EXAMPLE 2: https://x.com/DailyCastiza/status/1999466515373195634 i'm pretty sure this is AI, but this is another good example of a healthy fertile woman that your brain should be telling you to impregnate

EXAMPLE 3: https://x.com/adolfmaxxing/status/1997105427092226269 this is TOO SKINNY and GROSS and if you find yourself "sexually attracted" to this "woman" you are almost certainly a homosexual

Discuss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504289)

it's all so tiresome man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504545)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_Peasant_Wedding_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg/960px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_Peasant_Wedding_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504352)

all that being said if you're not "attracted" to any of these women (except #2, which is pixar) you're a homosexual.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504316)

nothing wrong w heavy cream

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49505313)

maybe youre thinking about velveeta or some less common kraft product.

kraft singles are far from an ideal food and obviously processed as hell but very unfairly shit on by people who dont know what theyre talking about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49505399)

no. attraction is an animalistic, primal phenomenon. you either want to have sex with her, right now, or you don't. it's not an intellectual or abstract thing. we do not incorporate Reason into our sexual instincts

you can't fool me, buster

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504326)

there's a certainly a primal, unthinking component to it as well. and most men with both options on the table are gonna choose #3. sorry buster.

i do agree #3 is too skinny and should eat a sandwich. but #1s thighs are touching all the way down to her knees.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504362)

it's fascinating to me that men so often try to pretend like they rationalize their sexual attraction. it's such a womanly thing. women do this way more, of course, and it's just as bogus when they do it, and we men all recognize that it's bogus when they do it. but then for some reason, a lot of men do it too. i think it's just over-socialization: they want their stated preferences to meet the social consensus

men's revealed preference is for generally thicker women. you don't ever see skinny porn stars. they always have implants or naturally big tits and curvaceous thighs and asses. nobody is jerking off to twiggy chicks. because men who claim they're attracted to skinny women are full of shit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504380)

it's ok, your preferences are Valid. i'm not disputing that (how could i?). your real, actual preferences that is. not the ones that you pretend to have because your brain thinks they're more socially acceptable than your real preferences

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504397)

you conveniently skip over this part.

for as much as you lisp about my rationalizations i'm simply speculating on why most people would choose #3. but MOST PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE #3!

also, its a fucking preference, some will choose #1 of course. why can't you just accept that people have different primal preferences rather than insisting your POV is the correct one and everyone that says differently must be lying?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504404)

also this thread is engagement bait flame, obviously. no one else was making any good threads this morning

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504431)

i think you got it backwards, son. most people would fuck #3 and wife #1. #3 looks like a model whore, vapid, etc whereas #1 looks like she's already a mom.

this might have to do more with things outside their body type though. if #1 was gothed out and #3 was in a sundress maybe this would be reversed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504460)

which i agree is true. but it's not really what we're talking about here, which is purely physical attraction

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504480)

now choose

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504566)

it really is a purely physical thing for me. and in all honestly i suspect it is for every man, and you guys who claim otherwise are mostly full of shit. but i can't truly know your minds so who knows

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504576)

kind of like how women aren't consciously lying when they say they "prefer nice guys." it's a self-awareness gap

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504598)

different strokes for different folks, man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504612)

although, not flame, i think her tits may actually be slightly too oafishly large compared to her frame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504902)

so in addition to thiccer/more pronounced tits and asses and thighs, this would include fuller lips, round eyes, neoteny, petite rather than tall, soft skin and hair, etc. all the good stuff we love about women's physical bodies. and the non-physical stuff too like higher pitched voice but that's a separate conversation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504954)

cmon bro

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504970)

the point of contention, i think, is how much of physical attraction can be based on that at an individual level. you're asserting that it's the near exclusive metric to the point that anyone who deviates from it is "lying", whereas inthink its a major factor but that for various reasons a person can legitmately have different preferences.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49505110)

just come out GaySuperstar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504330)

https://premium.shungagallery.com/resources/modern-western-ii/module-wqeyv7/paul-laurenzi-art

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504389)

If they were mid 30s or worse still, over 40, they would like absolutely horrific esp if they're eating and health (or lack thereof) habits continue. They are at their prime metabolisms and that shit certainly doesn't improve for women over time.

#3 I would settle down with all day and pop out 4 kids no problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504685)

"physical attraction is primal, not about rationalizations!"

-- goysuperstar, apparently suffering no cognitive dissonance from these contradictory positions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49504792)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49505341)

says a lot huh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5809473&forum_id=2)#49505356)