Originally Posted by lightsky
uh, slim: your "thing" isn't the only thing that's a little short: your memory ain't so hot, either. it's been my position from the very beginning that there ARE universal laws of physical attraction. YOU'RE the one who denied that such a thing exists, and that's why i pointed out to you that your statement about "proportions" contradicted your stated position. you can add your brain to your growing list of diminutive assets.
Learn to read first, then argue. your position as you've stated= that there is a "universally attractive standard body type", and that its bigger than a supermodel. (who in your opinion, look like boys) Thus, in your opinion supermodels are universally known to be unattractive. (or like boys) You posted pictures of Kim Kardashian, while occasionally fetching above the waist, is freakishly large below the waist. Your claim that you have been arguing "proportion" is ludicrous in retrospect. She is "a proportion" in the strictest definition of the word, yes. But she is far
from a universally pleasing proportion, as evidenced by this thread. my position as I've stated = The idea that there is a universally attractive body type is garbage. You want proof? Ok, I don't think Kim Kardashian is that attractive, and neither do at least half of the guys in this thread. There you have it, proof! AFTER I mentioned proportion ratio, which up until that point you had been fighting AGAINST (Kim Kardashian butt does NOT look proportionate to the rest of her body) Your main point - the waist to hip ratio is great (although it is fringe science, and very disputable), but like I said, applies equally as well to the morbidly obese as it does to any model. I do not find morbidly obese women with a 0.7 waist to hip ratio attractive. Only slim, otherwise attractive girls with a 0.7 waist to hip ratios are attractive to me. Thus, the ratio itself is subjective based on individual taste. You cannot have mathematical evidence based on a criteria of totally subjective observation. The fact that attraction can sometimes be broken down into mathematical formulae falls short of defining what makes someone attractive to an individual, and certainly can't explain the wide variations in what defines "beauty". Your continued assertion that you have a bigger penis than I do only serves to make you look like an idiot who can't properly formulate a logical argument, which you have egregiously failed to do repeatedly. Why are you so interested in the size of my penis? Does the knowledge that you might
have a bigger one make you feel better about being verbally and logically outclassed by me in this thread? If so, I'll let you continue to overcompensate for your brains with your penis. Who am I to shatter a dream? I'm perfectly comfortable with the size of my dick AND my brain. If people give up and ignore you, its not because you have out argued or outsmarted them, since obviously your statements are incoherent, ignorant, contradictory, and juvenile to the extreme; It's because they feel like they are wasting words on someone who doesn't have the capability to grasp the meaning of them. Its like talking to a three year old. I don't have the patience to draw you a picture, and frankly, you have annoyed almost everyone in this thread to the point where they have put you on ignore. You are probably a troll, who just sits there and gets his kicks by antagonizing people online. In which case congrats, you have succeeded. But one thing you should know about me is that I don't give up and I don't ignore people, so you are stuck with me until YOU quit.