> if enough of them were that fat, it would sort of become the new norm and standards for attractiveness would change accordingly. The most attractive women ha

> if enough of them were that fat, it would sort of become the new norm and standards for attractiveness would change accordingly. The most attractive women have always, everywhere, had a waist-hip ratio of around 0.7 (http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves-ahead-the-science-of-female-waist-to-hip-ratio-and-at.html http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves...). That would rule out obesity as the new norm of attractiveness. I assume there is also a formula/ratio for attractive men that rules out their being obese. Also, people are known to lie about the number of sexual partners they have had (http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/statistics_on_sexual_partners_cant_be_right_specialists_say/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/st...). Could that be a factor here? Finally, the article focuses on age of first sex and number of sexual partners, not frequency of sex. It doesn't rule out millennials having more frequent sex with fewer partners. Stop press: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number-of-young-people-experience-sex-problems-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number...