Munchies:
Yes. It's called whipping out the graphs and charts.

You made a lot of claims about women. While I will not deny these claims are true for some women, are you sure they are as widespread as you assume them to be?

Keep in mind you have been explaining to women how women work. Are you really sure you want to hang your hat on that? Really and truly? This is after making statements about how women do not understand how men work.

The word "some" is your best and safest word choice. Words have denotations and connotations. You seem to understand the denotations (dictionary definitions) but struggle to understand the connotations (implied meaning).

Think again about the example I gave you. Think about how different the connotations of those words were and how they changed the sentence's meaning.

The same applies here.

Malvineous:
Ok, here are two articles that each cite multiple studies on what women find attractive in men.
businessinsider.com/science-backed-qualities-in-men-women-like-2016-6
confidencetoachieve.com.au/what-women-want-in-a-man-according-to-science/

I haven't been explaining to women how women work. I've been giving my thoughts on gendered differences in socialization/psychology, for both men and women who are reading the thread. It's not a private conversation. I know that women fully understand how they work. However, I don't think either gender fully understands how the other works, because each person is limited to their own perspective. Having conversations like this could be a way to reach some kind of understanding about each other.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hoped to discuss the ideas on their own merits instead of simply getting told my language is wrong. I asked in good faith how to express the SAME ideas about patterns better, instead I'm basically told not to express them in the first place. Those are the connotations of what you're telling me. Again, I'm not attached to being right about this, but I do care about being able to speak on the topic. It's true that it may not be as widespread as I think, but that's an opportunity to give me some examples that you think are more widespread, and we can discuss.

The example you gave me of 'most men beat their wives' would only bother me because it's untrue. However, if you were to phrase it the other way around, and say that 'most partner abuse is committed by men', then that wouldn't bother me because it is true. My ego isn't wrapped up in such things. (Unless it were used as justification to reach some wild conclusion like 'that's why you should never trust your boyfriend' ). Also, how is saying 'most women are attracted to multiple things in a partner beyond the physical' as bad as saying 'most men beat their wives'? If we look at the connotations, then what I said would paint women in a more flattering light than men, because it would imply they're less "shallow".

Munchies:
Here we have OP compare his plight to that of gay people and continue to ignore multiple women calling him out of his misogyny. He demands explanations that have already been given or rejects them outright because he doesn't like them and accuses people of ad hominem attacks were there were none.

You hate to see it.

X_Larsson:
You have not mentioned ONE factual quote where I slander, denigrate, hate, ridicule, diminish etc. Do that, please show where I have done so.

I don't CARE at all if you or anyone on the forum likes me or not, but I have not expressed any of the above things about anyone. I do care about truth, though.
Your feelings are not evidence.

If my posts are full of discrimination and lies, it would be super easy for you to find examples. Noone of you have presented such quotes yet.

BustingButtons:
To me this all reads like someone trying to evade self evaluation. Talking about woken elsewhere, here and there whilst failing to tackle the objectification and fetishisation inhibiting their ability to find love.

It's like when smeone asked Speilberg about his movies and it was "I was going through a divorce and didn't want to do therapy ".

X_Larsson:
Feel free to explore this a bit more. Maybe you are on to something? I ask that you avoid talking about objectification and feederism as a fetish.

I am the opposite, highly emotionally invested and will never be attracted to a (good looking?) woman that behaves in a way that I find unpleasant.
Some ie think Lizzo is an attractive BBW (based on looks), while I find her directly offputting due to her lack of grace and sophistication.

But I am sure people here will now try to turn that as well against me.

ForeverFFA:
Many people (yes, including myself, a woman) can empathize with the struggle to experience sexual attraction outside of this fetish. Shallow or not, I don't have a problem with anyone's personal choice to not keep trying to make anything else work. But there's a lot more that has been going on in this thread that makes me think that the OP would benefit from an attitude shift towards the humans that he is seeking relationships with.

I explained right after the sentence you quoted that I think there are degrees of shallowness.

Malvineous:
Yeah, I agree that there are degrees of shallowness like you said, but I was asking to find out what is the bare minimum for someone to be considered shallow at all in your view?

Being attracted to tall men is shallow, but normal.

I would also say that if you’re not interested in a romantic relationship with a person unless they’re specifically eager to gain weight for your sexual gratification, it might be worth taking a time out and assessing what’s going on. That feels to me like the point where a fetish is causing harm, not enhancing your life. But maybe not!

Malvineous:
That all depends on how rare your preferred partner is. It's preventing him from finding anyone in Sweden, but it might not in California. If his fetish were BDSM instead, he wouldn't have a problem anywhere. That's why he has to make a change if he doesn't want to end up forever alone. He has to sacrifice one of the two, either his fetish or his home. Either one will feel like a big loss, so it's up to him which he values more. If he has to suppress his fetish, it's never going away. He'll have to learn coping strategies and make peace with feeling unfulfilled in life. Also I wouldn't frame it like feedees are eager to gain weight for their partner's sexual gratification, they do it for their own sexual gratification, and they have shared goals with their feeder. Maybe that's just nitpicking semantics though, idk.

Malvineous:

The point I was trying to make is that in general, it seems like men have a narrower list of qualities that they find sexy in a partner, while women generally have a wider range of things they find sexually attractive beyond purely physical. It's not about who you would date, but what turns you on. Your example of a woman who only likes 6' tall men is an exact comparison, but that's because the woman's list of turn-ons is also very narrow, which I think isn't very common for women. What I was trying to do was think of some common answers I've heard for what women find attractive beyond just looks (sense of humor, etc.), and come up with a scenario where ALL of those qualities disappear at once. Perhaps I made a bad analogy, but I'm struggling to think of a different one that still illustrates that point.

My personal definition of shallowness has nothing to do with what someone's attracted to, no matter how specific. I think shallowness comes in when someone values sexuality above anything else in a relationship. So to make another strained analogy, you could have a guy who's only sexually attracted to 4' tall rodeo clowns, which is super specific and rare, but if he cared the most about personality and family values in his rodeo clown (and is even willing to bend some on the sexual side so he can find someone), he wouldn't be shallow in my opinion. However, you could have a different guy who is attracted to women of all heights, sizes, races and ages, but he doesn't care about anything else, he just wants a hot girlfriend and nothing else matters to him, that guy would be shallow.

Malvineous:

I wouldn't either. I personally don't think someone is shallow if they lose attraction to their partner. Munchies said that.

Malvineous:

Women seem to have a more multi-factored list of things that they find attractive in a partner, so if he lacks in one area, there's still other areas to fall back on. Here's an equivalent for women: Let's say he gets married like you said. Then one day, he gets fired and refuses to look for any work, he just wants her to be the sole breadwinner, so that he can spend all his time playing video games and smoking weed. He doesn't want to take over the housework either. Anything that distracts from his gaming is met with frustration. That includes showering, so he starts neglecting his hygiene. On top of that, he gets fat when she likes fit guys, and he grows a weird beard. These are all symptoms of severe depression, but he stubbornly refuses to get help or talk to her about it. Do you think she would still find him sexy?