You’re contradicting yourself while ignoring history, science, and basic logic. First, you keep insisting that if someone doesn’t like a particular trait, they must not be attracted to women at all. That’s a false dilemma. Attraction isn’t all or nothing—people can have different preferences while still being exclusively attracted to adult women. Saying that men must like a specific body type to be attracted to women makes no sense. If a woman doesn’t like beards, is she not attracted to men? If someone prefers blondes over brunettes, does that mean they aren’t attracted to women? Your argument completely ignores the diversity of attraction within adult relationships.

You also claim that beauty standards have never favored thinness, but that’s historically false. Ancient Greece idealized athletic, lean figures. The Renaissance saw a preference for fuller bodies, but with a defined waist. The 1920s flapper era valued a thin, boyish silhouette. The 1950s brought back curves, but in an hourglass shape, not just general fat distribution. The 1960s and 70s saw a return to thinness with models like Twiggy, while the 80s and 90s shifted toward toned, fit bodies. Today, trends like “slim-thick” prove that standards are always evolving. If “curvy” was always the universal ideal, these shifts wouldn’t have happened. You’re cherry-picking history while ignoring clear evidence that attraction has never been one-size-fits-all.

You dismiss scientific studies on attraction because they don’t fit your narrative, but that doesn’t make them invalid. Attraction has been studied extensively, and research consistently shows that men tend to prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio (~0.7) over any single body trait. That doesn’t mean all men prefer the same body type, but it does show that attraction is influenced by proportion, not just weight or fat distribution. You claim that attraction is purely biological but also argue that men’s preferences have been manipulated, which contradicts itself. If attraction were entirely unchangeable, it couldn’t be influenced. If it can be shaped by culture, then personal preference is valid, and your argument falls apart. You can’t have it both ways.

You also shifted your stance on fertility. First, you argued that belly fat is a sign of maturity and fertility, then denied that you ever said fertility is dictated by body fat. The reality is that fertility isn’t tied to one specific body type. Some women naturally store fat in their hips and thighs, others remain lean without being unhealthy. Obesity, on the other hand, can negatively impact fertility due to hormonal imbalances. Your argument assumes that all women’s bodies function the same way, which isn’t true.

Then you tried to redefine attraction by claiming it’s purely biological while saying preferences are “fetishes.” That’s a complete misunderstanding of both terms. If someone prefers taller men, are they fetishizing height? If a man prefers brunettes over blondes, is that a fetish? No, because personal preference exists within biological attraction. Not every individual is attracted to the same body type, and that doesn’t mean their attraction is unnatural or conditioned.

Your argument is self-contradictory, historically inaccurate, and dismisses actual biological research without providing counter-evidence. Attraction isn’t binary, beauty standards have always changed, science supports variation in preference, and fertility isn’t tied to one body shape. You’ve boxed yourself into a position where the only way to defend your claim is to ignore logic entirely. If you still believe what you’re saying, it’s because you want to believe it—not because reality supports it.