/fa/ - Fashion

Hey, are you Brandon Cox?
I've been a big fan ever since Cryptograms, what an album man!

Stay strong.

Better clothes

>>6379403
>Brandon Cox
i dont get it

Other Supras

pic related

>>6379409
lrn to music

>>6379401
Don't wear tanks when you are dyel skeleton

>>6379403
his name's Bradford, fakkit

>>6379403
Monomania sucked. Let's see your pectus.

>>6379415
honestly skinny people can pull off singlets better than huge people, who most of the time just look like they're trying to show off their guns.

>>6379403
lrn to music fgt

>>6379422
Not talking about huge, but atleast ottermode.

>>6379415
tanks on skinny guys are okay, I saw a lot of skinny guys who wore perfectly a tank top at rave parties.

>>6379430
>I saw a lot of skinny guys who wore perfectly a tank top at rave parties.

can we get back on shoes please

>>6379441
Just get some white AF1 Hightops

>>6379463
oh shit i forgot about those lol

thanks fam

>>6379466
take advantage of sales and cop annds if you can

http://www.ssense.com/men/product/ann_demeulemeester/grey_suede_high-top_zippered_sneakers/66733

or

http://www.oki-ni.com/footwear/silent-by-damir-doma-men-s-satur-sneakers-sit1623blk.html

i copd both -- the wait is killing me

btw how many attempts at creating your own shit did it take to come up with that tank???

>>6379401
pls be trolling

>>6379601
1

>>6379401
w2c tank?

>>6379651
you cant
i made it

>>6379598

So if I rip off Converse hi-tops, take off the logo, put a zipper on the sides and charge ₤200. People will buy it?

I wonder what else I could rip off and put a zipper on the side and charge 5x the product I copied to sell to idiots.

captcha: trolLaw Chronic

>>6379674
yeah i dont really like the silent either

>>6379674
silent sucks but ur post sucks more

>>6379401
>biceps equal to the wrist

>>6379401
your arms are like mozeralla sticks

>>6379706
not as much as your mom

>>6379674
>being this delusional

>>6379401
Some arms

>>6379708
>>6379720
>>6379755

>being this delusional

>>6379783
delusional how?

>>6379783
Seriously dude, to get some upper body should be your number one priority not a pair of new shoes.

>>6379674

Is the idea really that idiotic to you?

People love Converse but there's tons of problems with them:

1. The obnoxious logo
2. The stupid spaghetti laces
3. How uncomfortable they are
4. How they fall apart in a year
5. How the overall design is great but there's no individuality to them

Converse rip-offs are one of the biggest justifications for designer fashion existing. It's taking a classic style that everyone loves and actually improving on it several times over. In fact I don't see why anyone would buy the originals anymore because designer brands have so heavily improved over the classic design.

These Visvim Kiefers are made of oiled Elk leather, have high quality vulcanized rubber soles, chunky pima cotton laces, malleable insoles that mold to your feet, and maintain everything that makes the original design great while adding a touch of individuality with the stitching motif.

http://jamesrmcnally.com/2010/12/visvim-kiefer-elk/

Look at those pictures and tell me you don't want a pair. They also cost an arm and a leg because sneakers are stupidly expensive to make. To put it in perspective almost every designer brand has their shoes outsourced by the same couple factories in Italy. Lanvin, Raf Simons, and Common Projects are all made by the same people and all use the same outsoles. If Lanvin, a high end Parisian brand whos menswear line has come to be DEFINED by their sneakers can't afford to make their own that is seriously saying something.

So go ahead, try making your own sneakers and you'll quickly realize it's one of the hardest apparel arenas to succeed in. You're going to need outsole molds made for every shoe size which can cost $10,000~ each and the minimum order per outsole size is about 5000~ pairs at $25~ each. Hope you already have 40,000~ customers ready and waiting along with your $1 mil~ start up cash. That's just for the outsoles too, 1/3rd of what actually makes up the shoe you can put in a store and sell to idiots.

is this better? they're flyknit lunars

>>6379859

Dat leather and dat woven trim. All my wants and I'm not even a Visvim guy.

bro. your shoes aren't the problem.

>>6380514
yeah but it was my question.

>>6380477
Better, change the skirt though.

>>6380477
nice dress faggit

>>6380537
holy shit dude do you just not eat or what?

>>6380529
its the shirt, its just long

>>6380537
plz be nice to me i dont want to you to hurt my feelings :'ccccc

>>6380542
i eat if you meant to ask me

>2011
>wearing dresses

If you wear a tank top without having muscle, you just look like a frail little boy.

>>6379401
Holy fuck, your arms look like spaghetti. Can you move a chair?

>>6380585
>>6380583
>>6380580
clearly jealous of heroin chic master race

lol thought u wer grill

>>6380477
Holy fuck, you would have gotten the shit kicked out of you for looking like that in any decade before the millennium. You're scrawny and weird at the same time. For the love of god don't wear any more sleeveless shirts. With you're arms so bony it just makes them look waaaaay too long and baboon like.

You can tell this thread is full of /fit/

>>6380613
well then its a damn good thing this is the present right? what the fuck does that even mean before the millenium? fashion changes u fucking retard thats why people are allowed to wear shit like this and not boxy as fuck suits and wide ties and tie-die.

>>6380623
its gross

>>6380613
Also your legs aren't long enough to pull off the curtain drapes top skinny bottom look. Your arms look like they belong to a 6'1" 130 lbs guy and your legs look like they belong to a 5'6" 100 lbs guy. You should fix that. Never wear sleeveless drapes again.

>>6380629
i made the tank really long for this purpose. im 6'2" 125 lbs. proportion play

>>6380636
and also the camera is tilted down so that fucks with my proportions.

>>6380636
Jesus Christ bro, how narrow are your shoulders and waist? Also you look like a junior in high school, so do you have a clique to dress like this with?

>>6380477
fatties are mad bro ignore them
-- you're fine the way you are

>>6379401
gain some weight you girl

>>6380647
my shoulders are broad for how skinny i am(42")

my waist(belly button) is 28"

where i wear my pants is 32"

and no im the the only person i know who dresses like this

>>6380650
He's 125 lbs at 6'2". I mean, he looks like he just spurted, I'd say he's ~17. So he hasn't had time to fill out yet. But that's still grossly thin.

>>6380650
<3

>>6380658
Come on, son. You should at least be with the hipsters or scene kids (do these still exist?).

>>6379706
why do you say silent sucks?
just curious here

>>6380668
scene no, hipsters yes.
and i hang out with people, just not people who dress like me

>>6380660
yeah i've been this weight for about a year and a half but grown up about a foot

>>6380674
So scene has died. It's about time. All their bands blew hard.

>>6380670
nvm just read the post you replied to
i'm dumb
sorry uuuuhhhh-sama

>>6380677
How tall were you freshman year? I was 5'6" and then by my junior year I was 6'2". I was like 160lbs though. But I have wider shoulders and waist than most tall people.

>>6380690
im not entirely sure, i never measured myself and thats the year i grew hella fast.

i started out sorta smaller than average probably and ended above average height.

>>6380477
w2c those shoes in that color?

>>6380707
Nike

>>6380707
its sequoia colorway
finishline has them online

>>6380670
quality is p. bad
alright on sale I guess
too many poorfags wear it in their 'budgetninja' fits

>>6379413
>Brandon
>BRANDON

>>6379413
/mu/'s taste in music is horrible.

>>6380720
i hear ya son but id rather see shit fits with silent ts than with h&m shite

>>6379409


Bradford Cox has Marfan syndrome. He's referring to your thin, sickly physique. You also look like you have long ass arms and fingers. You might actually have Marfan and not know it. It's somewhat serious; at any moment your heart could tear.

>>6380749
hmm thats actually worrisome because i do have pectus excavatum.

>>6380749
Deer hunter isn't even good. Also, OP doesn't have it. He's not that tall and is only this thin out of youth.

>>6380766
but im not worried

>>6380771
>>6380770
>>6380766
>>6380749
op youre fine lol

u dont have marfans lol. in any case im jealous of ur acromion :( ~*team spaghetti arms*~

>>6380679
>So scene has died. It's about time

pretty much but there are still tons of dweebs clinging to it smh

at least the girls are easy B)

>>6380876
oh god
okay these are a little questionable

protip: shave your arm hair. trust me on this

>>6380720
shoes or clothing or both

>>6380886
yea the chicks are hella easyyyy

>>6380876
high five

Holy fuck m8, my girlfriend could kick your ass.
Fucking highschool faggots think its cool to look skinny.
Naw 8m, you just look like a sissy, bitchboi.

>>6381031
Fuck yeah bro, fucking sissy little bitch. We need to start a "Feed the Skeletons" campaign.

>>6381031
>>6381049
my feelings are broken pls be nicer next time u come on 4chan plz :'c :'c </3

>>6381049
Bro....

>>6381060
Bro!

>>6381062
Brah?

>>6381066
sucking dick helps build jaw muscle i've heard

>>6381076
>not using Colgate Crushes to strengthen jaw
>stay poor bruh

are u a girl op?

>>6381157
nah im a boy

>>6381163

well u look like a phucking fag then (srs)

>>6381184
oh well

op is is gloriously /fa/

deal with it fatty mc fat fats

How can people go out looking like this? If I were OP, I'd only go out in public wearing sweaters or some shit to hide my arms. Also, I'd be so embarrassed to wear skinny jeans with those chicken legs that I'd probably wear two or three pairs of pants at the same time.

never go /fa/ before going /fit/

best advice ever

>>6381222
yeah thats what i do most days but today i decided to say
"u kno wat, i think i want some frostbite"

fatties gonna fat, fatty.

>>6381238

>fatties gonna fat, fatty.

do you know what a low bf muscular man looks like? it's so pathetic when you twinks seem to think the only alternative to looking like a scrawny skinnyfat little bitch is being overweight

lmao
/fa/ jerks off to hedi's models all day long, yet when some guy posts on here who has the same body type he gets shit on with "bruh do u env lift" and "u need to eat u hav chkn legs".


get your shit together /fa/

>>6381260

Fair enough, but the models are also wearing Hedi's clothing, which is kind of the main difference.

>>6381257
lrn to joke fag

>>6381260
yeah these fucks are so flip flop which is why their opinion is so fucking worthless

>>6381278
there's no difference between the bodies

>>6381260

/fa/ isn't a person, retard

>>6381292
it is a community though you fuck.

>>6381292
i'm going by what the masses say, ya dingus

>>6381300

so? a community isn't a supernatural being with a brain of its own dumbass

>>6381325
jesus christ you're a fucking moron..

>>6381278
nine times out of ten they are discussing their bodies.

>>6381331

>awh fuck he's right, i'll call him a moron
>phewww i'm off the hook

>>6381348
sorry, you can generalize based on what the majority does. you fucking moron.

>>6381280
>yeah these fucks are so flip flop which is why their opinion is so fucking worthless

i agree so fucking hard

>>6381348
>awh fuck he's right, i'll not reply.
>phewww i'm off the hook.

a life

>>6381357

the "majority" in this thread isn't the "majority" of /fa/ (if it is prove it)

have you contemplated the possibility that the people who say "do u even lift" are not the same people that say they like heidi models?? have you?? you're so fucking stupid

>>6381389

reply to what? "ur a fucking moron" isn't an argument. what do you want me to reply? "ur a suuuper moron!!!"??

>>6381411
do
u
even
read
threads
idiot
>>6381357

>>6381417

i already replied to that

>HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>do
>u
>even
>read
>threads
>idiot

>>6381430
after i fucking said >>6381389

damn son, you're stupid

>>6381222
Like Kurt Cobain, cover that fragility up. Loose clothes son.

>>6381435

i'm sorry i wasn't on the edge of my seat waiting for you to reply so i could immediately respond

>>6381444
the fact that you could be so uncomfortable with your body is unsettling and shows that you're insecure with the way you are now.

>>6381498
Fragility is unattractive. It is something to be embarrassed about. You SHOULD be insecure if you look that thin.

>>6381533

>Fragility is unattractive.

to you

>You SHOULD be insecure if you look that thin.

i dont think so.

>>6381533
lol, confidence varies so much person to person. and the fact that you try to make other people insecure shows that you are incredibly insecure and im sorry :(

>>6379401
You are one flat chested woman....

>>6381564
It isn't about confidence, it's about a bad physical trait. Look up the science of sexual attraction.

>>6381575
Sorry to tell you this, but at the end of the day, attraction and science don't mix.
That's just an excuse to sell flowcharts to the socially inept.

>>6381575

some people are attracted to that physical trait.

just because you arent doesnt mean everyone isnt.

>ugly stringbean looking mother fuckers with no self esteem wearing goof

You need layers, confidence, or to be skinny without being Auschwitz mode.

You look like shit OP, and I can only imagine how bad your face is judging from what I can see.

>>6381533
Fragility is fucking hot. In men AND women.
It just has to be tempered with grace & beauty.

>>6381580
Evolution is a lie. Fertility, safety, and stability aren't attractive. You win bud, you're a genius. Apple is just as attractive as hourglass, life is completely subjective. Genius.

>>6381599
I think there's a few more variables in the equation nowadays and I reject attempts to codify the sublime.

>>6381599

>life is completely subjective

we have arrived at the destination.

>>6381599
the fact that you two have different opinions already disproves you.

>>6381608
Being bombastic doesn't make you correct, it just makes you a cunt.

>>6379401
lel what a faggot
eat some food skinny piece of shit
those clothes was made for built man like me not for auschwitz survivors

>>6381614
Altruism is a joke.

>>6381621

to you it is. and thats perfectly fine.

;)

>all these summerfags insulting him for being too skinny

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA OH GOD

OP don't worry bout a thing bb

how tall op?

>>6381628
hi
how are you?
still virgin?:^))

>>6381630
6'2" 125lbs, pectus excavatum, age 15-18.

>>6381611
You realize how many studies have been done, right? And how women picked high testostorone males as ideal short term sexual partners, mid-testostorone males as life partners, and low-testostorone males as "good friends"? And how sexual attractiveness is directly related to fertility and health? And how only since the invention of birth control have women been attracted to feminine features?

>>6381615
You don't need to result to name calling when you address me.

How am I being bombastic?
I see a mention of evolution, I see fertility, stability and safety, I see body shapes.

But I don't see culture anywhere. I don't see upbringing, I don't see anything about the human experience, or perception. All that animal stuff doesn't count for much in the way of culture, money and property, does it?

>>6381694
It plays a part but human brains are immensely more primal than your letting yourself believe.

>>6381694
Nature > nurture

>>6381694
Wealth = safety and stability

>>6379401
OP people are going to think negatively about you as a first impression. Look at all the impression you made on these guys, but you write it off as haters to justify your appearance.

The first thing when I saw your fit was, "what a skinny faggot." When I see skinny faggots wear tank tops, I see how stupid they look. You don't percieve the world the way others do, and they will always be judging you no matter what you do.

Please don't wear that tank top. You look like a skinny faggot. I bet people call you skinny all the time, but do you take that as a compliment? I used to hate being skinny, I'm sure you do too. Please eat.

>>6381698

regardless, its a belief either way.

>>6381704

not always

>>6381707

depends on the person

>>6381691

none of those things are 100% constant, just trends that have been studied.

>>6381698
I can only speak from personal experience.

>>6381704
I believe we're at the point where Nature & Nurture are choices we can make. Hell, with drugs, surgery, nutrition and fitness in your arsenal you can reject them both and transcend your genetic destiny. I know many people who are doing this, even on a small scale with personal trainers and antidepressants.
I'm sorry, I just feel that the whole nature > nurture attitude deflects too much personal responsibility. Certain people have to try harder in certain ways, but we can all achieve. Failure is not defined by our ability to reproduce any longer.

>>6381714
I don't tske skinny as a compliment or insult. Its a fact.

holy shit

this thread is troled the fuck up

>>6381647
>6'2 125lb

Dude just gain like 20 lbs
I'm 145lb at 6'1

>>6381724
Nonreconstructive plastic surgery is immoral.

>>6379419
objectively bad opinion

>>6381775
>/mu/
>good taste
>ever

>>6381774
troll/10

>>6381717
>Scientifically proven with clear results.

B-but that's not 100% of the time!

No, you're right, just most of the time. But not being 100% invalidates everything.

>>6380477
You're cool, man.
Let the /fa/tasses hate.

>>6381807
I'm not trolling, I think that faking genes that you don't actually have is completely immoral and should be illegal. Imagine having kids with one of those people and then gazing upon their disgusting face. It's wrong, it's false genetic advertising.

>>6381827
You don't get to tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
Troll/10

>>6381827
A guy in China sued his wife because of that

>>6381814

>No, you're right, just most of the time.

yeah, thats what i said. its perfectly fine that 100% of people are not attracted to something. that doesnt mean it needs to be changed. the percentage doesnt really matter.

>>6381827

>it's false genetic advertising.

lmao

>>6381842
I'm actually a libertarian and would normally agree. But not on this point, it's just wrong. Falsifying genes is wrong from a natural level. It's kind of disgusting to me that people do it without even seeing what they're doing. It's a crime against humanity as a species, it transcends "muh body muh right" to another level of wrong.

>>6381885
It is my body, my right, though. I have to right to choose how I present myself to the world. That you'd make an argument against that right on a fashion board just astounds me.
Technology is trumping nature, and it's only a matter of time before genetic heritage becomes unimportant altogether. It can't be stopped.

I really don't want to have this discussion, it always leads somewhere that's either sexist or racist.

So OP I suggest GOMAD and SS. Once you make some noob gains you can switch to a mass building "aesthetics" program if you wish, or continue on to Madcows if you wanna make more linear strength gains.

Remember to eat in a caloric surplus if you wanna gain weight, otherwise you're wasting your time. Goodluck dude.

>>6381901
Until a true übermensch is created in the genetics world (not the cosmetics one) plastic surgery will be morally wrong. You're body, by falsely improving it, is hurting humanity as a species and therefore others. Therefore plastic surgery is a crime against others and does not fall under "muh body muh choice".

/fit/ pls go

>>6381944
Of course I'm okay with plastic surgery if you're sterile.

>>6379435

I've seen this guy when I've been out, he's funny as anything.

>>6381944
Your*

>>6381944

>You're body, by falsely improving it, is hurting humanity as a species and therefore others

yeah but its still your body, and therefore you have the right to change it. nothing outweighs bodily autonomy, regardless of what positive or negative effects you might think it has,

>>6381958
Then get snipped when you do it.

>>6379401
thank you skeleton

>>6381969

that also is a my choice, as it is something that will effect my body.

you can get snipped if you want, but i dont get to make that decision.

>>6381972
You should get snipped if you have plastic surgery. Faking genes is worse than babby not being pretty. It affects humanity as a race and is a crime against others.

>176 replies

>>6382000
Or*

>>6381982
Also the person you hurt the mode is your future spouse of baby's mama because you're ruined their lives chance at the best genetic match. I would be fucking ashamed to do that.

>>6382000

>I would be fucking ashamed to do that.

I wouldnt, that is my choice.

>Faking genes is worse than babby not being pretty. It affects humanity as a race and is a crime against others.

regardless, its my right, and everyone else's.

>>6382000
I'm on a cracked screen iPhone btw.

Most*
You've*

>>6382017
You're disgusting then. Are you that desperately ugly?

>>6382021

its hypothetical, i have no interest in cosmetic surgery, and have never considered getting it.

its more a matter of principle to me.

>>6382030
Well imagine a world like Idiocracy except now everyone is grotesquely ugly or made of plastic. That is your world.

>>6382041

any outcome is fine with me as long as people have control over their own bodies. im not 100% how that will develop, and i dont think anyone can predict with 100% certainty.

>>6382000
>>6381982
>>6381944
>>6381885
>>6381724
>>6381694
>>6381608
>>6381575
>>6381533
>faking genes
>humanity as a race
>humanity as a species
>true ubermensch
>falsely improving
>plastic surgery is a crime against others
>i'm actually a libertarian
>immoral
>genetic destiny
>personal responsibility
>i see fertility... body shapes
>codify the sublime
>science of sexual attraction
>fragility is unattractive

jesus christ i can't handle all this fedoracore pseudo-science. your ideology is a mess

>>6382067
Please don't group me in this guy.

>>6382052
Now it's a world exactly like Idiocracy except people are grotesque on top of being retarded. I'm a libertarian, but I'm not stupid. There is a line of what people can and can't do and it's where they start hurting other people. Do all the drugs you want, have an abortion, I don't care. Just don't ruin people's lives out of your petty selfishness.

>>6382082
Telling people they can't get elective surgery because it's dishonest to their potential mates is the epitome of petty selfishness, and emblematic of much bigger problems.

>>6382081
my b. your use of "sublime" is off so i assumed it was the dilettante

>>6382089
How is that selfish? You are saying that it's okay to ruin someone's life out of selfishness and I'm saying it's not.

>>6382082

>There is a line of what people can and can't do and it's where they start hurting other people.

i completely agree, but for me, the absolute bottom line is that people can make their own decisions about what happens to their bodies. regardless of any implications. for example, i feel that people should have the right to die as well if they want to.

>>6382091
It was way off, but I couldn't think of a better all-encompassing word for those aspects of beauty and attraction that really defy words (let alone numerical analysis). Intrinsic values of experience, hippie shit, I know.

But thanks for the retraction, I do appreciate it.

>>6382098

>How is that selfish?

because youre trying to exercise control over someone else's body because their choices do not suit your personal preferences.

That is an extremely selfish point of view to think that your opinion about another persons body carries more weight than their opinion.

>>6382098
Because you would like a neat and clear cut world that fits your vision, you would legislate something personal and private that could be worked out on an individual basis by responsible and consenting adults? Is that the role of libertarian government?

>>6382108
I'm trying to stop someone from ruining someone else's life and the gene pool as a whole. This has nothing to do with "muh body muh right". Nothing. It is above that. If you falsify genes everyone loses but you. That is the epitome of selfishness. If you want to do it you should be sterilized so you can't damage anyone.

>>6382098
>>6382129
selfishness is not even the beginning of what's wrong with your ideas.

first of all genes and traits are not intrinsically or inherently valuable. even if they were, genes that affect appearance would be secondary at best, or tertiary. evolution is not teleological nor progressive. it's an answer to the question "why is there a diversity of life on earth?"

evolution is DEPENDENT, on environment.

>>6382133
If traits aren't inherently valuable then why are you faking them?

>>6379859
If it's this hard to make sneakers (I believe you) why don't they just get them individually crafted by cobblers? Or is there something about sneaker construction that rules that out?

>>6382129

>This has nothing to do with "muh body muh right". Nothing. It is above that.

sorry but nothing is above "muh body muh right" if thats how you want to phrase it.

>>6382138
It is when it hurts others. It's not a victimless crime.

>>6382138
Why is suicide illegal then?

>>6382141
It shouldn't be.

>>6382141

its not?

i guess that depends on where you live.

>>6382140

i disagree.

>>6382138
"muh body right" is just a cheap attempt to dismiss what's wrong with the core of his own argument: that it doesn't place much value on human rights.

>>6382129
Just up and say it already, man. Come on. Say what you really mean. I know that deep down in your heart, it goes a little something like this:

"ALL WOMEN ARE BROOD MARES AND THE THOUSAND YEAR REICH SHALL COME TO PASS!"

you're not fooling anyone with all that fake science bullshit
this all boils down to the same racial purity women are baby machines bullshit that we've seen for ages, it just tries to dress it up in science
stopped taking you serious a while ago
I can tell you're a european child

>>6382135
You're begging the question. Plastic surgery has more to do with the subjective production of culture--beauty, in particular--than anything with genes. There are all sorts of ways people manipulate their appearance: lifting weights, eating more, eating less, cutting their hair, shaving, makeup, different clothes. These things, plastic surgery included, have nothing to do with the biological process of evolution. Further, even if there was something at stake, it's so inconsequential as to be trivial.

>>6382156
Seems to me that these genetic traits are worth thousands of dollars. Seems to me that being attractive helps to bring a higher quality of life. Seems to me that people want the most attractive and stable spouse they can find to produce the highest quality offspring at the highest standard of living possible. Almost like some kind of natural selection.

>>6382158
>Plastic surgery
>racial purity

What?

>>6382177
They're not genetic. Genes are not expressed in a 1:1 ratio with physical appearance. For example, blue eyes are a recessive trait. If someone is a child of parents with blue eyes and brown eyes, they will have brown eyes, even though they have the genes for blue eyes. Also look up the entire field of epigenetics. Right now you believe and spout and endless stream of bullshit. Take more biology classes and study harder before opening your mouth

>>6382156
Also I wasn't begging the question, I was trying to get you to realize that these genetic traits are a 10 billion a year industry(just in the US). In other words that you're completely wrong and that these traits are worth something.

>>6382222
Do you know the meaning of "begging the question"? Your question is unanswerable because it presumes the very thing you're trying to argue.

Plastic surgery falls into the category of beauty. Beauty is subjective, not only from person to person, but from one culture to another, and through time. The last human "evolution" in terms of biological trait was lactase persistance, approx 10,000 years ago. Physical appearance is irrelevant to an organism's ability to survive in a given environment. If indeed "attractiveness" is a biological feature that propels evolution, where does it work in all the other species? Beauty is not important to ants, moss, lizards, or fish. Theres lots of stuff humans do that is different than other species, a preoccupation with beauty is among them.

>>6382202
I know about epigenetics, but right now you are outright denying that traits are inherited and valuable. In other words falsifying traits is conning prospective good genes from your spouse while giving them none that you advertised. In other words you aren't worth as much as them genetically and they deserve someone who is.

>>6382286
Lol are you kidding me? Every mammal species searches for the optimal mate.

>>6382317

but the definition of optimal changes from person to person, thats why beauty is subjective.

>>6382333
So there is no such thing as bad genes, or unattractive individuals. Makes sense to me now, what with everyone being 10/10 with perfect health with the same body size and shape. I know what you're saying, it's just wrong. Some people have better genes than you and I. Successful genes aren't subjective.

>>6382356
Also physical attractiveness as I have already stated correlates with health, fertility, and stability.

>>6379401
THANK YOU HUNGRY SKELETON

>>6382356

>So there is no such thing as bad genes, or unattractive individuals.

to you, but they are attractive to someone.

>Makes sense to me now, what with everyone being 10/10 with perfect health with the same body size and shape

this has no relevance

>I know what you're saying, it's just wrong

fortunately its not

>Successful genes aren't subjective.

Yeah they are, people with unusual genes procreate all the time.

>>6382301
Yes, that's correct, traits are not inherently valuable. Their value depends on environment. If the planet was just a little more hot or a little more cool, mammals would not even exist. In terms of fitness, humans rank very low in terms of species that can live in a given range of environments. Beauty--what one's face looks like--has close to nothing to do with one's ability to survive in an environment. It varies so widely across the population it's irrelevant.

>>6382356
Appeal to extremes fallacy.

>>6382369
Wow, really? Show me the plots with the regression. What's the value of r? Which studies did you learn this from?

>>6382377
>So there is no such thing as bad genes, or unattractive individuals.

to you, but they are attractive to someone.

Which is why they had plastic surgery to cover up those excellent genes.


>Successful genes aren't subjective.

Yeah they are, people with unusual genes procreate all the time.

No they aren't. Genetic mutation is random. Natural selection is not random. Ugly, weak, diseased, stupid people have only started successfully procreating with the advent of excessive surplus.

>>6382416

>Which is why they had plastic surgery to cover up those excellent genes.

not everyone does, many people that look weird procreate regardless of surgery.

>No they aren't. Genetic mutation is random. Natural selection is not random. Ugly, weak, diseased, stupid people have only started successfully procreating with the advent of excessive surplus.

and thats fine.

>>6382383
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Ogfmo7_O8&list=PLAD73EF1BC6F88499

Why don't you give that a watch.

>>6382438
A youtube video isn't a peer-reviewed study. Anecdotes are not evidence.

>>6382428
My argument is that plastic surgery is immoral on the grounds that it harms any spouse one may get and the gene pool as a whole.

What are you trying to tell me?

>>6382447
It's a documentary on sex appeal based on studies by physiologists.

>>6382459

that it doesnt matter because bodily autonomy is a higher priority, like i said awhile ago.

the gene pool takes a backseat

Lol, Whig Darwinism.

Look, guys, I get it. Sexual attraction is so fraught and risky - on either end of it - that I can see how it would be comforting to pretend it was a universally legible, stable, hierarchical system, mapping neatly to practically useful traits that are constant across time. It means you know your place, you know what you can get, you know who you're better than, the small-framed manlet with the squat nose, or the balding (but, hah, that's high testosterone) guy with big ears. Whatever.

But leaving aside the fact it's empirically - scientifically, sociologically, historically - invalid, why would you want to believe it? It means nothing unexpected, nothing surprising, nothing magical happens. Two of the most redemptive things about human experience come precisely from our ignorance of what will happen tomorrow, that we do not entirely comprehend and are not entirely in control of our lives. The first is that curiosity can run wild, be piqued every single day of our lives, and we'll still be fucking befuddled idiots.

The second is the possibility of joy, or at least most instances of it. I can't help but think of an old line from a Psalm (it's 126): "When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream." You don't need to be religious to get what's going on here: great and unexpected joy, and gratitude.

When I think about all the best things that have happened in my life, the things that bring me warmth in memory or, still, in real time, not one did I expect to happen, not one went as planned or expected, not one was uncontingent or predictable before the situation began to arise.

>>6382471
Sorry, psychologists.

>>6382468
So babby getting prettier is more important than ruining your spouses life and the gene pool as a whole?

ahahah you look like a faggot
>nice skirt
>nice arms

>>6382471
>>6382475
Have you even watched this program yourself? They don't talk about evolution.

>>6382486
It's about attractive physical traits.

>>6382489

absolutely.

>>6382493
I wish I was as heartless as you.

>>6382485
If I have to spell it out for you, the point is life is complex, messy, and unpredictable, and your life will be better if you open yourself up to that instead of pretending Richard Dawkins would make the world's best matchmaker.

And a quick counter to the idea that ugly people are sexually unfit, whatever the fuck that means: Jean-Paul Sartre. The man met no conventional definition of sexual attractiveness, had innumerable lovers, and you'd definitely want him in the gene pool. Refute that. (Also, imagine Sartre with a boob job!)

>>6382129

Ruining whose life? The partner's, because their life is ruined by having an ugly kid? The kid's, because in this ubiquitous plastic surgery society you're so worried about he might want to have it?

And even saying you're right, so what? "Devolved" humans are all going to be devolved to roughly the same level and none of them are going to give a shit, in the same way no one's greatly exercised that people don't live to 500 and mentally calculate Pi to fifty million digits in thirty seconds. Where's your moral imperative to promote putatively good genes coming from?

We can talk about if there should be any limits to pushing human bodies beyond nature, but any good argument on those lines is based on what the changes would do to culture, not the bodies housing the people in it, and/or ideas about the essential dignity of the present human.

>>6382491
Attractiveness is subjective. It's cultural. Just because something is constructed from genetic information doesn't mean it's relevant to evolution. If attractiveness is an objective quality, then why do different people prefer different hair color, eye color, etc.?

>>6382499

dont worry, plenty of people place a high priority on human rights and bodily autonomy besides me. im not that significant.

>>6382503
(by the way, that's a continuation of the post it's replying to, if it's not clear.)

>>6382503
Yes, having an ugly kid would ruin someones life. They are trapped into being a parent of a child that they didn't want because someone lied about their appearance.

>>6382507
I wish I was as heartless as them.

>>6382518
And why would they not want a child just because it doesn't fit certain beauty norms? People routinely accept, with love and joy, children fucked up a lot worse than being ugly.

Now, we could talk about having kids generally ruining people's lives in some ways, but that's a different conversation...

>>6382513
It isn't about hair and eye color. It's about facial symmetry, health, and fertility. A woman with an hourglass figure has optimal estrogen levels and fertility over an apple shaped one. A man with a strong jaw has high testosterone levels and is more fertile and therefore more attractive. Surely you don't deny that strong jaws look better than weak ones?

>>6382543

some men with strong jaws are sterile.

>>6382543
More pseudo-scientific bullshit. Hourglass figures are not determined by estrogen. Jaw lines are not determined by testosterone. Further, if this is the case, then why are skinny people considered beautiful in fashion?

>>6382532
Because they choose someone they thought had said good traits. It doesn't matter what people accept. What matters is lying to someone and making them parents of kids of lower quality than promised by your own physical attractiveness. I don't know about you but I would like my kids to not be ugly. And I would also like them to not be fucked up. That is the point of finding a good partner.

>>6382558
Fashion is about clothes, not the models. Fitness models that aren't covered in clothes look a little different, don't they?

>>6382558
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3682657.stm
http://www.livescience.com/18484-finger-length-masculine-faces.html

>>6382573
I didn't say anything about fashion. Supermodels are all skinny and don't have hourglass figures. This proves your first point wrong.

Your second point is also wrong. Having a visible jaw has to do with the amount of fat your have in your face. The amount of fat you have in your face depends on how much you eat and how much you exercise, not testosterone.

>>6382543
My dad has an extremely strong jawline, yet I didn't get any of that.

Most likely, your kid will be random looking, with a little bit of your features.

>>6382543
Optimal for what? Again, basic evolutionary biology: what's selected for is survival in a certain environment.

People with a staggering range of phenotypes prosper in the present, anthropocenic environment. There's short, obese billionaires with weak jaws spreading their seed all around and tremendously fit people living in hovels, dying in their teens, some reproducing, some not, with perfect facial symmetry and jaws like a comic book hero.

In between you have people like me, a poor first worlder with strong markers of virility and little use of it and no children, a mildly asymmetrical face, good height, and a skinnyfat body because I don't use it like a paleolithic man would've.

Are you worried about human extinction when industrial civilization goes south? Why? There won't be humans around to give a shit.

(There's sound answers to the "why," but none of them sound like ones you'd give.)

>>6382600
>Further, if this is the case, then why are skinny people considered beautiful in fashion?
>in fashion?
>fashion

Supermodels wear clothes and are there to display them. Yes, your jaw will be more visible with low fat, but testosterone determines how strong it actually is.

>>6382543
you're dodging the point i made. you can't just dismiss people's differing prefences by saying "it isn't about hair and eye color." For example, some guys will prefer blondes, others will only want brunettes. Others will only date redheads. If attractiveness were objective, all men would only prefer one kind of woman.

>>6382603
>There's short, obese billionaires with weak jaws spreading their seed all around

Like some kind of stability or something...

>and tremendously fit people living in hovels, dying in their teens, some reproducing, some not, with perfect facial symmetry and jaws like a comic book hero.

Like some kind of unstable person or something...

>>6382566
>kids of lower quality

Most people don't think like that. They love - for a gigantic, wonderous clusterfuck of culture and biology - whatever pops out of them. And they notice exemplary qualities (note the plural, because that's how it works) to justify that ex post facto.

>That is the point of finding a good partner

Not to virtually all people today. Procreation hasn't been the primary purpose of partnering for at least fifty years.

>>6382616
That isn't where it is objective, and I'm not dodging the question. I answered where it is objective. I prefer redheads, but I wouldn't find an attractive brunette unattractive because hair and eye color don't matter in comparison to health, fertility, and stability.

>>6382644
And they aren't important.

>>6382620
>stable
>unstable

what the fuck are you on about

rich people are "stable"?

>>6382639
But hair color and eye color are traits.

>>6382648
Then neither are other traits related to physical appearance.

If you say "hourglass figure is important but hair color is not," you're cherry picking. That's completely arbitrary.

>>6382661
Hair color doesn't determine fertility or health, a good figure does.

>>6382650
Yes, rich people are financially stable. Having a child with a rich person ensures that your offspring are successful and brings a high quality of life to you and them. They are stable. Like I have said people look for, fertility, health, and stability. It is possible to sacrifice one for another.

>>6382620
Stability in a particular, almost entirely cultural context. The human present, and many imaginable futures, bear no reproductive resemblance to prehistoric Africa.

All questions of fitness are local. All sexual decisions - which are, yes, a very different thing - are local.

And how do you explain people desiring people with terminal illnesses, if everything's a question of ancient biological fitness?

And again, why the fuck should we care?

>>6382682
Not quite, stability is just ensurement of your offspring being safe, living well, and with a good chance of reproduction latter themselves. Sexual decisions are not local for women. They seek a man to settle down and find stability with. Studies have shown that women tend to find men with high testosterone the most sexually attractive but men with medium to medium high levels perfect for settling with and having kids.

>>6382673
Okay, you've finally whittled your thoughts down to something reasonable. Just because fertility is linked to having a particular body shape does not automatically make that body shape attractive. Why aren't there more hourglass figure women in movies, advertising, or magazines? What is deemed attractive in media are skinny women.

>>6382707
Skinny women are depicted. Honestly I don't find women who are too thin attractive. And the hourglass is still preferred. They don't exactly have a v-taper or broad shoulders or anything masculine.

/fa/, a place where perfectly fine arms rattle out the fatties and long-winded, pseudo-intellectual/scientific banter ensues.

Woopty-do.

>>6382731
>perfectly fine arms
>6'2" 125lbs

>>6382731
that god damn movie

>>6382750
>6'2" 125lbs
If anything, I'm massively jealous.
I'm 6'3, 147.
>tfw fat

>>6382710
1) Even if there's trends, every time people have sex it is, by definition, a local decision. One person chooses to schlup another person based on a nearly infinite number of contingencies – which, sure, let's say it includes his serum T. (I'm not sure why you're saying it's not local for women... so you think it is, for men? Why the difference?) It also can include anything and everything from his accent, the way he styles his hair, that he's nothing like the ex she's still pissed at, cultural associations around the signifiers he's dropping by what he's wearing or doing, whatever.

2) Again, I repeat, why should we care (let alone try to shape) what humans are like in an unforeseeable future?

>>6382795
1) Because it's instinctive
2) Because it's our responsibility and the purpose of life to ensure that humanity keeps reproducing

>>6382807

>2) Because it's our responsibility and the purpose of life to ensure that humanity keeps reproducing

lmao says who? you dont get to decide my purpose of life. just yours.

>>6382822

no its not

>>6382816
The only objective meaning of life is to reproduce. Every other species seems to know this already.

>>6382826
Yes, it is. That is the obvious objective meaning to life. It's completely obvious.

>>6382831

being a homophobe is the least fa thing on the planet. please get out.

>>6382831

its actually not

maybe just to you.

>>6382822
you poor, poor soul. Do you seriously believe that? Do you, sitting there on a computer, talking to me, over wires, seriously believe the point of life is to reproduce, and that's it?

a proper diet

>>6382838
That's the only objective one.
>>6382837
Homosexuals jest got the short end of the stick genetically. Personally I like gay men but not gay women. Lesbians just seem to have no sense of humor and everything is personal to them. Gay guys are usually really fun and I'm excited to visit with them.

>>6382729
>Honestly I don't find women who are too thin attractive. And the hourglass is still preferred. They don't exactly have a v-taper or broad shoulders or anything masculine

And that's you. The most attractive woman, to me, I saw today? She had a frame like Care Delevigne, markedly tall, tiny, straight. That was attractive, but she was far from the only woman like that I saw today. What made her stand out? Her legs were stubbly, she was wearing a short caftan with chunky velvet loafers, she had a watch I liked the design of - not an expensive one, either, or at least it was quartz - and she carried herself with a maximum of DGAF-ness.

Probably the next one? She's a triathlete. Broad shoulders, muscled arms. Strong, you'd call it masculine, jaw. Again, it was mostly the way she carries herself, but she's got great facial features, yes, including the jaw.

But I'm also attracted to plenty of voluptuous women, to chubby women, hell, one time recently for reasons I couldn't pin I was struck by a woman taking up two seats on the subway.

>>6382856
Wow, man.
Just... wow.
The subtext in your post is washing over me in an awesome wave.
Good luck in life, ok? I really wish you the best. I seriously wish you the best. Try to open up a bit though. It'll work out in your benefit, I promise.

>>6382856
>Homosexuals jest got the short end of the stick genetically. Personally I like gay men but not gay women. Lesbians just seem to have no sense of humor and everything is personal to them. Gay guys are usually really fun and I'm excited to visit with them.

Okay, you can stay. I hate lesbians, too.

Brilliant thread

>>6382868

Angry lesbian detected.

>>6382901
Nah, he's implying I'm gay. To be honest I wish I were. I'd be an awesome gay guy. But I'm just not sexually attracted to men.

>>6382807
Why is it our responsibility? Obviously people have a drive to reproduce, but it doesn't mean anything truly objectively. Naturalistic fallacy, is-ought distinction, we figured this out centuries ago. Barring the existence of some deity or equivalent, there is no purpose to existence outside of subjective frame of reference. No one will be around to give a shit if we go extinct. No one will care if humans are all short 200 years from now, because they'll all be short. No one will care if they're stupid, because they'll all be stupid. No one will care if they're "ugly," because they'll all be ugly. (Protip: even beautiful people can look ugly if you look at them right/wrong, start dissecting their features, etc.)

The only likely one of those scenarios, by the way, is extinction.

We're here, and then we're not. Barring that deity and it's intervention, collective we will be here, and then we won't be. (You're going to look stupid if an undetected killer asteroid shows up three days from Earth tomorrow, man.) Genus Homo might terminate. We might evolve into Homo Needsaninternetconnectiontosurviveandhasapigschnozicus, as different from us as a leopard from a purebred Felix Cattus. Brute material reality doesn't give a shit about anything.

But, like I said earlier, it doesn't have to suck. (>>6382485 and >>6382503)

>>6382923
I'm a deist and existentialist. I'm not saying that reproduction is the only meaning to life, just the only outright objective one. And that's why we need to care for the success of the species. I care about it, and I care now. I want humanity to be successful and to last and to improve.

>>6382923
>People with a staggering range of phenotypes prosper in the present, anthropocenic environment

And I just realized you completely avoided this. It's the anthropocene, man. IQ of 85, short, prone to obesity and going to come down with Huntington's in your thirties? You're going to do okay in life.

>>6382948
My favorite satire film.

this fucking thread

>>6382941
thought you said you were a dentist

>>6382941

Why is it even a meaning?

>>6382967

Haven't watched it, but so what if that happened? They're adapted to their environment, right?

This is leaving aside what I understand are very shitty genetics, as in genetic science basis.

>>6382981
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

>>6382988
Trailer is bad, movie is funny.

>average "joe"
>frozen for 500 years
>stupid people have more kids and are supported by surplus
>500 years from now everyone is stupid
>Joe has to find a way to live in this retarded dystopia

>>6383005
Fortunately for Joe (?) he'd be dead. An extremely implausible future stupid humanity, again, won't care any more than we do that we can't mentally do Pi to fifty million digits in 30 seconds.

>>6383016
It's a comedy and was supposed to be like futurama where he's cryogenically frozen. Watch the movie, it's funny. I don't think we could get that stupid in 500 years, but maybe 5000. It is based on how massive surplus is now that stupidity isn't selected against anymore. Then over time as all the stupid people have unplanned kids and over 5 at that while smart people put it off until they are financially sound and only have one or two each. This is already happening in countries like Germany. (Not to be racist, but having 5 kids now days means you're stupid)

op here

people saying "nice arms" and "nice skirt" in the same post mean absolutely nothing to me because they're clearly not /fa/ users.

im confused at what happened to this thread though

shit op what phone is that
looks cool as fuck

>>6383779
nokia lumia 928

>>6383793
oh cool
im in the market for a new phone, ill look into it. hpefully there's a black one

>>6383809
i think there is