I don't know anymore which I anticipate with greater relish: your substantively provocative blog posts or the amusing cascade of uncomprehending and indignant comments which follow them!

Yup,

Though skinny celebs get the headlines about their sack shenanigans...Its the curvier majority who get more than some...c", Finally, proof that curvy, heavy women are more attractive, Cheers! c",

I don't think that the part about women getting to choose "with whom" they hook up with is an accurate interpretation of that data...

I read a different thing that said that men and women usually generally go after the level of attractiveness in the opposite sex that they think they can get based on their own attractiveness level.

If women are having the same amounts of sex regardless of their appearance, you could add data to the study by getting information on the quality of the men they are hooking up with. How attractive are the men? How much money do the men have? How moral/faithful are the men? Quality is more important than quantity, anyways.

i think the media has played a role in shaping people's wants and needs, maybe their taste even changed

If overweight women in general are more likely to have had sexual intercourse than normal-weight women, may not this be a further implication of the Madonna/Whore strategy?

As overweight women are not considered more attractive by men, then they cannot ever become successful Madonnas, and it is more reproductionally sane for them to adopt the Whore-strategy; the result of which is the data presented in your blog post.

As pointed out in your final paragraph, the Whore-strategy seems to work out well, as "no" is a foolish response for a man to give. After all, he is offered the opportunity to father a child he does not have to invest in, so does he in reality have any choice but to say yes?
And, this being so, that no paternal investment is required, then it does not matter how unattractive the woman is?

You are missing one very important factor here. Men are highly visually stimulated creatures and much of their conception of what is desirable and sexually attractive comes from their visual perception. This means that chances are, if a male finds a fat woman visually unappealing he most likely will not choose to have sex with her. So therefore the whole waist to hip ration thing could be bunk and it could suggest that men really don’t care or are not that choosy when it comes to a woman’s fatness or thinness. Because face it, if a guy finds a girl physically unappealing there is a good chance he will run screaming into the night at the suggestion of a sexual encounter with her. Unless of course copious amounts of alcohol are involved but I highly doubt that all the fat women getting laid are getting it from drunken fools 100% of the time.
It is my experience that if a male claims not like fat women he does so because of archaic puritanical morals stemming from perceived laziness, gluttony and un-cleanliness. Since we know that the average fat women is really no more gluttonous or lazy than the average woman, the feelings expressed by these men are nothing more that age old prejudices embedded in the human psyche by archaic religions and social doctrine. In other words social brainwashing.

didnt even take ten posts to get teh false doctrine of tabula rasa mentioned.

meanwhile, scientists have discovered PROPORTIONS and SYMETRY are key.

with the most beautiful people actually being the most average... (they are an average of everyones looks, so their looks deviate least in total from the internal ideal we have genetically in us)

of course the left imagines a brain working like the one in the terminator. where the thought processes and thigns if they exist would be completely exposed. and since they dont see those little red letters reporting symetry basis, proportion readings and such, they think that they arent there.

of course they also think that we are completely in thrall to propaganda... magazines control how we see beauty... implies that we cant think about what we see and not take it in... and implies that what we may think about somethings salient parts, may not be true, and so with wrong focus act on it.

this is true of hip proportions.

women dont see that twiggy and marylin monroe hve the same hip to waiste ratio.

they in fact, use an absolute measure (Scale) to attempt to reach a proportional state!!! (meanwhile they are often feminists who deny an absolute measure is possible in a proportional reality. too funny... their ideas are compartmentalized so that they dont suffer the dissonance of contradiction. its why their debate tends to degrade to ad hominum when you point this out).

its not maddona whore strategy..

its something that socialists are ABYSMAL at... and thats understanding things with a varying time prefernce.

no different than the profit costs graph and tons of others to.

a woman lowers her time preference and so lowers her short term cost to the mail to increase her sales rate.

a man can choose that she is too expensive (high maintenance) for the time preference, or he can chosoe to work harder to increase the amount he will trade for company.

in this way, a horny fat woman can get laid in an hour if she wants little in return for it and there is no long term committment...

in this way, a horny ugly man can pay to get laid in an hour if he is willing to pay that high a fee to do so (laws being another issue - bonobos and other animals will trade for sex, and there are no chimp police till they get society).

or a horny good looking guy can have short term sex with lots of women who think the short term opportunity (in which they can get a long term pregnancy and cheat the time preference), is worth it to hook something out of her range of a long term committed thing

which is why today so many rleationships are bad.

sex is an overwhelming biological selector. so when its allowed to shine, it reaches into our most primitive areas, and outshines other qualities of consideration.

prior to our modern age, our ancestors who were wild, learned to restrict sex... (the deconstructing and progress reversing feminsits hated this, but they didnt care why they only cared that they couldnt get laid all they want and not have to play the short term, long term, etc stuff of biology that they thought was masculine choice).

so in our most sexually restrictive socieites, with other things being free (sorry islam, this leaves you out), resulted in sex being pushed aside in favor of other considerations.

so, when she is modest, and such... and ALL The other women refuse to cheat this... sex becomes less the choser, and the other qualities coem to the fore, intelligence, ability, talent, personality, family history, fidelity, loyalty, romance, etc become more important.

but as soon as some get 'liberated'... the whole thing becomes a race to the bottom as some large breasted woman with a short time preference (maybe a sex adict) can trump the smartest women, the most talented, the loyal, etc. and every other woman abandons this as a method to a better life.

so now, hookers in our society have a hard time working since women have raced tothe bottom (to the point that they actually are becoming disgusting to a lot of men. koloniki said to lenin. sex should be as free as water. lenin replied, who wants to drink from a dirty glass. ntoe water isnt free now iether)

the girls have abandoned all the education, talent and reason that was born of the restrictive vitorian age. since no man is going to wait for he to show her brain, when she has a competitor with silicon maximizing her options and stealing time with him.

[time is the key. the more time you spend the more chance you have, the fewer chances suitors have]

basically, women have reversed all their progress of the enlightenment and before it!!!

now we select by sex and short term prefernce with more than 30% attempting to turn this into a long term commitment by pregancy and legal force at the end of a gun. (its a shotgun wedding and uncle sam is holding the shot gun).

is it any wonder that short term preference selections are not good long term preference selections?

we have reversed the system, and so we are now homogenizing our genomes.

failure to select mates for real qualities, means we become like horses rather than humans.

if you dont select for smarts, skills, etc... and select for physical beauty, we end up like a herd of horses with only incremental differences and a much reduced ability to adapt

when a species does this to half of them, it splits the species into a lower form that is interchangeable work units like horses, and a higher more capable form that is governing and the owner of the horses.

welcome to the end demographic result of socailism

the spliting of the population between a permanent lowerclass of prols who by their short term sexual prefernces are homogenized...

and a poulation of permanent upper class peopel who are smarter, and control the rest...

including setting polices that homogenize them, redue fecundity, change sex orientation so that splitting them up is not unhealthy with sexual segregation, control mating policies with incentives and disinsentives, cause SMART people to put off mating till later so there are fewer of them in the population (while helping stupid people have more kids than they could by giving them the smarter peoples money), and a whole lot more.

given enough time, the species would bifurcate.

and so tabula rasa, feminism, class war, and all the rest, are one big game to play this out... given that the roots fo all this is darwin and frued, and it came before conceiving robotics, and such, and they havent abadnoned anything since 1920 and before.. yeah, this is where it will go if the pressure can be maintained for some generations.

note that the russian people culled the inventive, the capitalist, the upwardly mobile desire, and more..

now they just sit aroudn, get drunk, abort the children they may have, and live in misery.

while their leaders live like average americans lived better than kings.

heck, if everyone has lots of cool things, how can the wealthy and powerful feel wealthy and powerful?

better take all property awya fro mthe people, now they feel wealthy... and now they can feel powerful sicne the people are helpless and completely subservient to them for their life.

so leftists, be warned as to what your siding with... and how it misuses science.

which is why i agree with the very first poster.

I don't know anymore which I anticipate with greater relish: your substantively provocative blog posts or the amusing cascade of uncomprehending and indignant comments which follow them!

one day, i will show why our complimentary heterosexuial normed family is more productive than all other types... (its actually a very simple mathematical principal!!!! and one they are just on the verge of working out. let me know if anyone is interested... the proof is mathematical, not subjective)

and thank you Kanazawa!

It is hard reality like i saw it several times - you can look in every contact platform where people look for sexual contacts. You will see hordes of all kind of men and for non-paid heterosexual contacts are mainly fat chicks available. And they consume only men with minumum slightly over average attraction.

Men do say no to sex, and you can't write for shit.

To derive assumptions based on statistical data
is the norm, unfortunately. So this whole interpretation about fat people getting laid could be pure conjuncture and imagination.

Knowing several industries extremely well and
then reading all kinds of reports and official
statistics about these industries have led me
over the last 20 years to conclude that most
surveys are more inaccurate than accurate.

Our blind faith in the zillions of statistical
data being vomited every year is seriously misplaced
and it doesn't matter how qualified the survey
makers are.

Until we can differentiate better between statistics that have merits and those that don't
we may want to suspend our judgment; including wether fat people get laid more or less than the
norm.

I stand by this belief whole heartedly that over weight women, seek more attention and try to hook men more often because they are not satisfied with their appearence and they are reaching outside themselves to another person to make themselves feel wanted. Instead of finding beauty themselves, WITHIN themselves.

i.e. "This person had sex with me, that means I am desirable."

I think part of it is a defense mechanism of the self, when the 'self' doesn't really like who they are. The more partners, the sooner they have them, the more likely they are to convince themselves that they are, in fact, attractive and people desire them.

People of average weight may be more comfortable with themselves and their bodies. They, like you say, choose when to have sex. That choice may be less than the overweight person because they have nothing to prove to themselves. They already know they are attractive and then take their time to pick a partner that deserves THEM. Not the other way around.

Yeah, it makes sense. Lets face it guys, we would say no to an overly obese woman for sure. But if some chubby, mildly attractive girl propositioned us to have her rolled in flour and play "find the wet spot", you know you'd roll with that fatty.

Uh, in addition to my previous post, I would not bang any of the chicks in that picture. They be a bit too much. Prolly try and eat my afterwards...

I guess it's true. Having sex with fat woman is like riding a moped. It's a lot of fun but you don't want your friends to know you're doing it.

Men can't say "no"? Bullshit. Who writes this crap?

Has it ever occured to you that a lot of chubby women are chubby because they have kids? You're assuming they're more likely to have had sex because they're chubby. I submit they're more likely to be chubby because they've had sex.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

Before I start I must say that these are all generalizations and as such not ALL will apply to ALL situations, however on average many of these reasons affected the results of the survey.

1. Overweight individuals tend to have lower self-esteem which leads to looking for outside sources for acceptance, in today’s society a person’s “desirability” and ability to attract mates of the opposite sex is the number 1 measurement that people are judged on as far as social acceptance. And this goes for both men and women by the way (why do you think all the rap stars talk about in their music videos is how much they can get laid, they want to be cool).
2. Personality is just like muscle tissue, if you don’t exercise it often it won’t develop properly. Many “Attractive” females have never had the need to develop any personality or conversation skills (this probably goes for men as well to some degree). In social settings unattractive people tend to be more social towards strangers (see reason #1). To put it bluntly, fat chicks will listen to guys talk about sports and cars because they are happy to be talked to at all (I know this doesn’t sound nice but you see what I’m getting at here).
3. Confidence is attractive to men. On the flip side of the “self-esteem” coin, a female that actively engages in conversations (say at a bar) is showing confidence and self-assuredness. Biologically speaking this means (to a horny guy) that she is showing that she may have the qualities needed to take care of his offspring. This is an unconscious decision in a guy’s brain but I think it holds true. On the other hand attractive women will be more docile and not as open to just starting a random conversation with people. Many may rely on their looks to attract but also many “attractive” women feel more anxiety about looks because they put so much effort into it and they are often more nervous than people who put less effort into physical appearance.
4. My last reason is what I like to call “The path of least resistance” which basically puts all 3 aforementioned reasons into action. Humans (and all animals) are instinctively lazy and will almost always go after the easiest and quickest solution to all problems. For a horny guy (or girl) the problem that must be solved is they need to get laid. If somebody comes along and makes themselves an easier target that is who the person will go for.

What I think this study says is more a compliment to guys than anything, and you girls should take this into account: Guys don’t care exclusively about looks. Maybe if you attractive girls could learn from your fat friends on how to be social and less uptight you can start to reverse the trend!!

that is almost as sexy as decorating your Thanksgiving turkey with fake plastic spiders: http://tinyurl.com/6gwzwj

Take what you can get uhh??? Well if you don't have any self respect as a man maybe. Yeah men really are sex machines without choice. I think we men would fuck a treehole if it looks like a vagina because we are unable to resist the chubby, sexy treehole.

There is absolutely no chance to say "no" for a man ever. Especially with "fat chicks".

Well I guess I am going outside and puke about something else then this "pseudo-science-subjective" idiotism.

"Yes" or "Yes Please?" Yeah right. I call bullshit. If not on the study, certainly on your reasoning. I've had men say no to me. Weight doesn't matter.

Having read the responses to this article, I am surprised by the absurd opinions and stereotypes that the readers hold. It is sad that most of those responding to this article find that all "fat" people are unattractive. I would certainly have to disagree. In other words, most of you are assuming that if anyone is over there ideal body weight that they are immediately cast off as an unattractive individual. Primarily it is Americans that hold this view of overweight individuals. If you were to look at impoverished places around the globe where famine is commonplace, you would find just the opposite. You would find that overweight individuals are considered beautiful, because it is a sign of health and vitality and yes, reproductive health. Americans are obviously socialized to believe that being overweight is some sort of social suicide. I don't deny that some studies have shown a tendency towards specific body proportions in rating the attractiveness of others, however, that is but one aspect of attractiveness. Physical attractiveness also pertains to the dimensions of the face and features. Whether or not an individual is overweight, would not mean the correct dimensions in their face and features would not exist. Are we then assuming that someone who is of an ideal weight and considered attractive would then lose that same attractiveness if they were to gain weight? Does this mean that all individuals who are of ideal weight are considered attractive? It is interesting that many people want to jump to the conclusion that overweight individuals are less desirable, when overweight versus underweight woman would be viewed as a more ideal reproductive partner. Putting aside childbearing, there are many reasons why individuals gain weight and the readers assumes that weight gain is purely negative. The readers also assume that overweight individuals inherently have lower self esteem and thus, they are more likely to be seeking out multiple sex partners to boost their self esteem. Would this then mean, that women with eating disorders causing them to be severely underweight would also be more likely to have multiple partners? Are we considering self esteem as the primary factor in promiscuous sex? If that is the case, then we should be looking at self esteem of women in general, because I would venture to guess that the only women lacking in self esteem or not only overweight women, but women that are also underweight and of ideal weight.

Bullshit. A fat chick once asked if she can suck mine, I said not, because she was too fat and ugly. And many of those cases happened with my friends.

So again, Bull-fucking-shit.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

are you for real? -.- uh, i've shot down many fat chicks, i'd rather stare at a wall

Namely: If men select for beauty/sexiness/health, and women select for status/wealth/power... then why are there so many poor, ugly, and decrepit people in the world? As Seinfeld so famously observed after a trip to the DMV, that fully 95% of the population is simply undatable. Yet, somehow, 85+% of women nevertheless manage to marry at some point.

Anthropologist have long known that among many cultures there's a word which basically translates into "a woman who's too ugly to f___". Yet, amazingly, such women almost invariably turn out to have kids. Perhaps this is where the concept of immaculate conception came from.

As other comments suggest, maybe this study's findings are due to altruism and a way under-appreciated magnanimosity inherent in male nature. If women can sometimes mate with men they're not absolutely ecstatic about, why can't men do the same thing?

Or it could just be that Satoshi needs to review those conditions under which males can be every bit as choosy - if not more so - than the stereotype says females typically are. Such conditions most certainly exist and have been known to evolutionary biologists for some time. I think they'd suggest a higher degree of skepticism than he exhibits here.

Or it could even just be that men are actively selecting for women who are less likely to be fertile, given the well-known correlations between high waist-to-hip ratios (which are themselves going to roughly correlate with high BMI's) and such health problems as menstrual irregularity, diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, stroke, gallbladder disease, and cancer of the ovaries and breast. This would be an entirely rational response to a situation where getting "lucky" has the potential to result in eighteen years of child support payments.

What a bunch of B.S. This only proves that fat women are easier. Girls that feel good about how they look don't have to worry about just having sex. They know they can get it and can be choosy. A lot of obese women, on the other hand, treat sex like it's a going out of business sale: Get as much of it as you can as fast as you can regardless of the quality.

Ummmm... usually i say HELL NO to obese women... what are these people talking about?