Women prefer to lay with taller men, generally. There is a visual dominance aspect to this preference that synchronizes with the female craving for men who are socially and psychologically dominating. In short (heh), women like the feeling they get when they literally and figuratively have to look up to men.
Less remarked upon is men’s preference for women smaller than themselves. Far from universal, it is nevertheless a common sight to see a taller/larger/fatter man with a shorter/smaller/thinner woman. Much more common than seeing the inverse.
It used to be thought that the latter was simply a consequence of the former; that is, women choose to be with bigger men than themselves and since women are the choosier sex men don’t choose smaller women so much as men end up with smaller women who have chosen them.
But what if the preference for sex-based size differentials goes both ways? What if men prefer smaller and thinner women as strongly as women prefer bigger men?
Reader Ironsides speculates that, if it exists, a male preference for smaller women is probably an evolved predilection that harkens back to a distant time — and which remains salient today — when size was the integral factor of tribal dominance.
[A smaller woman] also might instinctively indicate a person who won’t be constantly fighting the man for dominance. Instinct may not be fine-grained enough to distinguish a large, muscle-bound creature from a large, blubbery creature. It simply perceives enough bulk to indicate the mass necessary to challenge the male for leadership of the family/pack.
Kind of like how most guys won’t get in an LTR with a woman taller than they are — and how they often seem to be the subject of mockery or scorn when they do. See, for example, the view of Scalzi’s home life on this site.
Scalzied’s wife is not just taller than him, she’s bigger too. She looks like she could break Scalzi over her knee. And he’s the type of blobby shitlib goober who’d brag about that.
A large female may simply trigger a hard-wired “rival, not mate” reaction, even if the largeness is helpless blubber rather than muscle. Or at least, triggers a “what is it?” reaction from the instincts, which might be even more fundamentally unsettling than a straight-up “this is a rival” response.
So men have two good subconscious Darwinian reasons to reject fat chicks: fatties have lower fertility, and can be mistaken for dominance rivals. Or resource hogs (heh).
It’s an interesting supposition, but I think it goes even deeper than Ironside’s Fatties As Assumed Rival Theory (FaART), to the sexual dynamic always present between man and woman. Smaller women (relative to the man they’re with) appear more vulnerable and in need of protection. This female vulnerability adds a layer of pleasure to a man’s arousal, because men (White men at least) have evolved a wintry instinct to provide for a woman and any children they may have together. Big ol horsewomen don’t trigger that response in men. That’s why betafag low T losers like scalzi glom onto amazons….those kind of weak men prefer to be in the role of the vulnerable partner, mentally fapping to their own powerlessness.
All these calculations are subconscious (or fleetingly conscious). The grunt work to ensure our reproductive success on this earth is done by the tiny imbued survival and replication motors in our hindbrain architecture built and powered by our genes. On the poolside level of awareness, it’s all about the custard cannon. Men don’t like big-n-fat chicks because they look disgusting and sex with them feels gross. That’s really all the justification the God of Biomechanics needs to get His dirty work done.
[crypto-donation-box]
