Skip to content

No, fatty lardbuckets aren’t having more sex

Just everybody has been getting this story wrong.

Normal weight men and overweight men reported the most sex partners, and underweight men reported the least.

The same holds for women. And people have been reporting that fatties thus have more sex.

No, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that fatties have more sexual partners. This is not the same thing as more sex.

Think of it this way: you’re Adonis, the fit bird with the gorgeous knockers drops her knickers for you. And, given the monogamous proclivities of most human females lets on that she’ll only continue doing so if you behave. You’re going to be getting lots of high class sex but you’re not going to be chalking up many partners.

You’re not, in short, going to be chatting up the fat birds in the last 10 minutes of the disco hunting a shag. And if you’re the fit bird with the great knockers you’re also not going to be one of the fat birds being chatted up, you’re long gone with Adonis there.

It’s not complete and perfect as a point of course: but in some manners more sexual partners can be an indication of less sex: ‘coz it’s an indication of not getting it regularly with the one person.

14 thoughts on “No, fatty lardbuckets aren’t having more sex”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    There is an obvious point about different sexual strategies. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Therefore men should sleep around as much as possible. That greatly increases their chances of passing on their genes. Women are limited in the number of children they can have. They should hold out for the best man going.

    Thus a man who sleeps around is a success and is admired as such. A woman who sleeps around is an utter failure and everyone, especially women, despises her as such. Whatever the feminists in the Guardian want us to believe.

    What this actually means is that women are not motivated primarily by looks. Fatter men are probably older. Under weight ones still young. Obviously sexual partner numbers can only go up. Men are motivated by looks. Fat women have to throw themselves at any man drunk enough to care. Few stick around once sober.

    The sexual market place is brutal and nasty but that is no reason for refusing to be honest about it.

  2. The article is not saying that lardbuckets and the obese are getting more sex, but that men in the middle range of the BMI – men who are overweight though not obese on that imperfect measure – are getting more sex. Similarly proportioned women are likewise getting more sex than emaciated stick insects. So all its saying is that ‘normal sized’ people get more sex. No surprise there. Most men would prefer a size 14-16 lady with curves to a curveless size 6.

  3. High value females tend towards sexual reluctance. Because it directly implies high sexual value- which is why we call the opposite “cheap”.

    And skinny men just aren’t considered very sexy for obvious reasons (not much of a bodyguard or hunter, kind of thing).

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Off Topic – what the hell happened at Twickenham?

    Let’s see, can I link this to fatty lardbuckets? Alas I probably can. If this was North Korea they would all be sent down a coal mine. As this is Britain perhaps their WAGS should be taken away and replaced with fatty lardbuckets.

    I guess it goes to show that intelligence is not all that valuable after all.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    john miller – “I have sex with only one person…”

    I am not down with da yoof and modern manners generally, but that seems very selfish. Shouldn’t you at least invite your wife to watch?

    Off Topic: Denis Healey has died. Healey is proof of the Theory of De-evolution – older Labour politicians look good in retrospect because the new ones are so awful. He might have been a Communist at one point – during the Molotov Ribentrop Pact no less – but he fought in World War Two. That alone puts him above sh!ts like Jack Straw.

  6. Clive Woodward got it right afterwards, opened by praising the ozzies and also mentioned that we now have a tournament to get on with hosting.

    Most teams will go home having only played one do-or-die game against quality opposition ( or none ). We had the good fortune to have two such big games, shame we lost them both, but you gotta win big games against quality opponents if you want to progress, and you don’t normally get a second chance.

    I’d like to think that we will give our best against Uruguay, but fear we won’t be bothered, and we still have the honor and privilege of hosting a global tournament, so let’s have no self pity, there’s another game to play and visitors from all over the world to make welcome.

  7. Yes, OT indeed, but golly, Australia looked f****ing good, or was England just awful. Ah well, it’s not like I’m actually upset, I did make money betting that England would get eliminated and a touch of humility won’t do them any harm…

  8. Home advantage was with England, but this result was always quite likely.

    England, lest we forget, are only the 3rd or 4th best team in the 6 Nations. The hope was that Wales would have an off day. They did, but we failed to put them away.

    The key thing is for the RFU to get over themselves and allow England contenders to play in France. Look at the number of English players who, a) have played in recent European Cup Finals, and, b) were not allowed to play for England.

  9. Given that muscular, athletic men often score as obese on the BMI chart I’d say the whole thing is probably a load of bollocks.

  10. Given that everyone, but everyone, lies about sex at all times, I’d put level of confidence in any research data firmly in minus numbers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *