There's something I don't understand from the evolutionary perspective

We're hunter/gatherers OP. If nothing gets killed or gathered for a couple of weeks (like maybe in WINTER) how long is Bertha the one woman squat machine going to last? Maybe a week. She just died, with your potential offspring in her belly, because you made a poor life choice. Meanwhile, my curvy Inge with the extra padding (built for comfort, that is), is doing well, will survive until I kill a mammoth next week, and my child will be suckling at her breast come springtime.

variance in genetic makeup, i would assume, which is itself an evolutionary tactic

i'm not talking about the subjective nature of different people liking different things

i'm talking about the innate general nature of the physical characteristics that make men and women attractive
but just the women in this case

you take a big strong man and a big strong woman and chances are their children will be big and strong
you don't have to look much further than your friends parents in highschool, of course nothing is a guarantee but there is very often a fairly strong correlation in the size of your friends and his/her parents.

this doesn't explain anything
you're telling me that males prefer feminine qualities which just so happen to be physically weaker and seemingly inferior to the masculine characteristics that men exhibit themselves
i'm acknowledging that as a truth but asking why that is

this isn't science tho it's philosophy isn't it?
doesn't philosophy go here?

Could also be because Muscles increase metabolism for the female and from a primitive perspective mean that they require more to eat to survive and maintain shape, whereas fat stores calories for prolonged periods without food which is more useful for pregnancy.

>you take a big strong man and a big strong woman and chances are their children will be big and strong

Muscles aren't hereditary to the child and don't cause the child to be any healthier in the early years of its life. When you have a pregnant female muscles aren't going to make things any easier since you don't want her running around foraging/hunting with your baby in her.

>toned
>strong

not equivalent pal

Sorry if I worded it shittily, but I think it's simply because you can't reproduce with another male. Consider that for the majority of history there wasn't really a good way to protect yourself from STDs, so homosexuals probably ended up dying off naturally. Thus people who're attracted to masculine features wouldn't last long in the long term.
tl:dr Natural selection would be my guess.

First off, athletic women aren't particularly athletic by male standards. Female professional athletic records are on the level of amateur teen boys' records. In some areas where the sexual dimorphism is particularly large like grip strength (which is pretty important for things like hunting) international-level female athletes barely reach the level of the average untrained male.

Seeing as the sexes are thus specialised in different things and have different roles, why would males be particularly attracted to women being good at things they're not specialised in? The potential for healthy offspring can be more easily gauged by things like symmetry and general health.

Also evolutionarily speaking everything has both a cost and muscles in particular are VERY costly. It's nice to have them but excessive muscles, especially in females who won't be using them much, are a net loss.

That said men aren't the selective sex and the cost of reproduction is very low for them, so it doesn't matter that much what they're 'attracted to'; they'll fuck/impregnate most anything.

this

>everything has both benefits and a cost *

don't exactly get this one

makes sense i guess

I don't know the details but I'm pretty sure to a certain extent the muscles are passed down
the bulk of actual muscle mass is something you can't get without getting the proper exercise and nutrition yourself, but I think certain body types, abilities to put on muscle, and hormone or testosterone levels can be passed down. i'm way out of my field tho and just speculating
height is definitely passed down tho, which is what got me thinkin bout this shit in the first place lol
i'm a manlet and kinda wish I was taller and was thinking if I don't hook up with a chick taller than me my son might catch my shit height genes
Then I started thinking well shit while i'm at it she might as well be a fitchick too
and then I thought how unattracted I am to both tall and fit chicks
and then i made this post

good point

Because evolution, especially (sexual) selection, is more complex than that.

damn
never looked at it that way
very interesting lol, std's are the reason we're not fucking apewomen
who woulda thought

ok
thanks

But fit and muscular women have an easier time giving birth and could have more babies

Agreed. This question doesn't belong here but it's not like Veeky Forums will give better answers.

Muscle building also improves bone density which is very important for pregnancy. I think men being attracted to skinny chicks is more of a cultural thing.

Because the majority of men are plebs.

i thought this was a philosophy question?
is evolution a science?

I like them tho
But i more like a display of strenght (eg kicking someone else ass, training middle kick and giving a nice smash sound) than actual body mass
Trained strong legs are my thing but i dont like the turtle nor arm muscles

There are definitely cultural aspects. Female humans are supposed to be the selective sex and men even have a mushroom shaped penis to scoop out competing sperm but women throughout a lot of history were required to be virgins before being married off, and they had their husbands chosen for them by their fathers.

In the human species, women select men, not the other way around.
Men are attracted to all women who aren't missing limbs and have a vaguely humanoid shape.
Women have to pick and choose, and investigate and discuss, and then make their decision, because they have to carry that decision for a full fucking year.
Men can casually fuck a couple of different women per day, every day. They don't select, since they invest little.

So if we were optimizing our lifestyle to reflect the biological facts of our being, men would be wearing makeup, and jewels, and be parading around like peacocks trying to get selected, and women would not care about looks at all, since they can get sex regardless of their looks.
They hold the key, and they select who gets to have it. Men don't select.

Show show far we are from reality these days, when men are accepted to be slows who don't care about presentation, and women have to parade and present themselves.

>men even have a mushroom shaped penis to scoop out competing sperm

fuck off retard

There was always disease and exposure.

Female athletes think they are improving their bodies, but they're really destroying them, and they're doing even worse things to their fertility.

Pic related is the simplest scheme I could find on the Female Athlete Triad.

I can't think of a single university exam involving sports medicine not asking the student about the FAT.

No he's not joking. That's a real theory.

>Evolutionary processes have shaped the human penis to scoop previously deposited semen out of the vagina during intercourse in order to prevent impregnation by another male. The cessation of thrusting during the male orgasm prevents this scooping of semen from occurring. The recovery time for men in between orgasms is thought to be a mechanism for preventing the male from removing his previous ejaculate from his partner's vagina and thus potentially lowering chance of impregnation.

Nature is amazing.

How do Ameriburgers reconcile this with the story of Adam and Eve that they are taught in their High School science classes? If Adam was the only man on Earth, whose semen was his mushroom-shaped pee-pee supposed to scoop out?

Fertility declines significantly below a certain body fat percentage for women.

>Surely mating with such women would produce stronger offspring

Whow .... I am stunned, is this what you really think?

If my wife dyes her hair blue my kid will have blue hair right?

Being fit is not in your dna it takes time,effort and training to get into shape but it doesn't magically go into your dna fucktard.

This is Lamarckism .... fuck you have to be religious right ? Only religious people know that little about evolution.

Eve was into bestiality
that's the reason they got kicked out, no apple shit

You're thinking of bodybuilding, it's not the same thing as being fit and healthy.

i think he is arguing for naturally/genetically predetermined fit, muscular women instead of the ones who train to become fit..
but yeah, it's retarded nevertheless.

OP, we already select for healthy mates simply by looks and scent. The fitness aspect doesn't play much of a role in selecting women, since they are selected only on the basis of being healthy, thus producing healthy offspring. The only males who are able to select women anyway are the alpha males who can choose between all the females flocking to them and these alphas are on average fitter anyway.

it happens to every professional athlete, not necessary to be bodybuilder

And professional athletes push their bodies way too hard.

>homosexuality is a genetic tactic
Can't be a useful one tho

sure
i was just pointing out it's not only a bodybuilder thing

Read a book, dumbass.

you mean

So women evolved to be slutty but society forces them to go against this instinct.

No, they don't know shit. They even whined during April Fool's about how they should have combined with Veeky Forums instead of Veeky Forums because they wanted those nerds to give them medical information.

All humans evolved to be slutty but women's slutiness had to be controlled so men could work out who the father of a baby was.

They will just tell you that men who choose skinny bitchez are stupid.

well, initially yes, but at the end /fitlit/ was celebrated as a huge success

>they don't know shit
yes, but neither do we (about evolution), generally speaking

high test is a meme, but yes they will do so, while also posting fat-hate pics at the same time

Yes and men evolved much larger penises compared to other primates because it was positively selected by women.

I don't understand men who don't want fit, thicc muscle girls

/fitlit/ was more like a bunch of Veeky Forumsizens roleplaying as e/lit/ists

Not surprising. Veeky Forums is a much more active board (no pun intended).

Girls in the OP literally need to take steroids to look like that.

It is almost impossible for women to put on any real muscle.

Here's a before and after pic. Which is more attractive?

It is beneficial for most species to have some homosexuals. It can be good for a group if the males do not compete or fight over the females, also sex is often used to bond with other individuals, as a means of social interaction and not just for reproductive purposes.

SQUATS

I once had a fit gf and it would hurt when we had sex. She would wrap her legs around me and hold onto me so tight when she orgasmed. Jesus Christ.

Maybe this is why men prefer skinny women?

Humans are also attracted to unnecessarily large sexual organs, which is why they are gigantic compared to other species, even though they are counter-productive to survival. A human who can afford these drawbacks and still be healthy is considered impressive and a suitable mate. If the conditions were so that only fit females have a good chance of surviving they would probably be considered more desireable, but seeing how things are now there is no big evolutionary pressure.

what the fuck that's hot

well, Veeky Forums is also a bunch of anons roleplaying as e/lit/ists (and devout christians)

No, you're just a weak piece of shit. You could withstand her muscular vaginal walls if you were a Chad.

They want muscular girls so bad they train them like Pokemon

We don't need fit women, we need fertile healthy women who will provide good incubators and then mothers for the child.

The man is supposed to be the fit one who protects her. Women are just meant to be baby machines.

I'm pretty sure being healthy means you need to be fit.

If it can be answered with science, it's not philosophy.

Maybe that faggot thinks being skinnyfat is healthy.

This. Women can only get the she-beast look if they have a genetic quirk, alter their entire lifestyles for muscle gain, or take drugs. Your regular fit women looks like the one on the right in

Being a healthy woman means a healthy level of bodyfat, which is crucial to the babies survival, if you can see a womans abs she has very low bodyfat, this is bad for pregnancy.

No im not saying we should be attracted to whales, but women need to have fat.

/fitlit/ eventually become one of the most successful merges and they got along when the realized they had become The Greeks maymay

Men are attracted to healthy women, which would be sufficient even without them being fit, toned and muscular.

Women who could devote more energy to having healthy children would have a genetic advantage over women who who could keep fit with regular exercise etc. If plump baby-maker churns out 10 kids while fit amazoness pumps out 3, plump baby-maker is going to have a disproportionate effect on the gene pool. A woman with a little meat on her bones isn't really a bad thing for child rearing, it's probably advantageous for times of scarcity. For most of our history the odds of being unhealthily fat were relatively low, but the odds of being underfed were likely.

Why are so many women anorexic tho

Yeah this, muscle burns a shit load of extra calories, whereas fat is calories, a strong muscular woman is basically a burden because 99% of the time shes burning energy and not lifting a rock off someone or hunting, which the men do anyway.

So hopefully we have answered and convinced OP

I think they're fine as long as they keep getting their periods.

Isn't it hard for a woman to have kids if she's too fat as well?

Depends on the woman and depends on how *fit*
There is such a thing as over doing it
Man or woman

stupid modern obsessions on the ideal body.

Being skinny in the west is a rich woman's privilege nowadays.

>but only need 19% body fat for the abs to fully show.
Um, sweetie, I'm pretty sure that's wrong

>Being skinny in the west is a rich woman's privilege nowadays.
Actually it's a privilege to anyone who has the displine to work for it.

Body image issues created by todays society.

There's no way their abs show at 19%, women have fat on their stomachs as the main storage area after boobs and butt, no way 19%.

OPs pic makes me want to puke.

I wonder if prehistoric men and women were ripped

I'm not saying it's going to stop pregnancy or anything, it's just less healthy, the difference doesnt matter as much today, we have great medical care and hospitals, but the difference mattered a lot when you're a small nomadic tribe giving birth in the wild and your food supply fluctuates, you dont want a skinny woman in those times. Maybe it will change but for now our mindsets and bodies are still geared around those situations.
Yeah but they couldnt reach those obese levels historically.

They lived off of rat meat so probably not.

Being fit doesn't mean you are skinny. It's healthy to have fat on you, no matter your sex.

>what is hunting mammoth to extinction

What?
They hunted big game you retard

Cavemanhivemind

Not all humans hunted mammoth

The woman in ops pic is skinny. Thicc women are something else

Because it's not feminine
Different traits communicate genetic health in women than in men
A 6'2 beast of a woman would show comparatively worst genetic health than a man with the same

By what metric? The average 6'2" Amazon can shit out a baby like it's nothing while the average 5'2" no hips womanlet needs a c section to not die in labor.

They also ate plants that weren't selectively bred yet.

feminine is not objective
you are talking about efficiency