Feminists like to argue that the media is pushing beauty standards upon us out of nothing. That is true, of course, but not in the way they mean it. There is real beauty out there. It is a beauty based on real things like the unconscious (or conscious) desire to find a mate who is healthy, able to reproduce and be our partner for a long time. Even when we merely want a one night stand, the beauty by which we judge our sex partner is based on the visual signs of health and reproductive fitness. We may accept a less attractive person as an acceptable one night stand, but we’ll still recognize that she is not pretty. The reason an uglier person may be more acceptable for a one night stand than marriage is the lack of investment in that person: we won’t have children with them, so we don’t have to worry about their terrible health and genetics.
Enter the media, much of which is feminist or at least afraid to stand up to the feminists. They tell us that in pre-Industrial times, as well as in starving nations today, being a little heavier was considered more attractive. This is accurate, but the issue is not presented properly: the reason starving societies prefer somewhat heavier partners is that starvation is more likely there than heart attacks, stroke and other fat-derived diseases. In wealthy societies, on the other hand, starvation is not an issue, but obesity is. Thus, our evolutionary drives cause us to select people with slower metabolism.
But in no society was obesity ever considered attractive. Except in Hollywood. Here, we have Katy Mixon presented as a spectacular beauty that a regular guy would be crazy to ask out on a date because someone that pretty can only break his heart. Mixon is a supporting actress on the show Mike and Molly which stars a fat man and his beyond morbidly obese wife as a regular couple (with Mike desperate to have sex with his wife despite her grotesque physique), and Katy Mixon as the local beauty. Really? This is Katy Mixon:
She’s flat out ugly. As a man, I cannot imagine touching her. She’s fat. She looks older than her 34 years of age. Her face may have been ok when she was skinny, but the lumps of fat all over make it awful as well. Feminists think that by putting lipstick on a pig, they will make the pig into a swan. They won’t. Putting a ton of makeup and flashy clothes on an ugly woman does not reduce her ugliness, nor does it make her in any way pretty. It just further flashes her terrible looks. Had she avoided flashy clothes and makeup, she’d draw less attention to how unattractive she is.
So why is she on TV? So that we could be told that fat is beautiful, and even the obese Molly is a normal woman who is desired by her husband. Feminists and Hollywood lie, but the truth remains: in real life, men find fat to be repulsive. No amount of propaganda will change that because our sexual desires are not driven by what we are told, but by our evolutionary urges to combine our genes and our lives with the healthy, not the morbid waiting spinning the wheel of what disease they are about to get.
So why do feminists think that the media is pushing beauty upon us? Because despite their propaganda, they know what beauty looks like. Every time an attractive woman is on TV, they moan, “look, they are making men think she’s beautiful!” They believe that men will view beautiful women as beautiful and don’t believe that Katy Mixon is going to convince any man of the same because they ultimately know the truth. They just want to explain it away by lying that beauty is just a media creation to make themselves feel better. Ultimately, however, they recognize the difference between a woman whom men will like and a woman whom men won’t.