Post: #26

I don't think I get to see it as much either. I live in CO now. Before that I was in Miami, most people take care of their bodies. Vegas has some fatties, but it's mostly the cats sitting there at the slots drinking and smoking all day or fat midwest tourists. Southern Cali people are in pretty decent shape. Those are the spots I've spent most of my time in the US. I think I may be shocked if I go to the midwest.
[/quote]

Yeah Miami is a bad place to compare against the rest of the country. I spend a lot of time on a particular match site that sort of filters in better participants. Miami, Los Angeles, New York dwarf all other states in attractive women on the site. It is kind of Gold Digger heaven, lots of uncles with "nieces". And being the premier beach town in North America for the past 50 years, it has pulled attractive people and the nature of the "undressed" competition would cause both, inherently fatter people to maybe not choose to not live there or the borderline people to put more effort into the gym. But Miami has always been a pull for the better looking from other places to come there.

I mean I literally can go in my Grocery store, shop, pay, and leave, being in the parking lot 2 times, coming and going, and literally not see one person that isn't fat. And I constantly think shit like "5 is the new 7", or "A skinny 4 is the new 6.5". Weeks can go by and I don't see a single woman that I think is attractive on this side of town. I haven't seen an 8 all month. And I see tons of women with BMI of 35, many that are 40. And most have kids. Many. ANd it is common to see them with a 13 year old girl, 8 year old boy, and maybe a 4 year old girl. And the women might be 37.

Post: #27

Will be people only get fatter? What percentage of people will be big in 20 or 30 years?

Post: #28

This was a good read, but not the same writing style as ROK. I don’t think it would be a good fit. It’s way too long compared to the other posts. Maybe you could make it into a numbered list. I would stress the fact that the sexual revolution prevents women from staying at home to cook nutritious meals, and pass a nutritious lifestyle onto their children.

I know you didn’t directly say a BMI of 22 was that weight, but I would recheck those BMI numbers. 5’7 at 110 pounds is a BMI of 17.2, which is considered underweight, not that I’d complain.

Post: #29

Going county by county gives a lot more detailed picture.

County Health Rankings 2012: Obesity in America [using data from University of Wisconsin]

Colorado, coastal CA, coastal FL doing the best overall:


Obesity growth/decline rates:


Yeah International, you have lived in the most thin areas of the country. Me too. You should take a trip to a red state. Be sure to sharpen your harpoon first

Post: #30

Great post Mark Minter.

I've always wondered what that time period was really like. The era during what Adam Carolla calls "mid coke, pre-Aids." Reading your post I felt for a moment like I was actually there.

It sounds fucking phenomenal. Too bad it had to come to this...

It would be interesting to see a movie about a guy growing up during that time and coming of age during the age of the sexual revolution and then seeing the aftermath of all of these societal changes.

Post: #31

Honestly, what I take from this essay is that the boomers had the best lives in history and its not hard to hate on them giving how much shittier the world is now than when Mark was young.

Post: #32

(03-31-2013 09:32 PM)Lazarus Wrote:  Honestly, what I take from this essay is that the boomers had the best lives in history and its not hard to hate on them giving how much shittier the world is now than when Mark was young.

I can back up Mark's observations, I'm 58 and I saw pretty much the same thing occurring over the years. In my entire highschool of 1500 kids, 1969-74, there might have been one kid we'd consider "Chubby" per class, I don't recall any obese girls at all. Now when I see a woman over 30 with a discernible waistline I mark it on the calendar as a rare event.

I'm 6'2" and 180lbs @ 12% bodyfat and am beginning to wonder why I bother to keep in such good shape, as the vast majority of women in the datable age range for me make me want to join a monastery and forget the whole thing.

Post: #33

http://life.time.com/culture/obesity-in-...ue-1954/#1

Pictorial essay from 1954 on obesity

Post: #34

When I think back, the only truly obese women I recall seeing until my teens was in a circus side show, and she would have been put to shame by many scootering around my local walmart today.

Post: #35

(03-31-2013 06:10 PM)Mark Minter Wrote:  First I would doubt that abortions are unique to economically disadvantaged, because my experience was well-to-do women quite frequently had abortions and in the 70s and 80s it was most common among college bound, college, and college educated women.

It's not hard to look up the stats. The facts are that 69% of abortions are bring done by economically disadvantaged women. A disproportionate amount of abortions are done by minorities.


You are committed to your narrative, but your narrative is false. Your narrative is based on a few abortions you saw being done by people in your circle. I doubt you have many minorities or poor people in your circle so of course your anecdotes will be based on your circle. There is absolutely no evidence at all that rich women or thin women were getting more abortions. Anecdotes are not real evidence.

Post: #36

(03-31-2013 03:59 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 02:00 PM)Mark Minter Wrote:  The gene pool can and has turned over that quickly. 40 years allows 3 generations. 50 million probably mostly thin children have been aborted.
That certainly can explain a genotypic increase from 10% to 40%.

If abortion or the pill had never been invented, the population of the United States could well be over 400 million right now, maybe 450, If boomer women had continued to have children as the rates their mothers have them, if would have quite possible.

And those lost births, were the attractive and the thin, because that attractive and thin mother stood to loose so much more by the pregnancy.

Where do you get this idea that aborted babies would have been thin. There is no evidence for that at all.

Except for the massive rise in obesity following the Pill and abortion.

Post: #37

(03-31-2013 07:13 PM)Aurelian Wrote:  This was a good read, but not the same writing style as ROK. I don’t think it would be a good fit. It’s way too long compared to the other posts.

Plenty of great writers had styles different from their predecessors.

Post: #38

(04-01-2013 11:34 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 03:59 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 02:00 PM)Mark Minter Wrote:  The gene pool can and has turned over that quickly. 40 years allows 3 generations. 50 million probably mostly thin children have been aborted.
That certainly can explain a genotypic increase from 10% to 40%.

If abortion or the pill had never been invented, the population of the United States could well be over 400 million right now, maybe 450, If boomer women had continued to have children as the rates their mothers have them, if would have quite possible.

And those lost births, were the attractive and the thin, because that attractive and thin mother stood to loose so much more by the pregnancy.

Where do you get this idea that aborted babies would have been thin. There is no evidence for that at all.

Except for the massive rise in obesity following the Pill and abortion.

Where is the evidence that it was the pill or abortion that made women fat?

Post: #39

Fatties breed more fatties. Pretty simple math.

In comparison, my parents are not fat, their predecessors were not fat. Guess what. Neither I nor my brother are fat.

Just as on average low intelligence couples spawn more kids than highly intelligent couples.

It's a race to the bottom on both issues.

Post: #40

(04-01-2013 11:36 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 07:13 PM)Aurelian Wrote:  This was a good read, but not the same writing style as ROK. I don’t think it would be a good fit. It’s way too long compared to the other posts.

Plenty of great writers had styles different from their predecessors.

I didn't say he wasn't a good writer. He asked if he should submit it to be on ROK. My opinion, not in this format.

Post: #41

(04-01-2013 01:51 PM)Aurelian Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 11:36 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 07:13 PM)Aurelian Wrote:  This was a good read, but not the same writing style as ROK. I don’t think it would be a good fit. It’s way too long compared to the other posts.

Plenty of great writers had styles different from their predecessors.

I didn't say he wasn't a good writer. He asked if he should submit it to be on ROK. My opinion, not in this format.

I wouldn't change a thing about your writing style Minter. You are popular for a reason. You could publish this piece anywhere in the manosphere and it would be a hit.

Post: #42

(03-31-2013 02:38 PM)Mark Minter Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 02:16 PM)aphelion Wrote:  actual gif I found

In a way, that is most unsettling. I don't do this to be known. Sometimes I wonder how Roosh deals with his particular breed of fame. Negative comments still affect me. And anytime I see my name, it can be a little uncomfortable. I write some fairly radical shit. It is one thing to be known and read among the "family", but surely it will piss people off outside of it. I like being read, but ...

Well, to be fair, that was from The Commodore Zone by Jeff Minter. I just thought it apropos.

EDIT: read through the rest of the thread and saw that you had noticed that as well.

Post: #43

Life sucks - Eating is fun.

Thats my theory!