, and the only way to have a big ass other than being fat is to have relatively developed muscles down there.

Or you can just have a lot of fat around the booty, not so much around the waist. It's just a matter of where one's body likes to store fuel.

[neerewed]

that's how they do in philly.

Shhhhh!

If you tell Alby that, he might get laid and possibly breed.

[IvJlNwum]

From the BT:

"Still, there has to be other evidence of it beyond mere hypothesizing about natural selection. For example, modern black guys tend to dig bigger butts more, and black guys are genetically closer to our evolutionary forebears, so it stands to reason that the ape in all of us digs big butts. Prove me wrong."

Darius, can you cite something indicating black people are genetically closer to homo habilis et al than honkies like myself are? We're all the same number of generations away, and it's not like genetic change necessarily accelerated due to a change in location. Actually, even saying "black people do X" is a huge generalization, it's a whole continent.

[Tapupah]

From the BT:

"Still, there has to be other evidence of it beyond mere hypothesizing about natural selection. For example, modern black guys tend to dig bigger butts more, and black guys are genetically closer to our evolutionary forebears, so it stands to reason that the ape in all of us digs big butts. Prove me wrong."

Darius, can you cite something indicating black people are genetically closer to homo habilis et al than honkies like I? We're all the same number of generations away, and it's not like genetic change necessarily accelerated due to a change in location. Actually, even saying "black people do X" is a huge generalization, it's a whole continent.

Whoosh. That was just some self-deprecating humor on my part, but Heraclitus may well be happy to take that up with you.

[indianstory]

INNER douchebag?

[ZESINTERS]

Same thing. Google image search for "_____ Magazine covers" inserting the names of some 'urban' versions of I guess something like Maxim magazine. Obviously not seeing all their covers; just ones that show up on google image search.

King Magazine doesn't appear to use this tactic very often:




Smooth seems to live by it:












Interesting. These are covers so they're the most important of all the photos shot.

[carletoxtrs]

Now show some magazine covers from China. Obviously we should see those same universal characteristics.

[mikaelluioy]

Here:

[IMG]{most disgusting image after goatse}[/IMG]

If you don't want to hit that, try Asher, he's probably more your type.

What the **** is that thing? Is it from H.P. Lovecraft? arrrgh I can never unsee that you douchebag.

[Hujkmlopes]

Sometimes I wonder if you are real doc.

[HaroTaure]

You're obsessed with squatting. European squat toilets, squatting exercises, women squatting. Sheesh.

[trowUrillioth]

If you think women really look like this then you will set your expatiation so high that you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

[cenRealliat]

You're obsessed with squatting. European squat toilets, squatting exercises, women squatting. Sheesh.

gribbler, if you want to pretend to have an intelligent discussion, then do so. I just showed you how the 'presenting' pose with the lumbar extension to push out the pelvis and buttocks is utilized on magazine covers in different cultures. I presented all the Chinese-language Maxim covers from the first page of my image search as well as the Filipino covers.

The difference is that the American urban mags do seem to focus slightly more on the rear ends but that may be largely because, well, those women have larger and more noticeable buttocks than their Asian or Filipino equivalents so that's something that is more focused on in the photography. A photographer wouldn't be wise to focus on a subject's relative weakness.

[zuhraliyana]

Albert... this discussion was never intelligent to begin with.