you're comparing the evolution standard of wanting wide hips, large breasts, tiny stomach because it promises health children/many to the beauty standard, which it roots to.

I can see why you'd get that impression, but it's not really correct, especially because your foundational argument is flawed.

My point regarding beauty standards (which, by the way, is a separate statement from the one about evolution) is that standards of beauty go far beyond biological roots, which is why said beauty standards can result in the "ideal woman" having thin hips and small breasts (which goes against what biology would supportand happened during the 1920's in Europe) or affect things like hair and makeup, things that don't have as direct roots to childbearing potential if at all. If it was all based solely on evolution and biology, it wouldn't have changed nearly as much over the past few centuries.

And that's my point. In short, it would be ignorant to suggest that beauty standards are entirely biological when a basic knowledge of history and biology would contradict this, and as such the comic is flawed.

I make no mention of specific traits such as large breasts and wide hips, as they are irrelevant. And to suggest that I'm comparing traits such as the above to the beauty standard is ridiculous because they're the exact same thing. Standards of beauty include the aforementioned traits, and are in turn influenced both by biology and culture to varying degrees.

As such, your argument is based on the very same (flawed) line of thinking I'me trying to counteract in the first place.

I'm guessing what they mean with male evolution is referring to the sexual evolution (ie secondary sex characteristics) which is driven largely by what is considered beautiful. If men didn't like big breasts hundreds of thousands of years ago, women wouldn't have them today.

you are comparing mildly chubby with the "body positive" movement. The average "normal" build today was yesteryear's fat.

You are entirely wrong with this as you're using correct information in the wrong context.

Or perhaps you're jumping to conclusions and missing my point. The above comic says that the woman is defying "millions of years of male evolution". The problem is, none of the content is actually in defiance of evolution, and might be considered even in accordance to it.

None of what I've said has to do with the body positive movement.

you're comparing the evolution standard of wanting wide hips, large breasts, tiny stomach because it promises health children/many to the beauty standard, which it roots to.

I can see why you'd get that impression, but it's not really correct, especially because your foundational argument is flawed.

My point regarding beauty standards (which, by the way, is a separate statement from the one about evolution) is that standards of beauty go far beyond biological roots, which is why said beauty standards can result in the "ideal woman" having thin hips and small breasts (which goes against what biology would supportand happened during the 1920's in Europe) or affect things like hair and makeup, things that don't have as direct roots to childbearing potential if at all. If it was all based solely on evolution and biology, it wouldn't have changed nearly as much over the past few centuries.

And that's my point. In short, it would be ignorant to suggest that beauty standards are entirely biological when a basic knowledge of history and biology would contradict this, and as such the comic is flawed.

I make no mention of specific traits such as large breasts and wide hips, as they are irrelevant. And to suggest that I'm comparing traits such as the above to the beauty standard is ridiculous because they're the exact same thing. Standards of beauty include the aforementioned traits, and are in turn influenced both by biology and culture to varying degrees.

As such, your argument is based on the very same (flawed) line of thinking I'me trying to counteract in the first place.

Being bigger ment the female could acquire enough food to even store some, resulting in healthier children because the mother wasn't malnourished but nowadays when you don't have to fight for food anymore it's a negative trait because now we know that high levels of fat is actually unhealthy.

>>#10, Sure, fat is advantegous, to a point. There has never been a time when an obese woman was considered sexy by the majority of the male population, I'm sure outliers always has existed though. . Real curvy not landwhale curvy is good, ballshape is not.

...no?

Oh, this! I thought you meant an actual Pokemon episode.

Just add an 's' at the end of the 'http' before the '://' and then the YT URL, before the &channel stuff.