Fat Girls the Theory II

Post Reply New Topic

Obesity, not fat, LPP. Mind the difference else your point is lost - gaining and retaining a degree of fat during pregnancy is part of the process and is healthy for both mother and child.


M.

Sometime fatness can skip a generation, same as hair and eye color. The genes are still passed on to the next. Some features do not skip a generation such as skin colour.



Bit confused, do you mean behavioral tenancies are not inherited.

Last edited by Aspie_Chav on 02 Jul 2009, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hmm, true.

Being thin, particularly to the degree that many women of childbearing age wish to be, frequently means being completely unable to conceive. Women NEED some body fat. I suppose that if a woman is too thin to get pregnant she certainly won't die in childbirth.. but also isn't passing on her genes.
The average model is of an anorexic weight.. The average woman wouldn't be ovulating at all at that weight.. female hormones don't work correctly when the body is starving.

The more I think about it, the model example of slender is just a play on numbers. I remember this one guy telling me that playboy models just didn't do it for him, he was unable to look at them and believe what he saw, his ideal women were real and not necessarily thin. Mine can go from being too thin to being considered slightly overweight, I just found them to be believable in the end.

A man I knew talked about PJF (perfect jiggle factor) he had been with slender women earlier in life, but found himself more attracted to women with something for him to hold on to. He termed it Pretty good Jiggle Factor. He said there could be too much jiggle factor, or in many cases, not enough jiggle factor, but in the end, he was after perfect jiggle factor, other men would call his new wife fat, but he's still content and that was 3 years ago.

If you're a female reading this, all you need to do is look in the mirror and decide if you like what you see, if you do, don't worry about changing it, there's a guy out there who wants what you have.

There's a very large (excuse the pun) difference between playboy models and runway or fashion models... Playboy models are meant to be sexy... runway models really aren't. With magazine models, it can kinda go either way. They're meant to display clothes. If the actual women were attractive, it would take away from the attention on the clothing.
Female standards of slimness are not the same.. the desire to be thin isn't so much the desire to be sexy. It is in some ways, but in a lot of ways, it's just not. It's more about competition and self control, I think.. and some other stuff I haven't identified yet.

Yeah..it is hard to wrap my mind around exactly what it is.
Desire to resemble this almost impossible female ideal that is perpetually presented to us over and over again from the time that we are children...to the point that we are brainwashed into feeling perpetually flawed unless we are already close to that ideal...and even then, it is often not good enough...

I am the product of a skinny-formerly anorexic mom who had body dysmorphic issues when she was young so that she felt like she needed to weigh 70 or 80 lbs before she was thin...and a dad who is built like Santa Claus.
I sorta ended up inheriting my dad's frame and my mom's short stature...There are other people on my dad's side of the family who have his frame...so I am inclined to think it is at least somewhat genetically linked.
I am not obese, but I was at one point as a child and (with the exception of a brief period in my teens and 20's ) I have always been somewhat overweight but not obese...and I am fairly physically active...I ride a bike everywhere..I could stand to do better...but I am always really busy...

Anyway...because I have this medium/large-ish frame...it has never gone away as an issue...discussed by my family...and some friends and the awareness of of my weight as being flawed has never ever gone away...

I think that weight, like height, must be somewhat genetic. My younger sister did not have a weight problem as a child the way that I did...and now that she is close to her 30's...she has finally caught up with me.

( I am describing my own brainwashing..not my feelings about heavier people in general..for other people...extra weight is ok..and beautiful...and I wish that physical diversity was represented in movies and on television and other media the way it exists in real life)

Anyway, despite my "horrible flaw" of a bigger frame that naturally carries more weight, I have had plenty of boyfriends....When I was very young I was involved for 6 years with an obese guy who made fun of me for being fat just because I wasn't a twig. He outweighed me easily by over 100 lbs.

Now I have 2 partners...one who prefers women on the heavy side (his mistress was slightly bigger than me)...and one who heavily idealizes ectomorphs...and he is one himself (extremely thin..I outweigh him by 20+ lbs and I am much shorter than him)...I tend to listen more to the one who likes skinny chicks because it fits in with my life-long mental training.

My main partner diabolically keeps feeding me....and keeping ice cream around the house....the cad!

I wonder if a fondness for eating could possibly be a genetically inherited trait...I lean towards it...my dad is food-obsessed....but my mom is able to exercise extreme self-control at all times...

There is no fat gene. That's utterly idiotic. Sure, some people are more predisposed to being fatter or thinner, but it matters much more about what you ate as a baby than your DNA.

Okay heres my two pesos.


Since we know that pretty much everything involving the whole nature vs. nurture thing has boiled down to one consistant answer,
which is that it is neither one nor the other but a little bit of both.
Then why would we expect it to be any different in regards to this?

Yes there are genes that predispose us towards certain traits, but environmental factors also play greatly on them.
Thats why we can have someone from a fat family that loses weight, takes care of themselves, and doesn't get adult onset diabetes as well as the reverse of that situation.
Thats also why identical twins often have small developmental differences, sometimes including a slight difference in height even not to mention freckles and whatever other thing you can think of.
Yes people with identical genetic codes oftentimes have differences due to their environment.

Doesn't that boggle the mind?

Of course there are gene's that will lead to people being more fat than others. I'm not sure where the "elite being slimmer" is coming from however, if you go look at the elite through history you'll see that most of them were quite fat.

I think that although there is a genetic component, what people eat more than likely has a bigger affect on someones weight.

Indeed sir, it used to be that some extra padding was a symbol of wealth.
See no one else could afford enough food to get big.

I also agree with you on the second point. I'm from a bigger family and have been losing weight from diet and exercise. Its slow going because of certain genetic factors I'd assume, but I'm doing it..... even though it may be frustrating at times lol.

You confuse evolution with inheritance. If there was only inheritance little would ever change. Not all trait are parent possessed or transmitted, there needs to be "de novo" mutation to ensure new differences to immerge. The trait that stick are the evolution so to speak. There is also the problem of stagnation ad bottlenecking. You have greatly simplified what actually happens.

Success in genetics is not trivial. A species can be doing really well and they suddenly run into trouble and the population collapses bringing other animals down with them. So it is not as simple just attempting to be "strong", because it is not obvious what that is. Evolution is what happens, not what animals think they aught to do.

There is no evolutional psychology that you like to talk of. Instead there is just propensity for certain personality traits. A great deal of behaviour is in fact learnt. Probably the majority in fact. Children no a great deal from their parents. They know that from studying children who were brought up feral without human interaction. There are some thing that are passed on like the capability to learn language. But this is merely eh capability to understand grammar and syntax. These parts of the brain have to be stimulated. If they haven’t been by 8-12 then these part of the brain fuse and they can never learn it. They are still studying what is passed on interims of cognition and behaviour.

Why do humans have lots of different sort of people? The simple fact is that lots of different roles are required to keep a society going. We live in societies because we have to create our environment because we can’t live in simple groups like chimpanzees anymore. Everything is overlapping. We are simultaneously reliant and competing.

Yes, survival of the fittest should be rephrased survival of the best adapted to the their environment. The fittest now, might not be the fittest tomorrow in an ever-changing environment.



Yes, the boy who was brought up by dogs or various other animals would support your case very well. Also supporting your case would be the various foreigners who move to a country has a child with vastly different culture and become almost the same as the natives. So this would prove Japanese man would be neurologically the same as a Jamaican from view of an untrained outside observer.

Successful behaviours are leaned, and the unsuccessful ones are rejected. Religions like Christianity is a prime example as it has been the very successful for over a thousand years and has to be learned and isn’t inherited by the genes.

Asperger syndrome is a prime example of characteristics and behaviour that are not learned but inherited. Nobody taught me to have aspergers no one taught me to be analytical, no one taught me to have preferences for intellectually intelligent woman. These characteristic were inherited though my mothers genes.

Got to go now as my lunch time is up finish it when I get home

No christianity is NOT a prime example of natural selection.

The same traits that have developed into humans believing in various religeons have been seen far before christianity was even a small doomsday cult in the middle east.
Belief in othernatural things, the social contract, etc. have been in existence before humans even existed! Neanderthals had burial ceremonies indicative of a belief in the afterlife!

Christianity is a social product and not a symbol of evolutionary dominance sir.

If I misunderstood your statement, well I apologise, its an entirely possible event.

[quote="UnrelentingHorror"]No christianity is NOT a prime example of natural selection.

Christianity is a social product and not a symbol of evolutionary dominance sir.

If I misunderstood your statement, well I apologise, its an entirely possible event.[/quote

All social contracts are subject laws of evolution. Religions have come and gone. Others other religious branched off older ones and some have killed off others.

Christianity and Islam are not the oldest of religions but they are the most successful at this current time, much like humanity.

Religions are meant to explain humanity and the known universe, they do an excellent job, but some A-hole always takes it to the next level and tries to force people into it. Even the mormons can't live their views without trying to get some control over non-mormons, just look at prop 8. And listen to what they say about people who leave the church, I'm looking at some serious hellfire for trying to do the right things for myself, if god thinks he can judge me for trying my best, he'd better tell me where I went wrong first, or I'll just question his or her godhood.