Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science desk
< July 12 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 14 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 13

[edit]

What species is this?

[edit]

I added these photos to cicada but they were removed because I don't know what species they are (and there is no insect inside). What species is this? They are common in south Georgia, US and this one is from near the Atlantic coast. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of just location, Neotibicen auletes, Neotibicen pronotalis, or Neotibicen tibicen are possibilities. If you took the photo in 2011, Brood XIX could also be possible. It could also be one of the many species that we don't have an article on. I'd look for confirmation within the first three, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took the photo yesterday after my daughter found it on the porch. These were taken out there. I brought it in so I can take better close-up photos, but if someone is going to delete them, what's the use? I need to have some article where they can go. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, away from the coast, they like to shed their shell on pine trees, if that is a clue. And I'm pretty sure they are out every year. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to put these photos in Neotibicen? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try it. Worst that happens is it gets removed again. Those look like the kind we get here in SC, and Neotibicen is widespread. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that. But I'm hoping to take better photos and have them stand. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarce pictures of Pluto from New Horizons

[edit]

NASA's New Horizons probe has done well to make its journey to Pluto. But the pictures posted have been few and far between. Why is it so long between posted photos? I would have expected at least one per day. Following the closest approach in the coming week, when does NASA plan to post at least one high resolution photo? Decades ago, when they first crashed a probe into the moon (Ranger)and when they first landed an unmanned probe on the moon (Surveyor), I recall a much more satisfying display of photos soon thereafter. They used the term "Quick and dirty" for the release of a few photos, rather than waiting for the inevitable tweaking and perfecting of the images. I've searched the NASA site without finding a good explanation fro their stinginess in posting photos.The low baud rate seems an inadequate explanation. Equipment sometimes fails unexpectedly, so programming in a quick image grab would seem to make sense. Edison (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The data transmission rate is slow, it will take 16 months for all the collected data to be transmitted to the earth. [1] μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is in no way an explanation. You don't have to wait for the last datum to be received to release the first image. People got annoyed with the Dead Sea Scrolls researchers for waiting decades before releasing images, and in that case, someone was able to circumvent them and release the closely held information. At the stated baud rate, how long would it take to transmit one image? Minutes? Hours? What was the timing of the release of the last few images seen so far? Are there more than the ones from 9 July at 5.4 million km and July 11 at 4 million km which I could find at NASA and Wikipedia? It is now less than 1,200,000 km from Pluto. Edison (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, please call NASA and notify them of your personal displeasure. You've gotten the proper answer, regaling us with straw men objections and conspiracy theories serves no purpose. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I write this, five very large dishes at the Goldstone Observatory, part of the Deep Space Network, are simultaneously aimed at New Horizons. You can monitor their progress: DSN Now. You can read about communications: JHUAPL's New Horizons spacecraft communications website. Right now, the total downlink is about two kilobits per second. Goldstone is the best-equipped station on Earth for communicating with the New Horizons probe. In a few hours, as Earth rotates, California will no longer be able to see Pluto, and the data downlink speed will decrease. Eventually, the link will be reestablished with the next DSN station (in Spain, and then in Australia later).
Of the few kilobits of data, only a tiny fraction is available for scientific data product. Most of the link bandwidth is used for operational spacecraft telemetry and control. It really, really actually will take days or weeks for high-quality scientific image data to download back to Earth.
Need something to keep yourself occupied? Keck Observatory kicked off its free online Cosmic Summer School yesterday. Here's Week One of a twelve week educational program: Administrator Bolden discussing NASA's long term mission objectives. Around the time this twelve-week summer school completes, New Horizons is scheduled to begin (yes, to begin) downlinking science product. It might be a good time to exercise some patience and acquaint yourself with the realities of space travel!
Nimur (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The downlink schedule is here: [2]. Rmhermen (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all. Such novel info from a little- known ?planet. One can hardly wait, and I hope nothing breaks down in the months we have to wait for the big download.. When the "Instant of closest approach" occurs, and the time for lightspeed transmission from Pluto has passed, I only hope that some kewl image will be displayed for all to see. Edison (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this morning's press release, the first data will be a status signal that arrives around 9 PM (EDT) on Tuesday evening. You can watch the conference live now on http://www.nasa.gov and it will probably be archived for later viewing. There is a very neat 3D animation of the instrument command sequence to aim the various instruments at their targets during the flyby. Nimur (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the best image we'll get until after the flyby. -- ToE 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is in full resolution. Now we wait. -- ToE 14:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your superlatives! The image you linked is not "the best" one we have! If you're really concerned about image quality, avoid consumer-grade republishing services like Amazon Web Service and "Instagram" - these services destroy images with crummy recompression quality to reduce image size! This spells disaster for scientific image processing. Personally, I find it shameful and insulting that these web companies would apply such poor-quality lossy compression to image files. Their image-corruption is regrettable when it destroys the quality of normal personal photographs. But to apply such a poor-quality compression after so many billions of dollars, billions of miles, and thousands of seconds to losslessly transfer these bits of data from the far side of our solar system - this is tragic! Are these companies so overwhelmed by the bandwidth and technical difficulties and costs that they can't transfer data from one air-conditioned data center to another over a wire?
If you want the best images available from the New Horizons mission, view the original images from NASA's New Horizons image gallery, and use the planetary science database to retrieve research-grade scientific data products (including uncompressed images):
Even these data may be compressed or reprocessed; you have to read the details in the data release information to be sure. Each time the data is re-compressed by third parties, more information is lost; so the closer you get to the source, the better the image is for scientific purposes.
Nimur (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the AWS image is PNG not lossy compression. What the source was, or whether it was ever compressed losily internally in Amazon, I have no idea. It is also 1024x1024, and I wonder if it was uploaded like that to Amazon, or reduced to that resolution internally by Amazon. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One other point that hasn't been mentioned yet - New Horizons can't broadcast and take photos at the same time. The camera is fixed, so the spacecraft needs to rotate in order to point it at an object - and that means the antenna goes out of alignment with Earth. To avoid anything interesting being missed as it approaches the Pluto system, the New Horizons probe is currently being steered to prioritise data capture over transmission, and most of the images are still stored in the spacecraft's memory. Once it's in a less interesting bit of space, it'll be pointed back at Earth and send back all the saved data. (In case you're wondering why they have such a cumbersome way of doing things - most spacecraft do have a steerable camera, but the steering systems are heavy and can break down easily. For the very long mission to Pluto, they decided to go with the lower risk system and save a bit of weight). Smurrayinchester 10:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annual average sunshine vs total horizontal irradiation

[edit]

Why do these two maps[3][4] look so different? I realize that they measure different things, one is annual average sunshine, and one is total horizontal irradiation, but I would have expected them to be correlated to each other, especially when averaged over long periods of time (29 years in the first one, one year in the second one). My other car is a cadr (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is measuring hours of sun, the other is measuring the total insolation energy. Basically the SW sees the sun less often than the SE, but it is brighter when it does come out. Also, you do actually get some insolation even when it is overcast. Greglocock (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And part of the reason for the difference is that the East of England has far less rain and cloud, and therefore sees the sun more often, and another part of the reason is the the SW of England is quite a lot further South than the SE, and therefore gets a high irradiance when the sun does shine.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. The latitude difference is not enough to be very significant; sun is always the same brightness (plus or minus about 3% depending on how far away it is at that time of year), so it doesn't make sense to say "it's brighter when it does come out". However, what does vary is how high it is at different times. Any particular horizontal area gets about 2.5 times as much sunlight when the sun is 60° above the horizon as it does when it's only 20° above (because sin 60° / sin 20° is about 2.5). This is why the summer sun warms you more than the winter sun. So the pattern would be explained if the southwest of England tends to be sunnier in May-June-July whereas the southeast is sunnier at other times of year. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" it doesn't make sense to say "it's brighter when it does come out". " is nonsense I'm afraid. Speaking as an ex solar car strategist I can assure you that just because the sun is out at a particular latitude at a particular solar time, the insolation can vary by +/-30% depending on high altitude cloud, dust, and cloud albedo. If you don't believe me then it is no skin off my nose, check out my graphs of actual data on the WSC page. Greglocock (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I considered that if there was significant reduction for that sort of reason then it would not be considered "out", but I can't force that interpretation on the Met Office. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, here's the 'official' definition of bright sunshine - 120 W/m^2, ie 1/8 of typical australian summer sun at noon!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/msg_sunshine/ejgood_sunshine_paper_final.pdf Greglocock (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, y'all. My other car is a cadr (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
And surely horizontal irradiation is given by maximum solar irradiation times the sine of the sun's elevation. Further South (until you reach the tropic of Cancer) = higher solar elevation = higher horizontal irradiation.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military device

[edit]

In this video, what's the device at 2:47? I think that's some kind of device for setting the fuzes on the cannon shells -- did I guess well? 2601:646:8E01:9089:F5D3:BBA6:DE14:1A84 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called an "automatic fuse setter" (in English) and was linked to an analogue computer called a "predictor". This calculated the speed and direction of the aircraft, which way the wind was blowing and how long it would take to get the shell into the gun, fire it and then fly towards the target. They were developed independently in the UK and Germany during the 1930s. The predictor used by the Germans was called the Funkmessegerate. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a device for setting the fuze on anti-aircraft shells, the kind that burst in mid-air, also known as flak. If the shells are to burst close to enemy aircraft flying overhead the fuze must be set to detonate at the correct time after firing. This device would seem to allow the fuze timing to be set just a few seconds before the shell is fired, giving gunners the best chance of causing damage to the enemy aircraft. Dolphin (t) 14:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I said above; apologies if it was unintelligible. There's a brief mention of automatic fuse setters at Artillery fuze#Fuze setting. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all! 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False 'controversy'

[edit]

Wondering why there exist pages named Dental amalgam controversy and Thiomersal controversy when there is no scientific- or respectable public- controversy regarding these topics. We know there is no genuine controversy, and the reliable sources prove this. Is this an active failure to moderate these topics, or have they just not been addressed lately? Nevard (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that the situation is based on scientific bullshit, public misinformation, self-aggrandizing media figures, and disreputable others. But that doesn't matter from a WP:GNG standpoint for the topic to merit a page. In each article it's cited that there is a concern, and it's cited and made clear that it's completely unscientific and not currently based on anything respectable. It's not a "controversy" in that there are two reasonably meritorious sides debating some topic using sane logic, facts, etc. But it does meet the what controversy says, in that it's a long-running public dispute of opinion and point of view. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is no controversy among mainstream scientists does not mean that there is no controversy. As DMacks says, there is a long-running public dispute. The existence of the controversy is notable and should be reported, as well as the fact that there is agreement among mainstream scientists. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia still has articles about complete bullshit. The existence of the article merely means that the bullshit really exists (even if it exists as bullshit) and not that Wikipedia holds that the bullshit should be seen as plausible or likely. Just that it's real, documented bullshit. There's a thousand articles on other kinds of bullshit, and Wikipedia cannot merely ignore notable bullshit, merely because it is bullshit. Wikipedia needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, which means, among other things, not pretending that bullshit is not bullshit, but it doesn't mean we pretend the bullshit doesn't exist in the first place. --Jayron32 00:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also has bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we have an article on Galileo being convicted of heresy for claiming the Sun was at the center of the solar system. It's not there because there is real scientific controversy over the topic, but because it was a notable event that had an effect on society. In the case of thiomersal, that's significant for lowering the inoculation rate, thus leading to disease outbreaks. StuRat (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is different. There was real scientific controversy at the time. Galileo had not proved that the Sun was the center of the solar system. He had only made discoveries that strengthened the heliocentric view, but did not disprove the geocentric view. The heliocentric theory only became generally accepted when Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation provided an explanation of what the force was that kept the planets in their orbits. If Galileo said that he had proved the heliocentric theory, then he was mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the situation with vaccines was very similar. There was a study which purported to show a link between vaccinations and autism [6], with mercury in the thiomersol vaccines being the prime suspect. So, there was a genuine scientific controversy at the time. Later that study was discredited, and many other studies have shown no link, so there is no longer a scientific controversy now. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple: Wiktionary defines "controversy" as "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife.". Notice that the words "truth", "science" and "reasonable" don't enter into that definition. Hence there can be controversy even when it's completely and firmly established that one side are spouting primo bullshit and are flat out utterly, UTTERLY, stupidly wrong. (eg. There is an Apollo moon landing controversy...even though there is absolutely zero evidence that it didn't happen - and a gigantic mountain of evidence that it did.)
These articles are about the controversy itself - not the underlying facts. So we must ask ourselves:
  1. Is it true that there are people debating this thing?
  2. Is that debate notable?
Our gold standard for both truth and notability in Wikipedia is the existence of 3rd party reports about the subject in "reliable" sources. In this case, we're not looking for reports about the truth about the issues surrounding dental amalgams. We're looking for reports that prove that people disagree about this subject and are debating it.
There are indeed reliable sources that say that some people find these things controversial...and there are enough of them to establish notability. Note that by creating these articles, we're not saying that the people on both sides of the debate are equally correct - we're merely saying that some people are de bating it...which they undoubtedly are.
SteveBaker (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the difference between significance and notability. We have an article on intelligent design, but we don't mention it in the article on evolution. The former is not significant with respect to the latter. It may not deserve respect as a scientific theory, but it deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. Documenting something is of course not the same thing as endorsing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do men find fat women attractive?

[edit]

Does fat fetishism have any evolutionary basis, that is to say does it provide an advantage to passing on genes? Obviously healthy women are more fertile than underweight women, and would be better mothers. However, severely obese women are likely to die early before the child is an adult and thus are not good mothers. 39.176.130.234 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De gustibus non est disputandum. Also, human behavior is not deterministic to the level of infinite mathematical precision and is subject to notions such as free will and personal preference. There does not need to be a deterministic evolutionary, "all humans must do X because they are forced to by the magic God named "evolution!" explanation for individual personal choices and preferences, such as foods you like, people you are sexually attracted to, and music one listens to. Not every matter of individual human behavior which is different than your personal preference is so aberrant as to need to be proven to be wrong because "evolution" says it is. Sometimes, people are different, and it isn't an "evolutionary disadvantage", which you are using here as code for "It feels wrong to me". --Jayron32 00:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, I certainly agree that not all personal preference needs to be explained by evolutionary psychology. But your assumption that the OP is speaking in "code" is frankly out of line. There's not a shred of evidence for it in the post, and you owe the OP an apology. --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an area where famine was common, an obese wife would be more likely to survive one, and still be able to bear and nurse children, than a normal weight woman. Also note that obesity isn't very likely to kill a woman before menopause, and in a society with strong social supports, others would raise her children when she did die.
  • That fat women were desired in prehistoric times is implied by Venus figurines.
Also not "normal" weight there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In parts of the world obesity is considered extremely attractive in a woman as a sign of prosperity (see leblouh). For a long time deformed feet were considered attractive in China. Both of these things are considered turn-offs amongst most men in the modern world. There is substantial research on sexual attractiveness, but it is basically impossible in a realistic study to fully separate social from genetic factors in what we find attractive. Maybe men are inclined to pursue women they see as best able to provide and raise healthy children, or maybe they are inclined to pursue whatever standard society holds at the time, or perhaps they are inclined to pursue whatever is in fashion amongst the wealthy (see for instance this article on the transition from pale skin to tan skin being considered attractive). And of course, there are massive and largely inexplicable variations in preferences within any population. Are these differences driven by social or genetic factors? Again, nearly impossible to tell. But it certainly seems like it's far more complicated than simply which female seems the healthiest. I think a firmer hypothesis than "men are inclined to pursue the most child-ready women" would be "men are inclined to pursue whatever qualities they associate with prosperity, muddied by inexplicable variability." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good answers, I think Jayrons answer in particular should not be dismissed. There is a very real tenancy to explain things in "evolutionary" terms like the above, however a distinction has to be drawn between a post hoc rationalization and an actual causative relationship. It's not hard to explain ANYTHING this way: why do some find fat women attractive, why to some find thin women attractive, why to some find in between women attractive? We can find compelling answers to ALL of those, but if you can explain ALL observation with one "hypothesis" then you haven't really explained ANY, it becomes unfalsifiable. Vespine (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sexual preferences can be given an evolutionary explanation. Necrophilia, for example, doesn't seem to be a likely method to pass on one's genes (except perhaps where the male is dead but still has viable sperm). So, that would make it more likely as a brain malfunction. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the reference is superstimulus.. Actually, it just occurred to me, watch Dan Dennett's TED talk called "Cute, sexy, sweet, funny", I don't want to google that phrase at work to link it, you'll have to look it up yourself ;) He discusses precisely this subject. Vespine (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "more cushion for the pushin'" also probably isn't safe for work, but as dumb as that saying is, pelvis-on-pelvis grinding probably really wouldn't have been so great for the species, if we were all down for that. There's something to be said for pillows in bed, especially if you need to hunt mammoth the next morning.
That only applies to liking big butts and thighs. Big stomachs and jowels, the other brothers can deny. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Westerners can't agree whether ISIS is really evil, I've just read someone making a culture-relativist argument that they aren't necessarily, on Youtube. In this moral landscape, how can there be a consensus on what's attractive? Asmrulz (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it described as "more cushion for the pushin'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some girls try it 'n' go on a diet Then they worry 'cause they's too fat Who wants t'ride on an ironin' board? That ain't no fun ... I tried me one Grow that meat all over yer bones Work the wall with the local Jones 'N' while you do it, remember this line The Sniffer says it all the time "THE BIGGER THE CUSHION, THE BETTER THE PUSHIN etc." Frank Zappa "Sex" Contact Basemetal here 08:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fat Bottomed Girls... make the rocking world go round". SemanticMantis (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not why men find fat women attractive. If a woman is able to bear able children, some men will find her attractive. We would need to explain wy men find sometimes attractive women that cannot bear children. --Yppieyei (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is hung up on reproduction. Some would even consider it an advantage if she cannot reproduce. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a male and you're attracted to females that can't reproduce you will have a little trouble passing on that feature to your offspring because you won't have any. If that preference is connected to a gene then that gene will be eliminated from the gene pool pretty fast. Contact Basemetal here 18:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't want children, you won't care about the gene pool. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. basemetal just because something exists does not mean that it has a "survival factor" many things (like wanting a female who can't reproduce) is not based on a survival factor it is a BY-PRODUCT of other survival factors. Void burn (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think major obesity and big bellies of cellulite is extremely unattractive. But unless her calves are thick as average thighs and she has over two chins the right length skirt would make me horny as long as she stays clothed. (I would find out in 3 seconds whether blubber-y feeling women aren't for me: If I could get through the first few seconds of cuddling without being disgusted they would be very fun until I saw her eat, if I couldn't then they'd all disgust me). Whatever ancient genes caused this, I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. (May or may not be safe for work, depending on where you work.) Ask yourself this: Too big? Too small? Just right? Everyone will have a personalized answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fat. Close to fat. I would be her boyfriend for awhile if her face wasn't pedestrian and she wasn't within airliner range of a magazine model's personality. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really science, but of course Peter Paul Rubens also is worth a read (or at least a look at the pictures). I think it's worth questioning how much issues with fat are cultural, not just in a sense of cultural programming of the observer, but in terms of how women dress and present themselves and so forth. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. If people shaped like that bikini model think they're fat and maybe were called names in school or God forbid thought anyone who really likes them is probably a weirdo then they might not think they're sexy and dress and act less sexy than they would otherwise and that would make them less sexy unnecessarily. Of course if many men are like me then if her face is attractive enough then being chubby or not doesn't make much difference, and any face is attractive to somebody. But maybe some chubby women don't think that. Maybe some BBW fetishists are fairly conventional too except they just got the famined caveman gene, I wouldn't be surprised.
Also, maybe if you saw someone obese when everyone's born in a famine you'd be like where the hell did you get all that food??! Marry me!
RE: Rubens. I've seen a few before and know about Rubenesque Renaissance standards of weight. Most of those women in the article make me so horny. I also love thin women unlike him, Rubens can draw women too muscular, and his thickest women are pushing it size-wise but his style generally makes me so horny. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2015_July_13&oldid=1145651037"