My position “in general” is that Fat Males have “superior genes” that are directly correlated with a low basal metabolic rate.
Skinny Males have “inferior genes” that are directly correlated with a high basal metabolic rate.
Fat Males direct their conserved energy in pursuing, acquiring, and consuming “Stuff” in our current zero-sum environment. Fear is the “Ultimate Emotion” for this “drive” (Darwinian Natural Selection Theory).
The emotions of Envy, Sexual Jealousy, and Shame are “Proximate Negative Emotions” that drive males to pursue, acquire, and consume Stuff (Darwinian Sexual Selection Theory).
Females pursue Fat Cat Stuff. The females success in obtaining and consuming Fat Cat Stuff is directly proportional to the females relative Bilateral Symmetry (Beauty) and inversely proportional to their age (Fertility).
Fat Cats consider females to be “Special Stuff” at the time
of acquisition, and “Disposable Stuff” after consuming their Youth.
“Social Stratification” is the result of all the above.
Well, in general, I find that people over use Social Darwinism, in order to make the case that “How It Is” is “How It Should Be”, so I’ll make my biases clear.
As for your specific points – I fail to see how having a high Basal Metabolic Rate affects ones ability to pursue, acquire, and consume “stuff”. Please clarify. Are you suggesting that there are genes for successfully acquiring stuff – so we should expect Bill Gates to be fat? Frankly, I’m ashamed to say this, but I think you need to define “Fat” – do you mean large in mass or in stuff?
As for the theory that females persue males in order to get more access to stuff – it certainly is true within limitation, but certainly is less true in the USA in 2001 than in USA during 1950. (thank goodness!) In fact, the number of women not marrying until much later in their lives implies that women in the states are using the strategy of persuing “fat cats” less.
Similarily, I think your views on mens attempts to woe women are a bit out of date. Certainly there are men who divorce in order to date younger women, but you’d have to have data to prove it was common, or even more common now than in earlier times.
Jesse, how should I say this? You need to work on defining your terms more and providing support for the things you say. For example, what is “Special Stuff”, “Disposable Stuff”, “Fat Cat Stuff”? What’s the evidence that “superior genes” (need a definition for that too) is associated with a low basal metabolism? How does this relate to social stratification?
You might want to try rewriting your post to eliminate some of the ambiguities. Here’s what I think you’re saying, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
“Fat men have superior genes. The fact that they have a lower metabolism means they have more energy to pursue their goals. One of the main goals of fat men is to accumulate goods. This is done out of fear, and reinforced by shame, sexual guilt, and envy. One of the primary goals of fat men is to date young, beautiful women. Women are sexually attracted to fat men, and if they are young and beautiful, they will get them. Fat men like these women at first, but then get rid of them when the women get old. This is what causes class differences.”
Jesse, I have recently come in contact with jealousy, which is fear based, emotional. I would not have come to this point had I not been involved in a sexual relationship that included strumming of emotional chords. Most all previous sexual relationships lacked emotionalism, therefore jealousy was never experienced. I don’t agree that Fat Males have superior genes. But I do know that women are more likely to become emotionally involved with alpha male types. Emotional involvement seems a type of surrender to the dominant male.
It means that in order for me to gain, you have to lose. In other words it is an environment where mutal cooperation is not advantageous.
The opposite, I suppose, would be a synergystic environment (ie 2+2=5). An environment where mutal cooperation results in greater benefits than the sum of everyone working individually.
Genes are only superior if they help a species survive and procreate. Do women like fat guys? Don’t know. Are fat guys more successful? Well a lot of the partners in my firm are fat. They also travel extensively and don’t have time for the gym. So who can say if they are successful because they are fat or fat because they are successful.
It means a system under which there is a completely fixed amount of something to go around; therefore no indivdual can have more of it unless someone else has less of it.
jesse morrison, please explain to us how we are currently in a zero-sum environment. For what good or benefit? For ALL of them?! Improvements in technology have NO role in stretching the amount to go around?!
sirjamesp: If wishes were horses, beggers would fly.
If people expended their energy in getting stuff, then they would be thin. But, I’m putting in 8 hours at a computer to get stuff, and I’ll use less energy in those 8 hours than I could get if I ate up my profits.
So, pretty much, in the current environment, there isn’t (AFAIK) a correlation at all between fat/thin stuff/no stuff for the majority of americans.
If fat people expended their conserved energy in getting “stuff”, then wouldn’t they get thin as a result?
Or, to put it another way, wouldn’t you expect successful people to be thin, as they have expended lots of energy to aquire “stuff”?
Some of the stuff that fat cats acquire is “rich food”, they consume more energy than they expend, thus they become fat. Someone mentioned Bill Gates as an exception. Perhaps he has to “work at” being thin, because being thin is fashionable, or perhaps he thinks being a fat “fat cat” would be over doing his image.
After “someone” acquires alot of stuff, the stuff generates its own energy, leaving the someone to pursue other interests suchas acquiring young beutiful mistresses. This would involve fancy restaurants with rich food (caloric intake) vs. fornication or adultry (caloric outtake).
jesse morrison, please explain to us how we are currently in a zero-sum environment. For what good or benefit? For ALL of them?! Improvements in technology have NO role in stretching the amount to go around?!
I have recently come in contact with jealousy, which is fear based, emotional.
But I do know that women are more likely to become emotionally involved with alpha male types. Emotional involvement seems a type of surrender to the dominant male.
Alpha Male Types = “Fat Cats”. Fat Cats are a limited commodity in a zero sum environment.
Jealousy solution 1—Some Fat Cats are more equal than other Fat Cats. Choose two competing Fat Cats that YOU can make jealous, select the Fat Cat that exhibits the least jealousy between the two. This will reduce the pain of your sexual jealousy. Downside----Jealousy is an aphrodisiac.
Jealousy Solution 2—Create your own Fat Cat, starting with a Skinny Cat. On the front, sign a 5 year contract that he can not abandon you for another female during this 5 year period. Direct his limited energy into multiple “scam” operations with you in control. Accumulate these operations until they become “stuff” that generates its own energy. Change his name to Nathaniel Galt, enjoy. Downside—Read “The Passion Of Ayn Rand”.
jesse-explain how we are in a zero sum environment, at least?
To keep with my OP, “Stuff” has to have a perceived value that humans desire. “Florida Sunshine” in the winter is an example. Although a large number of people desire Florida Sunshine in the winter, Fat Cats have stuff that will outbid Skinny Cats stuff, to consume the Florida Sunshine stuff.
Female Beauty is another example, which needs no explanation.