>>23182041 Depends on personality, probably the one on the left. Right looks like he'd be really annoying. Purely physical, I'd take a good in between. A softer face, not a stupid haircut, and skinny fat is good.
>>23182041 For me, it's all about the face and I don't find either of these guys attractive.
If we're talking about body alone and the face doesn't play any part in this, I'd go with the guy on the left and see if I can help him to eat better and work out. He looks like he has a pretty nice body hiding under the extra chunk. This guy had a somewhat similar shape, but he was able to transform himself into a gorgeous sculpture of a man.
I swear, all 4chan posts are by the same 5 people. OP with this thread every couple of weeks, black anon with a chip on his shoulder making cuck posts, a male teenager in panties, angry sexually confused anon going on gay threads and calling people faggots and Brendan.
So all the females on this board are insane. Not a single one has chosen right. Is your preferred mate based on your own well being rather than that of your children?
Left: absolute shit genetics (skin, hair loss but no body hair, penis, fat deposition), hormones (feminine face, hair loss but no body hair, total fat & fat deposition), lifestyle (fat & shit posture). His seed will make autistic babies. Right: good genetics (skin, penis, hair, musculature), hormones (masculine face, lean), lifestyle (lean, good posture, only developed chest and arms because other muscles are unnecessary for modern living/doesn't waste time obsessively bodybuilding because he's not insecure) he will pleasure you during sex, be a strong husband and father, and his seed will make strong babies.
>>23183116 Oy vey, looks like none do, and there are biological mechanisms which shut down their motherly desires for children because they are so messed up. A female who doesn't want kids, how messed up can humanity be
>>23183195 He's young. Didn't hurt Leo dicaprio. >>23183197 If by people you mean Tumblrinas and reddit/r/childfree mentality. I try to understand, but those women who take pride in not wanting children are the worst among us. How could a woman not want children...unless you are messed up in the head...had traumatic abuse that led to the biter belief that life is bad and reproducing is unethical. In such cases people should have no sexual preference whatsoever, but that's not the case here. They're dumb, young feminist whores. Even if you are a ultra busy ceo who can't afford to get pregnant (very rare situation but I saw this argument before) you will still have the biological urge to reproduce until you no longer can, and then it manifests as deep regret. Nothing is more important for a woman, it's impossible to argue otherwise unless you're so messed up and your own subconscious knows you're not mother material. Normal women feel that obligation from the center of their being.
lol you're asking a bunch of insecure fatasses, SJW's, betamaxers, DYELS and skinnfats who they find more attractive. we all know which one they actually find attractive, and we all know the one they are going to say they find attractive (or avoid saying) to be "nice"
>>23183335 >reproducing is unethical look man, I'm not a girl, but if I were, I'd still think twice about letting a parasite grow in my body for nine months, destroy my good looks permanently and force me to undergo what amounts to an extremely painful bowel movement without the expectation that the resultant child will be worth the time spent making it, all three of those sound pretty shit to me
>>23183116 stfu you dumb cunt. but first, listen to this podcast: http://streetcarnage.com/blog/help-i-was-attacked/
intro to podcast, by Gavin McInnes: "Last night I did the Race Wars podcast with Sherrod Small and Kurt Metzger. As usual, I said totally benign facts about the world and everyone went nuts.
Alls I said was, a woman choosing career over kids and never breeding is sadder than a man doing the same. A young girl named Sade found that so offensive she whipped her phone at me and that ended the podcast. I thought it was funny because she missed but if she had hit me in the balls and made me infertile, well, then I’d be pissed."
>>23187271 It kind of does, but in a different way than anon suggests Prior to any form of feminism, women would want to provide offspring to their husbands in order to be a successful wife The independence of the sexes has pretty much removed this aspect of society, so women are less inclined to have children
>>23187428 outliers to a correlation do not change the correlation
in addition to my previous post, woman's suffrage also played a large part in the expansion of government, and the creation of the welfare state children are no longer as necessary to each individual when they can be supported by the government instead
>>23185645 It doesn't destroy their looks but the best time for women to have kids is 30-35, and they're losing their looks by then anyway. >without the expectation that the resultant child will be worth the time spent making it This is the problem. You have to be seriously messed up to have this mindset.
>>23186872 Good shit. Second comment is the basis of my argument: >Kathy Shaidle says: >Actually Gavin, the world should thank me for choosing career over kids. My kids would be f-ed and I’d be a horrible mother
>>23187141 Gas the women who think he's a suitable partner. At least he still provides value to the economy.
>>23187258 >parasite Not this shit again. YOU are the parasite of society. There's nothing you can do to create more value than by having a child.
>>23187270 Lol great logic there, good luck becoming a used up spinster with no kids to care for you, dying alone at least you'll have your cats.
>>23187271 How could it not? It all has to do with women not wanting children and your response is to spout nonsense so you can call me a neckbeard. Which is still more valuable than a used up spinster.
>>23187551 Lulz I'll be more used up as a mother wouldn't I? Your thought process is antiquated. Also I never said I didn't want children but frankly it's not my sole mission in life. And if I don't reproduce, well that's okay too because the world is overpopulated as it is. Have fun when you're kids abandon you because you're an ignorant dick and you die alone without any cats.
>>23187583 Right, and we're being replaced by immigrants. >>23187563 Your line of thinking is a result of factors beyond your control anyway. idk what you're even trying to argue besides feminism. >And if I don't reproduce, well that's okay too because the world is overpopulated as it is. Keep trying to rationalize it, but it's not ok, unless you live in a third world slum. it's actually the most serious single issue productive countries face. Congrats on being part of the solution.
>>23187583 The United States is the 3rd most populous country in the world. At this rate we don't need to main replacement level. >>23187601 I'm not arguing feminism. I'm arguing individualism. We have a choice whether to reproduce or not, it's not a thing of necessity.
>>23187615 doesn't matter united states also has the highest GDP in the world sustaining itself is clearly not an issue not maintaining replacement level population does mean that your pension scheme is going to explode on you at some point, which will be far more ruinous than any hypothetical 'overpopulation' scares than you currently have
please, define 'overpopulated' for me what makes something overpopulated or underpopulated?
>>23187386 Less inclined just means that the barriers before wanting a child are higher aka. financial shit mostly, which in turn was caused more by the economic development than feminism, one partner can rarely provide for a family these days.
Not like this is really related to the people who are categorically against children. Outside of antinatalism, there is simply the desire to enjoy life.
>>23187583 Not really relevant given how the world itself is, so people not wanting to have children do the world a huge favor.
>>23187621 The national debt in 2015 was 18.15 trillion which is 102% of the GDP for that year. That's not sustainable. Overpopulation to me constitutes not enough resources for the population present. However this is complicated since it varies globally and you also have to consider income inequality. But I think the comparison of the national debt and GDP suffices.
What is it that women lose by not having children besides the generic "lonely spinster with 100 cats" scenario?
>>23187640 national debt has nothing to do with the myth of overpopulation national debt is, in of itself, harmless whenever somebody buys a government bond, national debt goes up private debt is not at all relevant with regards to national debt but you knew all of this
there are clearly enough resources for the present population as millions are rising out of poverty per year, and the global real GDP per capita has increased over a dozen times since the dawn of the 20th century, despite population growing about than fivefold
>>23187650 women vote for big government specifically, single women, both divorced and unmarried and most of all, single mothers vote for big government feminism gave these people the vote
do not misinterpret me: i am not saying that woman's suffrage is bad i am stating facts
>>23187665 I don't see how big government relates to the ability of one partner being able to support a family. In the span of 1964 to 2012, poverty rates have decreased from 19% to 15% which is pretty damn modest. Not to mention poverty levels are higher among young adults (child bearing age) and many are still recovering from the recession.
>>23186860 >you a nurse? No, but I know how to be fat and learned a lot while I lost weight and became healthier myself. >you'd rather have a "project" to work on? If the man I loved was willing to work on his weight (skelly or overweight), I would gladly help him as much as possible. The idea of helping someone I care for become healthier sounds absolutely wonderful to me. >you like his body only because you can convince him to make it better? Not entirely...It's just I can see the potential he has to have a great body if he took care of himself a bit more. He already has some nice looking legs and his shoulders and chest look slightly broader than the man on the right, which are some of the most attractive parts about a man for me.
>>23185637 I have a boyfriendo, anon. I could still help with tips and diet though!
>>23187684 i was on about the world as a whole with regards to poverty rates also, i must ask, is this relative poverty, or absolute poverty? if relative, it's somewhat meaningless the standard of living one of these poverty stricken americans has risen substantially since 1964, so much so that the majority of them are overweight and have coloured televisions and auto-mobiles.
as for your first line: taxes have hugely increased since the dawn of woman's suffrage huge amounts of taxes in order to support welfare mean that one working income will no longer be able to fund a family, as it must also help fund a dozen million other families at the same time also, when government is larger, there is simply less incentive to marry and have kids, as stated earlier you can swap you dependency from family to government government grows, family shrinks
>>23187711 Obesity doesn't necessarily relate to over abundance of food. In the impoverish it's moreso related to food of poor nutritional value being cheap and convenient. Also with the lack of public transportation in many cities and urban sprawl, an automobile isn't a luxury it's almost a necessity. A higher standard of living doesn't necessarily equate to a decrease in poverty.
And frankly it isn't taxes that prevent people from having children, in fact, tax wise having children works in your favor in the form of deductions and exemptions. The true financial hinderance to children is the cost of living: healthcare, clothing, food, education.
Let's add in that the lower birth rates are in relation to lower death rates. It's obviously a multifactorial issue. You've still yet to offer a tangible theory as to why a lower birth rate is a bad thing.
>>23187736 define poverty for me if it isn't necessarily relating to standard of living, what is it related to?
of course birth rates fall when death rates fall the issue is that birth rates fell far more greatly than death rates
i admit that my point on taxes was sketchy at best the point still stands that it is simply less beneficial to have children at this point in time due to reliance on government over reliance on family
a lower birth rate is a bad thing because the youth are the means to fund the welfare state that provides huge amounts of wealth to the old this decline in youth is coinciding with the retirement of baby boomers, and if birth rates remain this low, there's simply no way in which the pensions promised to the elderly will be able to be paid
if such debt didn't exist, a declining population would barely be an issue
>>23187767 I honk the true issue is the rate of poverty and unemployment among the youth. We aren't capable of paying into the system because of this so even with a larger population, the jobs just aren't there. If anything, the system is the problem, not a lack of population growth.
And really your argument on reliance on government decreasing birth rates doesn't make sense. The welfare state makes it easier for people to support their children. And just to simplify things, let's consider poverty using federal poverty level guidelines. That's what most data is based on. Standard of living really isn't a comparable measure in comparison to the past because of the resources we have available i.e. Welfare, food stamps, WICC, Medicaid.
>>23187806 >>23189079 Indeed automation is trouble for this issue . >>23189114 It don't get any less natural than amerifat . Look at bodies of uncontacted tribal people . Hunter / gatherers are always slim and lean with no unnecessary baggage . Right is very close to caveman .
Thread replies: 88 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 439800
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.