Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

[alywest]

Something tells me women see "confidence" and "social status" as being interchangeable.

I think men who have achieved social status usually have quite a bit of confidence, and so when you see a model type woman walking around with a short, fat, bald guy we think "oh, it's cause he's rich..." It's true, but what came first, the confidence or the money? I would argue that if the guy is self-made he's probably a very confident person and that personality trait is what attracted the woman to him in the first place. Women are physical beings too, and if we are not attracted to someone it's almost impossible to put on an act for too long. A guy who was handed all of his money and then is really out of shape and lacks confidence is going to attract a gold-digger or someone who is not really interested in the guy but the money. The Kardashian brother comes to mind, and his relationship to Blac Chyna. Sorry, I went there.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

"6-pack personalities" LOOOOL that made me laugh hahaha

|o|

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

 

[AretnaP]

I would argue that if the guy is self-made he's probably a very confident person and that personality trait is what attracted the woman to him in the first place.

If a man is ugly, fat, bald, and broke, him trying to make up for it by having "good" personality traits is about as effective as trying to stop a hurricane by blowing in the opposite direction of the wind.

 

[Peater]

I am stunned, STUNNED I TELL YOU, that the Chad beat the Flab.

Up next: Flames - hot.

 

[alywest]

If a man is ugly, fat, bald, and broke, him trying to make up for it by having "good" personality traits is about as effective as trying to stop a hurricane by blowing in the opposite direction of the wind.

True, but a ugly, fat man with a ton of self-confidence most likely has money, money and self confidence go hand in hand, right? Have you ever met an insecure CEO, producer, head honcho of any organization?

 

[whodathunkit]

All social movements of all time have been done by men, because men are the agents of change in human society. Whether those men are influenced by feminine or masculine values, and whether women are behind some of the decision making, is another story.

Men are leaders in societies that protect property rights and the rule of law, women generally are not or only play supplementary roles. Men are also leaders in societies that do not protect property rights and the rule of law, women play a much more significant part in those societies. It's as clear as day, Marxists and other collectivists don't just decry capitalism, they decry PATRIARCHAL capitalism. They understand that it's a male dominated ideology, individual rights, and that collectivism is a female dominated ideology.

An analogy would be Jews and the World Order. People point out that most of the communist theoreticians and leaders were Jewish, as well as most leaders of world banks. However, Jews are also over-represented in free-market economics (Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, David Gordon, etc.) The fact is, Jews are over-represented in ALL intellectual movements, because they as an ethnicity tend to go into intellectual fields. This is analogous to men and social leadership, of course the leading communists were men, the leading everything is and always will be men. Women simply do not or cannot do the intellectual work needed to craft an ideology or lead a revolution. They do play secondary parts, however, and women play much more significant roles in collectivist ideologies than individualist ones.

If this were not true, why would Marxists everywhere be pro-matriarchy and women and anti-patriarchy and men? It couldn't be more clear what THEY believe their system is about (female, not male, domination in thought and deed) so why is it so confusing to you?

P.S. - as another, similar, point, the stand out nature of figures like Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher are the exceptions that prove the rule. If women were just as likely as men to be for free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, these figures wouldn't loom so large and be so polarizing in history. You can count on your fingers the numbers of prominent pro-free market women that have existed in politics and theory throughout the centuries, whereas you couldn't name all of the men involved in defending markets if you had all day.

Kyle, I'm absolutely stunned and [redundancy alert!] completely re-disappointed all over again by the paranoia and cognitive dissonance that is explicit and implicit in this response.

Again, I'm not the one who's confused, Sweetie. It's YOU.

I'm sure that Karl Marx's wife was the main proponent of his "Communist Manifesto", even while that poor dumb slob took all the credit. And Lenin's wife proxy-engineered the Bolsehvik Revolution though him, while he just stood by like a Kotex waiting to absorb whatever issued forth from her. Ditto Mao and his wife. Etc.

How can you possibly cherry-pick the inflammatory view of women as deus ex machinas, successfully plotting and scheming to proxy-engineer collectivism through the highly-positioned yet dim men they hold in thrall, yet also simultaneously hold the contradictory view that women are intellectually incapable of "crafting an ideology or lead a revolution"? Further, how can you believe these two contradictory things and still consider yourself a linear, rational thinker?

The lack of holism and accounting for fundamental human nature in your philosophy is appalling, because it is so overtly discriminatory. The truly rational thinker always tries to root personal bias from global philosophy, you know. Of course it's not possible to root out bias completely, but for the love of God, most of us can do a better job than you apparently are. Your underlying personal issues with women are as clearly shown in your one-dimensional discrimination as the the envy of the Collectivists is shown in their approach to government.

Bottom line: Marxism/Socialism/Collectivism are the ideologies of envious, ineffectual, angry haters who have little or no ability to create anything for themselves, or even to get anything for themselves, except by taking stuff from other people. This view of Marxists/Socialists/Collectivists is universally applicable, and does not parse sexual organs.

But I'm also beginning to realize, thanks in some measure to reading you, that ultra-conservative idealogies are also the purview angry haters. Except the Ultras conceal their anger much better, and they're not ineffectual in the material sphere, like the Collectivists. Instead, they're insecure in their positions in social spheres (that is, they may be afraid that some other group such as women or minorities will usurp what they see as their rightful place).

That said, angry Marxists will always be a much greater danger to society overall than angry Ultras. Ultras are more libertarian in that they want to be left alone to do what they can do well, and to let other people who can also do well prosper. Marxists/Socialists/Collectivists are proverbial crabs in a pot, dragging everyone down to their level and telling everyone what to do and how they should be. I know who I'll always vote against.

Anyway...only a misogynistically-biased thinker would believe that Marxist movements do anything more than pay lip service to being pro-matriarchy. I think we're all at a loss to name the leading figures in "fundamentalist" / "proto-Marxist" (i.e., truly Marxist instead of the confused, late-blooming hybrids we see in the Western European countries) societies such as Russia, China, Cuba, any of the Banana Republics, to back up your claims. Even in the West, in our confused hybrids of "Capitalistic Marxism", the women are not the main leaders and are typically relegated to subordinate roles. Her failed bid for the big enchilada notwithstanding, Hilary is and never has been anything except a narcisstic, lying, enabling, coat-tail riding old |-|->ag.

P.S. You never did tell us why you brought up the example of a girl getting her BF to beat someone up in your last post to me. That told me more than all the rest of your words combined, and I'm really, really interested to know why that particular tidbit came out of left field. Freud was by and large a douche, but he did have the right idea about a couple things.

 

[evo21]

But I digress. There's something to this idea that women are attracted to men with LOWER T, who have succumbed to pizza and beer (at least occasionally), and I believe it's more hormonal than the article even gives it credit for.

I think it depends on the overall health of the person. A weak, depressed person will prefer more comfort, so they will look for less exciting relationships with lower androgen men and less attractive women, while an energized, confident person will prefer more exciting relationships with higher androgen men and more attractive women. People get attached to the feeling, not the person. If they no longer want that feeling, they will stop looking for people who provide it. It's easy to see this in a person with Bipolar Disorder.

But a little pudge in the belly, as long as the overall health is intact, is not going to be a turn off, and in fact seems to be a sort of turn on. Perhaps we sense that a man like this won't spend all of his time at the gym, because what most women want is your time and attention. And someone who will spend time with his children if the woman is wanting to be a mom.

We act according to what we feel, not what we think. A weaker male is less intimidating and less exciting, which means more comfortable to be with. That's what's attractive to them, not his pot belly or lack of a gym membership. It's the feeling that matters, thoughts are just our brain trying to make sense of it. Some people are turned on by comfort simply because they are too tired and need to rest.

I believe that women actually get tired of the extremely intense T male and actually start to crave a more humble, chiller, more cushion-y man! Not fat, mind you. I think most people have a natural tendency to look at obesity as unhealthy, and we're not looking for a man who's not going to be able to function.

You said it right there, they get tired, can't feel excitement (it takes a lot of energy to feel excited) and start craving comfort. And you're contradicting yourself because a man without the "intense T" isn't going to be able to function like he should, because his function as a man depends on that T. So you're saying they don't want a strong man because they can't handle it. Nothing wrong with that, but just call it what it is instead of finding lame excuses.

 

[evo21]

I think men who have achieved social status usually have quite a bit of confidence, and so when you see a model type woman walking around with a short, fat, bald guy we think "oh, it's cause he's rich..." It's true, but what came first, the confidence or the money? I would argue that if the guy is self-made he's probably a very confident person and that personality trait is what attracted the woman to him in the first place. Women are physical beings too, and if we are not attracted to someone it's almost impossible to put on an act for too long. A guy who was handed all of his money and then is really out of shape and lacks confidence is going to attract a gold-digger or someone who is not really interested in the guy but the money. The Kardashian brother comes to mind, and his relationship to Blac Chyna. Sorry, I went there.

True, but a ugly, fat man with a ton of self-confidence most likely has money, money and self confidence go hand in hand, right? Have you ever met an insecure CEO, producer, head honcho of any organization?

Social status depends on the situations. If a fat, short, unfit guy walks into a wrestling ring with a strong athletic male, the fact he is a rich CEO of a company means squat. He will still get destroyed. If people rely on external factors for their confidence, they will usually show it off first chance they get, because deep down, they are insecure, so they have to bring something else to the table (project confidence outwards). I don't think it's sustainable to do this for a long time. And in a situation where money doesn't seem important, the woman will realize he's not all that confident.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

There's something to this idea that women are attracted to men with LOWER T, who have succumbed to pizza and beer (at least occasionally), and I believe it's more hormonal than the article even gives it credit for. I believe that women actually get tired of the extremely intense T male and actually start to crave a more humble, chiller, more cushion-y man!

They get old and start to crave lower value matea t aettle down with because they know those lower value mates will provide the security and loyalty the will need going into old age.

But a little pudge in the belly, as long as the overall health is intact, is not going to be a turn off, and in fact seems to be a sort of turn on.

Perhaps we sense that a man like this won't spend all of his time at the gym, because what most women want is your time and attention. And someone who will spend time with his child(ren) if the woman is wanting to be a mom. We secretly like a guy who is confidant enough to not need to look like a chiseled god. Confidence trumps so many physical attributes, you have no idea. And sometimes confidence is expressed in other ways than machismo; in fact, machismo rings false. True confidence is so sexy, and it's when a man does nice things, and takes more time to focus on us than on how he is perceived by the rest of the world.

Just be confident. Hah!

No offense I'm sure youre a great lady and a great mom but you have as much right to tell men how to be men as a homeless junkie has to tell you how to raise your children

 

[AretnaP]

They get old and start to crave lower value matea t aettle down with because they know those lower value mates will provide the security and loyalty the will need going into old age.

I wouldn't say that women start craving "lower value" males, but it's very true that after about 24-25 (when her first serious urges to have a child come along) women tend to care more about money and status and less about looks than they did at 17. They still want high value, just a different KIND of high value.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I wouldn't say that women start craving "lower value" males, but it's very true that after about 24-25 (when her first serious urges to have a child come along) women tend to care more about money and status and less about looks than they did at 17. They still want high value, just a different KIND of high value.

I was referring specifically to her claims that women start looking for men who have bellys and are less exciting.

Yes once women hit mid 20s they start looking for husband material. Dads as opposed to cads. At least the smart ones.

 

[AretnaP]

I was referring specifically to her claims that women start looking for men who have bellys and are less exciting.

Yes once women hit mid 20s they start looking for husband material. Dads as opposed to Chads. At least the smart ones.

fixed srs

 

[Kyle M]

Kyle, I'm absolutely stunned and [redundancy alert!] completely re-disappointed all over again by the paranoia and cognitive dissonance that is explicit and implicit in this response.

Again, I'm not the one who's confused, Sweetie. It's YOU.

I'm sure that Karl Marx's wife was the main proponent of his "Communist Manifesto", even while that poor dumb slob took all the credit. And Lenin's wife proxy-engineered the Bolsehvik Revolution though him, while he just stood by like a Kotex waiting to absorb whatever issued forth from her. Ditto Mao and his wife. Etc.

How can you possibly cherry-pick the inflammatory view of women as deus ex machinas, successfully plotting and scheming to proxy-engineer collectivism through the highly-positioned yet dim men they hold in thrall, yet also simultaneously hold the contradictory view that women are intellectually incapable of "crafting an ideology or lead a revolution"? Further, how can you believe these two contradictory things and still consider yourself a linear, rational thinker?

The lack of holism and accounting for fundamental human nature in your philosophy is appalling, because it is so overtly discriminatory. The truly rational thinker always tries to root personal bias from global philosophy, you know. Of course it's not possible to root out bias completely, but for the love of God, most of us can do a better job than you apparently are. Your underlying personal issues with women are as clearly shown in your one-dimensional discrimination as the the envy of the Collectivists is shown in their approach to government.

Bottom line: Marxism/Socialism/Collectivism are the ideologies of envious, ineffectual, angry haters who have little or no ability to create anything for themselves, or even to get anything for themselves, except by taking stuff from other people. This view of Marxists/Socialists/Collectivists is universally applicable, and does not parse sexual organs.

But I'm also beginning to realize, thanks in some measure to reading you, that ultra-conservative idealogies are also the purview angry haters. Except the Ultras conceal their anger much better, and they're not ineffectual in the material sphere, like the Collectivists. Instead, they're insecure in their positions in social spheres (that is, they may be afraid that some other group such as women or minorities will usurp what they see as their rightful place).

That said, angry Marxists will always be a much greater danger to society overall than angry Ultras. Ultras are more libertarian in that they want to be left alone to do what they can do well, and to let other people who can also do well prosper. Marxists/Socialists/Collectivists are proverbial crabs in a pot, dragging everyone down to their level and telling everyone what to do and how they should be. I know who I'll always vote against.

Anyway...only a misogynistically-biased thinker would believe that Marxist movements do anything more than pay lip service to being pro-matriarchy. I think we're all at a loss to name the leading figures in "fundamentalist" / "proto-Marxist" (i.e., truly Marxist instead of the confused, late-blooming hybrids we see in the Western European countries) societies such as Russia, China, Cuba, any of the Banana Republics, to back up your claims. Even in the West, in our confused hybrids of "Capitalistic Marxism", the women are not the main leaders and are typically relegated to subordinate roles. Her failed bid for the big enchilada notwithstanding, Hilary is and never has been anything except a narcisstic, lying, enabling, coat-tail riding old |-|->ag.

P.S. You never did tell us why you brought up the example of a girl getting her BF to beat someone up in your last post to me. That told me more than all the rest of your words combined, and I'm really, really interested to know why that particular tidbit came out of left field. Freud was by and large a douche, but he did have the right idea about a couple things.

The way you engage only some of my points, and taking two weeks to respond, is making this unrewarding for me. You also keep making it personal whereas I have not called you any names or questioned your motives etc.

I thought I was clear in explaining that it isn't women vs. men per se, but a political feminine and political masculine that I am describing. Collectivism is, to my way of thinking, politically feminine as it seems to spring forth from people that don't want to ruggedly build for themselves but to share (basically take from) with others in a naive way.

You cannot, in good faith, deny that those calling for communism almost always call capitalism "patriarchal." This is a huge meme of communists in the 20th and 21st centuries, if you aren't aware of it then you haven't done your homework.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

fixed srs

I meant cads. Cads don't have to be chads they can be thugs, bikers, singers, artists, actors, drummers, swagfags, whatever the latin lover stereotype is. There's a number of ways to display high short-term mating value outside of sports and athletics.

 

[AretnaP]

I meant cads. Cads don't have to be chads they can be thugs, bikers, singers, artists, actors, drummers, swagfags, whatever the latin lover stereotype is. There's a number of ways to display high short-term mating value outside of sports and athletics.

Spoiler

I know what you meant but the post would have been funnier if you said Chads tbh

 

[Tarmander]

The way you engage only some of my points, and taking two weeks to respond, is making this unrewarding for me. You also keep making it personal whereas I have not called you any names or questioned your motives etc.

I thought I was clear in explaining that it isn't women vs. men per se, but a political feminine and political masculine that I am describing. Collectivism is, to my way of thinking, politically feminine as it seems to spring forth from people that don't want to ruggedly build for themselves but to share (basically take from) with others in a naive way.

You cannot, in good faith, deny that those calling for communism almost always call capitalism "patriarchal." This is a huge meme of communists in the 20th and 21st centuries, if you aren't aware of it then you haven't done your homework.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." She's laying it on thick, even threw in a passive aggressive "sweetie."

 

[Kyle M]

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." She's laying it on thick, even threw in a passive aggressive "sweetie."

I wouldn't care at all, which is why I didn't bring it up until the 3rd or 4th post of consistent ridicule-laced type, if she was engaging with my ideas in a more honest way. I prefer someone calling me stupid or saying I can't think straight or whatever, but who will actually try and counter the points I make as stated, than someone who is respectful but cherry picks the 1 or 2 things they feel they can best counter to respond to.

 

[schultz]

I'm sure that Karl Marx's wife was the main proponent of his "Communist Manifesto", even while that poor dumb slob took all the credit. And Lenin's wife proxy-engineered the Bolsehvik Revolution though him, while he just stood by like a Kotex waiting to absorb whatever issued forth from her. Ditto Mao and his wife. Etc.

This reminded me of Livia Augustus. In the book I, Claudius you sort of think of her as the true ruler of Rome, but not out in the open.

I wouldn't say that women start craving "lower value" males, but it's very true that after about 24-25 (when her first serious urges to have a child come along) women tend to care more about money and status and less about looks than they did at 17. They still want high value, just a different KIND of high value.

I agree, there are different kinds of value. Athleticism is sort of the primitive value. In other animals, the male who can dominate the other males basically wins. I was watching a nature documentary earlier this week and it was showing wild horses. Two stallions were fighting and it said the stallion that wins gets mating rights to all the females in the herd. Humans at least have a second value, and that is the brain. It's an interesting topic. Human females have a long gestation where they become quite vulnerable in the latter half of the pregnancy. They don't want some guy who is going to leave them. When the baby is finally born, they are still vulnerable because the baby is so dependent, and for quite a while. These ideas definitely come into play when a woman is choosing a mate. They can't just mate with some stud and then coax a "beta" male to take care of her while she's pregnant. Most men wouldn't play along with this unless they thought it was their baby. Men don't tolerate infidelity because the need to know that the child is theirs, who they won't bother wasting their lives trying to provide for it. Women don't tolerate infidelity because if a man has a child with another woman then that woman and child will take resources away from the first woman and child. This is how I see it anyway, are serious issues, especially thousands of years ago.

Someone was questioning me about monogamy (he said he didn't think monogamy was natural) and I gave some of the points that I listed in my above paragraph. A herd animal like a goat (I have goats so I am using them as examples) gets pregnant then she doesn't want anything to do with the male. They actually get very irritated with the men when they are pregnant. The goats can still run around even with 3 kids in the belly, so they are not as defenseless as female humans. They also belong to a herd so they have the safety of numbers. When that kid is born it can walk immediately and is not as reliant upon the mother. Within a few days it's jumping around, jumping on other goats, fighting with its brothers and sisters. After two weeks I have seen little male goats humping goats, and harassing the females. If a full grown male comes up to the mother with the kids she will fight him off and be quite aggressive. They may want that male in the herd for general protection but she raises that kid solo.

Human females are attracted to different qualities than other animals. It's not so simple and I believe our uniquely vulnerable infants are one reason. I hope someone else can throw some better points in, or even counter some of the things I have said.

Oh also something to note is that a woman doesn't necessarily need to find a "beta" male to help raise her kids. Male hormones can be altered from just being around pregnancy and newborns, this has been shown in studies. I haven't researched it in a while, but I think an infants crying causes prolactin to rise in males, and possibly T to go down. I'm not sure a woman would want a super beta male though when she is raising children. Someone needs to defend the family.

Testosterone and prolactin are associated with emotional responses to infant cries in new fathers. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[AretnaP]

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." She's laying it on thick, even threw in a passive aggressive "sweetie."

lmfao, "sweetie" and "honey" are usually only genuine from a woman if she's from the American Southeast, "dude", and "bro" are almost always bad coming from a woman.