Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.
And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.
As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):
Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.
Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.
He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]
In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.
While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.
While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.
Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.
This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.
Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.
“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”
And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.
And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.
And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.
A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:
A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]
Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.
And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!
Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur: the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”
Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.
This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.
Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)
PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:
When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.
Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!