North America. Nough said
FATTIES have most SUCCESS with opposite SEX! Have some pies and SCORE
Yet more great news today for those assessed as fatties by the now massively discredited Body Mass Index (BMI) system: you're probably more successful with the opposite sex than your undernourished contemporaries. We learn this from a new study by trick-cyclists in California, who surveyed 60,058 heterosexual men and women …
-
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 10:09 GMT AndrueC
Re: That is one angle
Perhaps it just reflects desperation? Maybe those in the 'healthy' range have a stable partner that satisfies their needs whereas those in the 'not so healthy' range have to resort to frequent bar crawling or the less well illuminated parts of town in order to get their rocks off.
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 12:41 GMT werdsmith
Re: That is one angle
I don't count in the bitter category having been married to a fine woman for 16 years.
But I would suggest that the bloaters would probably be considered more accessible (which is a nice way of saying they are easy). I do understand that the people that get the most lays tend to be the chubby-chasers. The porkers probably have more self esteem issues which keeps relationships short and causes churn.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:13 GMT Sir Runcible Spoon
Agreed, I read the info and immediately thought that the survey was measuring the inability to *keep* a partner (i.e. the more partners you have the less you are able to maintain a steady relationship).
This assumption also assumes some kind of moral strength (i.e. one partner at a time etc.) for generalisation purposes :)
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Came to say the same: "more successful with the opposite sex" != "the number of sexual partners they'd had"
I'd argue the opposite. Success tends to one, while a smattering of revolting drunken one-night flabfests and a procession of cheap whores does not come anywhere near my idea of "success"
Sounds like the trick cyclists have outdone themselves.
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 10:07 GMT Palpy
Yeah, that was my take too -- more sexual partners often (usually?) = poor success at sexual relationships.
I'm not interested enough to read the paper, but perhaps one might look instead at the frequency of sex with a committed partner, or at overall sexual satisfaction.
"Correlating" one body measurement with one behavioral measurement is damned iffy, yes? Sexual activity is complex, especially for certain cetaceans, mollusks, dragonfiles, and fetishists. Drawing simple conclusions is probably best left for simple minds.
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 13:10 GMT P. Lee
> more sexual partners often (usually?) = poor success at sexual relationships.
Now you're just undermining the music industry.
The current crop seems particularly odd with TayTay's self esteem so low she's quite happy to sleep with someone she knows is going to dump her; someone else asking his girlfriend if she'll stick by him if he goes to jail or whether she's willing to die for him (presumably he wants her to take the rap for murder he committed) and yes, you may be young and you are stupid for not getting more than a private verbal commitment - of course he was going to lie in that context.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Counting partners....
Might not be the best metric for "pulling success", it may be that the skinnies are staying together because they're happy with the selection whereas fatties are constantly hunting something with fewer folds of lard.
However, as Zappa said, "The bigger the cushion the better the pushin'".
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Isn't this just because ...
... all the fatties are having bed-breaking sex with each other? Whilst the healthy people (a) aren't getting pissed (UK sense = drunk) on a regular basis (staying sober *really* lowers your success rate, possibly because it doesn't lower your 'acceptance criteria') and (b) for lower BMIs the answer to "Fancy a shag tonight?" is one of: (exercise freaks) "Hmm, tempting, but I've gotta get to the gym"; (footballers) "Sorry honey but I've got a groin strain"; (people who do a lot of physical work, like Mrs Coward) "You've got to be joking, I've shovelled 1 tonne of horse shit, ridden three horses and swept the yard twice and I'm knackered"
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:17 GMT Silviu C.
People lie yo!
Here's the obvious problem with this research:
"The researchers **asked** the respondents their height, weight and the number of sexual partners they'd had, among other things."
People fucking lie! All the time!
In this case weight and height could be verified. But number of sex partners... NOPE
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 11:59 GMT James Micallef
Re: People lie yo!
"The researchers **asked** the respondents "
What rubbish science! The researchers should have embedded an accelerometer in the subjects' pelvises, a webcam between their eyes, and some Internet-of-things chippery to send all the data* back to headquarters for analyses.
*No doubt unencrypted and easily accesible by anyone else
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 17:07 GMT Mark 85
Re: People lie yo!
I'm thinking along those lines also. The one thing I note is that they didn't ask the respondents about their "partners" for the evening. I'm wondering if things are skewed a bit by wishful thinking or to make themselves appear to be more successful then they are.
One has to remember the words of Lazarus Long: "Everyone lies about sex".
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 09:40 GMT TitterYeNot
Re: BMI
"Is US BMI the same as European BMI, or is it like many other stateside measures?"
No - European BMI is 'Body Mass Index', in the US it's 'Butt Magnitude Indicator'.
Joking aside, I'm not one to talk, with my expanding middle-age midriff. I'm just relieved to find out that I was right all along, and that studies such as this are finally proving that it is just relaxed muscle after all.
<Coughs>
-
-
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 10:44 GMT frank ly
Re: BMI
"It also assumes that you're two-dimensional."
From Lewis: "... it assumes that healthy weight should scale up in relation to the square of height - a patently absurd idea, ..."
The square of height thing seems to assume that we're modelled as a cylinder, which is not a bad approximation - and that's all it is, an approximation to let a doctor/nurse or yourself obtain a quick and easy measure for comparison purposes. It's also only appropriate for someone around average height and build, not a particularly tall or muscular man or woman.
The last time my doctor had a good look at me (almost naked), she said I could do with having a bit more weight. I pointed out that my BMI was 23 and she went very quiet. I didn't point out that she was a bit of a porker and that people tend to want to see themselves as 'normal'.
-
-
Thursday 1st October 2015 11:55 GMT DanDanDan
Re: BMI
Even a cylinder is a cubic function where as BMI is a square so your argument is pretty much invalid.
The increase of a cylinder with respect to length is actually linear. Double the length of a cylinder and its volume doubles. If you double the radius only, then it's quadratic. If you increase its length and radius in proportion, then after dividing by the length (as you would to calculate BMI), then it's back to quadratic again.
-
-
-
-