Understanding female obesity 8

I was talking to a friend recently and he pondered “it’s amazing women are so fat, given how much more important looks are to them”. It’s a subtle but important point: looks affect a woman’s SMV more than a man’s do so can we treat weight gain equally across sexes?

People are getting fatter, we all know that. What anybody with a pair of eyes can see is that women are getting fatter than men. Try getting statistics to back this up though and you’ll run into difficulties. It seems like according to most studies the party line is that more women are overweight yet more men are obese:

Lies, damn lies and...

Lies, damn lies and…


I don’t believe it. Something’s up. Just a ten minute walk round any British city will question the official research: women are dripping with fat, men less so. One can only assume the research is suspect because the truth is right in front of your eyes on every street: fat women with less fat men.

What I’d like to propose is that all mainstream discussions of obesity fail to include the single most relevant aspect of obesity: Sexual Market Value (SMV). The way people look, and most importantly, their bodyfat level, has a direct effect on their SMV. Furthermore, this effect is far greater for women than it is for men, given that far more of their value is based on their physicality than their behaviour. To really understand female obesity you need to apply SMV LEVERAGE. Let’s say you go out in the street and see a normal fat couple:


You may assume the women is 20% more overweight than the man. You’re right, but DO NOT project male values onto a woman. The woman’s looks are all the more important than the man’s. If you apply an SMV leverage then in actual fact what this couple look like is this:

(excluding whitening treatment)

(excluding whitening treatment)

Conclusion: a woman gaining a pound of fat is like a man gaining five pounds. Thus women being on average 5kg heavier than their mothers were at that age is in reality like sons being on average 25kg heaver than their fathers were at this age. And this brings me to the beauty of my argument: it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong and the graph at the start of this article is correct, because applying SMV Leverage to a graph like this:


would resultĀ in an adjusted graph of this:


Women getting even a little fat represents a catastrophic readjustment of SMV whereas men getting a little fat does not.

So women’s SMV is plummeting right? Because they’re getting so fat?

You misunderstand economics. Women’s SMV is increasing relative to men’s, which is what allows them to get fatter.

To most women their SMV is their most important attribute, and they are profoundly aware of it at all times. A thin woman who puts on 15kg has lower SMV than she previously had, unless all other women gain 15kg as well. This is the point, SMV is about what your value can buy on on the open market. Women can still buy the same attention they could twenty years ago despite their catastrophic weight gain.

Women always want a roughly similar amount of attention and options and will do the minimum amount of work required to gain this, and it is always measured in relation to other women. A fat, slobby girl in Newcastle has the same amount of attention and options, if not more, than a ripped-slim, immaculately made-up girl in Moscow.

So is men’s behaviour the same? Surely men always want the same amount of attention and options and do the minimum to acquire it? No. Men are designed to live in sexual scarcity, with a very real chance of not propagating their genes. Remember the old trope that in paleolithic times ‘80% of women reproduced yet only 40% of men did’. The competition is too severe for men, they can’t adopt the female strategy of simply bringing their own SMV in line with all the other competitors and waiting for their piece: it doesn’t work. Men are endlessly competitive with each other.

Additionally, men and women’s goal are different. An unconstrained, high-T male seeks ever greater supplies of ever hotter and younger pussy. Women’s optimal strategy is to optimal attention with minimum output of actual sex. Once a woman knows she could get guys then she can rest on her laurels and tuck into a bag of Haribo. Once a guy bangs a hottie he just has a greater urge to bang another one, so has to get better or improve himself in some way.

Lastly, white men have evolved to never be satisfied and to pursue goals for the sake of pursuing them. These were the attributes which women selected for because they resulted in men with bigger huts and more sheep in their flock than other men. Put a fit, healthy guy in a foreign city full of lardass, lazy men with low SMV and he’ll probably work harder, not less. Do the same with a woman and she’ll gain a stone overnight.

What you will find as you travel more and more is that women are priced differently in different geographical areas and this gives you a kind of SMV-blindness which makes you misunderstand the price of women.

You spend a month in Moscow then return home to Aberdeen and discover the local women now revolt you. You think their SMV is low. It is to you but to local men it is not. What you’ve done is break yourself; you’re now operating in a multi-regional market whereas others are not. They don’t know that in the town over the hill cabbages are half the price and twice as juicy. You do, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re stuck in a place where you have to pay three times as much for a cabbage as tender and juicy as the one you had in the other place.

The solution? Leave. Go somewhere where cabbages are cheap.