Continuing my post because I ran out of room.

The reason I said you are treating women like a monolith is precisely because you use words like "mostly" and "typically." Both words mean "This is how things are except for a few exceptions." That's creating a monolith.

The truth is that there's a lot of diversity in how women approach things. This includes sexuality.

I don't treat groups like a monolith. I understand that a group like women is hugely varied in every regard. That's why I'm always careful to use words like "many", "tend to", etc. I personally think it's ok to notice patterns of behavior in groups of people, just as long as you understand that there will always be a lot of exceptions. It also doesn't address the cause, because social conditioning could play a part. Societal gender roles are one example of a pattern of behavior that is different between men and women, but those roles are expressed differently between individuals, and some reject it completely. Those people are the exceptions, they are in the minority, so they get left out of such discussions, mostly for the sake of brevity. Including such disclaimers every time can really bog down a conversation. I just assume that most people are mentally mature enough to understand this basic fact about human nature.



What I was originally saying was that men and women, on average, have different factors that they find sexually attractive in a partner (not valuable, just sexy). For men, a huge part of that is physical. For women, different factors are more attractive. Because of that, a direct 1 v 1 comparison is impossible, because if someone's partner lost the factors that men like, women would still be attracted to something else about them. What I was attempting to do is provide a functional equivalent, where her partner lost most of the factors that women are attracted to. Keep in mind the inverse is also true. In the depression scenario, if the genders were reversed, most men would also be frustrated and might not tolerate it either, but they would still find her sexy as long as her appearance didn't change too much.



You didn't provide a functional equivalent. I don't think you realize that who a woman is attracted to and who she'll form a relationship with is a Venn Diagram. There are also plenty of men out there who will still find their SO's attractive as their bodies change. It's super common in long-term relationships.

The issue people are having with OP has been explicitly stated several times by several people - myself included. But since you missed it, I will repeat it. OP has explicitly said that if a woman isn't a feedee, he can't feel sexual attraction towards them. However, he's met a number of women that he feels are perfectly lovely in every other aspect. So he wants to settle and have a relationship with a woman he cannot feel sexual attraction towards.

Basically, said woman could not be sexually fulfilled while they are together. And OP isn't interested in sharing either, so it extra sucks for said woman. Doesn't help that what he said comes off as fetishizing and objectifying women.

So this happened:

Yeah, there's a lot of that. And while I do understand not everyone does well in therapy, therapy isn't the only way to improve yourself. Self-reflection, introspection, and metacognition all go a long way.

I find OP's claim that there are no happy fat women in Sweden to be incredulous.

As of 2021, there are approx 10.42 million people living in Sweden.

As of 2020, about 40% of all women aged 30 - 44 are overweight with 15% of them being obese. data.worldobesity.org/country/sweden-207/#data_population-breakdowns

As of 2023, Sweden ranks as the 6th happiest country in the world. cnn.com/travel/article/world-happiest-countries-2023-wellness/index.html

Do you mean to tell me in a country that happy and with a population that big, you cannot find a single happy fat woman?

Ok

That's just called valuing yourself in a relationship. Doesn't matter the gender involved.

Sometimes, in a heterosexual relationship, the woman can become the sole breadwinner if a man loses his job. And if the man picks up the slack in other areas so she can be the breadwinner, that's fine. Stay-at-home husbands are a thing. Of course, it depends on the financial stability of that household because you might need two people to work to keep afloat. You can't mooch off of people no matter your gender

As for not showering, grooming or addressing his mental health? That's a red flag, not a case of needing to look past the surface. A man who doesn't value himself will be unable to value others. There should be grace given if the guy is going through something. However, that grace goes away if he's not trying to improve. Of course, this can be said about all genders.

The only thing you can make a case for is the weight gain and the weird beard. And even then, it depends on the woman in question.

I am not sure you understand women as much as you think you do either.

There are women out there who want their men to look a certain way and are very ridged about who they will and will not accept. And then there are women who might have preferences but will look for beauty in anyone. And if they fall in love with a person who's outside their tastes, they will find reasons to find that person attractive. These characteristics are not inherent to women. The first example is a shallow person. The second is not.

Shallow people are concerned with the superficial, the outward appearance. It may not be the only thing, but it is the most important thing. Since this is the crux of the issue, the purpose of your example is confusing. Because it's not a 1 v 1 situation.

But let's indulge. The answer to your question truly depends on the woman. Some would not find him sexy. Some would say "He's my man, so he's sexy to me." (Hear that one a lot when a woman is with a guy who no longer looks the same as he used to, but she's still attracted to him.)

People are people, man. Like all the other women have been saying in this thread, you can't expect whole groups to be a monolith.

If you have decades of experience with women, then why do you keep talking about women like we are a different species?

And I am not talking about male shallowness. I am talking about your shallowness. I am using men as an example because you are a man. Shallowness knows no gender. But at no point as this discussion been about women who have been shallow.

The power of the internet baby! Glad I could help.

Porn overuse? I think you got me confused with another commenter because I never mentioned that nor did I imply it. I said don't compare your struggles as a feeder to the struggles gay people face.

I find it odd you think there are only two kinds of fat women: feedists and women who let themselves go. There are plenty of women who happen to be fat and are living full, happy lives. I am starting to think you don't have a lot of experience with women in general.

But circling back to the issue at hand, it seems to me that you are missing the point of what I am saying. The issue isn't what the woman looks like so much as it is the objectification of women that's the problem.

Now, if you meant that you'd be fine with a woman of any size - big or small - so long as she is a feedist, I will take the L and apologize for misunderstanding you. But that doesn't mean you haven't been talking about women like we are a different species for this entire thread. And I am not the only person to have arrived at that conclusion.