Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[James Edward Smith]

I wonder if stockholm syndrome then, is really just a natural tendancy in humans due to our core, primative mating behaviours. By this I mean:

1. Guy leaves his family unit after maturing and beginning to see his father as more an adversary and less a protector.

2. He sees an available female he likes who has naturally strayed from her father after subconsciously coming to grips with the fact that her mother is his main squeeze and she would do better to find a less occupied male to raise her children with.

3. Depending on how accepting she is and how strong he is, he overpowers her and fucks her.

4. Whether or not the above was accepted by the female, he smooths it over by providing her with food and protecting her from being raped by other rival suitors.

The beast you know and have started to form a bond with is better than the beast you don't know. Neh?

Of course, humans are communal animals so I guess in a more realistic tribal setting you are looking at the situation where you can't just go around raping chicks who don't respond favourably to your advances because then their dads or even their mothers are gonna get pissed at you and she's not the only one you have to overpower in that case. You don't want to piss off the tribe, right?


Oh also, about fat chicks. I like curvy women, a lot. You just gotta make sure your face doesn't start looking fat, that's all. 'cause then that starts to look ugly *burp* 'cuse me.

[Thad]

fridged bitches

This spelling error is very amusing to me because I am just coming off a thread talking about The Killing Joke.

[Kashan]

fridged bitches

This spelling error is very amusing to me because I am just coming off a thread talking about The Killing Joke.

Yeah, being a fridged bitch is definitely something you can't chalk up to genetics.

[Pacobird]

I wonder if stockholm syndrome then, is really just a natural tendancy in humans due to our core, primative mating behaviours. By this I mean:

1. Guy leaves his family unit after maturing and beginning to see his father as more an adversary and less a protector.

2. He sees an available female he likes who has naturally strayed from her father after subconsciously coming to grips with the fact that her mother is his main squeeze and she would do better to find a less occupied male to raise her children with.

3. Depending on how accepting she is and how strong he is, he overpowers her and fucks her.

4. Whether or not the above was accepted by the female, he smooths it over by providing her with food and protecting her from being raped by other rival suitors.

The beast you know and have started to form a bond with is better than the beast you don't know. Neh?

Of course, humans are communal animals so I guess in a more realistic tribal setting you are looking at the situation where you can't just go around raping chicks who don't respond favourably to your advances because then their dads or even their mothers are gonna get pissed at you and she's not the only one you have to overpower in that case. You don't want to piss off the tribe, right?


Oh also, about fat chicks. I like curvy women, a lot. You just gotta make sure your face doesn't start looking fat, that's all. 'cause then that starts to look ugly *burp* 'cuse me.

Geo has captured the Platonic Form of a WFE post.

Everybody go home; it's over.

[Brentai]

Finally.

I'm gonna go outside.

[Thad]

Relevant: The Register mentions a study which suggests that overweight women are disproportionately passed over for CEO positions.

The gist: the study split 1000 CEO's up into three classifications: average weight, overweight, and obese.  Obese people of both genders were underrepresented.  But where it gets interesting is that just-overweight women were underrepresented, while just-overweight men were actually OVERrepresented.

El Reg takes issue with the methodology, as nobody was actually weighed and the researchers simply looked at photos and ballparked a BMI, but I don't really see a problem there -- at issue here is simple gut reaction to a person's appearance, not a thorough medical evaluation.

(Though I DO agree with The Reg that BMI is essentially a bullshit measurement that for some reason assumes two-dimensional humans, and the study would have been stronger if it had simply used the fuzzy terms "average", "overweight", and "obese" without trying to bring BMI into it at all.)

[Brentai]

The gist: the study split 1000 CEO's up into three classifications: average weight, overweight, and obese.  Obese people of both genders were underrepresented.

I'm actually surprised by that one.  My conception of the standard executives is way more "fat fatty-fat fat" than "just kinda pudgy."

...of course I deal directly and exclusively with marketing execs every day, so that's probably got something to do with it.

(Though I DO agree with The Reg that BMI is essentially a bullshit measurement that for some reason assumes two-dimensional humans

It also assumes that all weight is fat.  If you take BMI as the final argument on health, then every pro athlete who isn't a runner is about to die of a heart attack.

[Thad]

Right.

You were talking about how you've fattened up since you became busy with work -- I've got a warehouse job so I've experienced exactly the opposite.  I'm wearing my belt two holes tighter than when I started.

But I'm the same weight.

[Rosencrantz]

This reminds me of the Air Force's fitness standards. Once per year, you have to take a fitness test that is graded like this:
50 points for the 1.5 mile run
30 points for waist measurement
10 points for push-ups
10 points for sit-ups
...and you need 75 or more points to pass.

The amount of points you earn for the waist measurement part is the same for everybody. Actually, the male and female scores are different, but the inches are the same for super tall people as they are for short people. 42 inches and up (for males) gets you zero points. (So, no matter how fast or strong you are, this means you can not earn more than 70 points and therefore cannot pass the test.) 38 inches or so gets you about twelve points. 37 inches gets you about fourteen points. 32 inches gets you the full thirty points. It's an odd system.

[Brentai]

Odd.  My step-uncle's an AF captain and I don't think he'd qualify on that scale.  Must either be waived for rank or else he's good at browbeating his testers, which I kind of doubt since he's uneasy about using his authority for anything at all.

[SCD]

That's a pretty frakked standard.  Also, I would fail.  My invulnerable beer gut and big butt would ensure that.    

Here, there's two types of tests.  

a 12-stage shuttle-run.  I have to last 7 minutes of incrementally increasing speed, 11.5 to exempt.  

Push ups (17 measured by qualified civillian pushup nazis)
Sit ups (17 minimum)
And grip strength.  

If my number of the latter three is high enough and I score a 11.5 on the shuttle run, I get exempt status which is really a gold star on my report card and a get out of jail free for next year, should I not wish to bother.

I've exempted once three years ago.  Since then, I got lazy and just make it to 10 on the shuttle run.

the other test is for the army types and one of my faves due to my ox-like structure known as the battlefield fitness test, or BFT.  13 km rucksack march with full fighting order (helmet, balistic glasses, rifle, webbing, and added weight to simulate loaded mags), followed by a 100-m fireman's carry, followed by a trench dig where you have to excavate a certain amount of gravel from a.. box filled with gravel in the dimensions of a trench, followed by hauling boxes of ammo from one pallette to another.  It's a fun challenge for myself, and I always hurt like a sunofabitch by the end.  

It's challenging, it's fair and you have to train for it hard.  Nuff said.

[Rosencrantz]

Odd.  My step-uncle's an AF captain and I don't think he'd qualify on that scale.  Must either be waived for rank or else he's good at browbeating his testers, which I kind of doubt since he's uneasy about using his authority for anything at all.

I personally had to administer the test to a lot of Captains and other officers, so it's probably not a rank issue. I do know that a lot of people who administer the test change the results - there was a huge guy in a neighboring squadron who had no chance of passing but magically did because his coworker was the tester.

[Beat Bandit]

42 inches and up (for males) gets you zero points. (So, no matter how fast or strong you are, this means you can not earn more than 70 points and therefore cannot pass the test.) 38 inches or so gets you about twelve points. 37 inches gets you about fourteen points. 32 inches gets you the full thirty points. It's an odd system.

I've got a 29 inch waist. Does that mean I can skip the mile-and-a-half run?

[Fredward]

Relevant: The Register mentions a study which suggests that overweight women are disproportionately passed over for CEO positions.

Hmm. This reminds me of a study I heard about Francophone versus Anglophone managers in Quebec. Generally, the Francophones were lazier, less efficient, and had less company loyalty than the Anglophones. Shitstorm ensued. Until somebody compared this with numbers on managers by age group. Younger managers portrayed all the same characteristics. Take a look at the numbers on the managers, and, lo and behold, most Francophones are younger, while most Anglophones are older. Which has a completely different cause.

Maybe it's the same here? What if, say, most women have entered the workplace more recently, so they're part of a new crowd of health- and image-conscious folk, while most men have been around longer and have let their waistlines slip.

[Thad]

However, up to 61 per cent of the male CEOs were assessed as "overweight", which compares unfavourably with the US national average of 41 per cent for men of comparable age. Among men, biz fatcats are indeed fat.

The picture is very different for lady CEOs, however. At worst, 22 per cent of them were assessed as overweight - less than the 29 per cent which would have been normal for a group of US women of similar ages.

[Fredward]

Fair enough. I withdraw my point.