What does /fit/ mean by "high test girls"?
Just attractive women?
Muscular women?
Someone help me out here
"i want so have sex with fat chicks but still maintain dignity"
>>36789298
/thread
Hourglass, big round ass, sometimes big tits
Girls with womanly features.
For example:
Large hips
Large breasts
Large arse
Some will insult those with high test out of jealousy; they have low test.
>>36789298
>>36789305
LOW-TEST
O
W
-
T
E
S
T
>>36789314
>>36789310
Every man likes an hourglass figure, it doesn't reflect high hormone levels if your taste is in line with almost every other male on earth.
>>36789283
It's when someone is so insecure that they trick themselves into being attracted to women with curves
>>36789314
Can I have some pic examples of both?
>>36789544
>it doesn't reflect high hormone levels if your taste is in line with almost every other male on earth.
Nigga you dumb
>>36789544
Unless "high-test" is actually the real normal, in that case lifting might be enough to take almost every man there. In reality, though, lifting seems to make almost no difference. It raises libido reliably, but that results only in (as is often brought up in these threads) "attraction to feminine features" - but that isn't high-test, it's having a normal functional libido; where you're attracted to the woman through your sex-drive rather than through aesthetics (she has a nice face etc.). I haven't seen many men who have genuine high-test taste, it's happened twice, maybe three times - most of the content in high-test threads is average or fat fetishists.
>>36789569
Highest test.
And by test I mean breasts and by high I mean toppest.
>>36789283
Pretty much this OP
>>36789569
Low test
High-test is a real thing which has been hijacked by fat fetishists, as such it should be banned from the boards - but since everyone else uses high-test threads as an excuse to post whatever women they like (see >>36789587 and >>36789600) under some pseudo-fitness related theme, everyone is complicit in keeping it around.
>>36789609
I mean I think it really means fat girls.
>>36789622
If all you've seen are /fit/ high-test threads then sure it looks like that's all it is - that's because it was hijacked by anons who like overweight women.
I've experienced it and heard a handful of other anons on here saying the same thing, so I see no reason not to think it's real. It's a waste of time to talk about it, though - if you're high-test you know what it is through experience, if you're not then it isn't relevant to your life.
>>36789622
you've been memed by low test beta's.
high test != fat/obese chicks
>birthing hips
>round/fat ass
>large tits (not required)
>classic hourglass shape
that is high test
>>36789657
I understand
>>36789569
Low test
High test originally meant skinny girls with big boobs and big buts.
People started jokingly posting fat girls, and as with all things on 4Chan, newfags went on, saw the joke, and couldn't tell the joke from its origin
>>36789283
It stems from the idea that men with high testosterone or "High Test" are attracted to women with a high BUTTxBUST to WAIST ratio or voluptuous or "Hourglass" figured women. It's NOT about a high bodyfat although high test women will hide some body fat in their tits and ass without any problem thanks to their slim waists.
It is not too far fetched to think that high test men are attracted to these women more so than low test betas as voluptuous women generally produce more estrogen and high estrogen women are generally attracted to men with high testosterone and vice versa.
So in a weird turn of events women with a high estrogen look are called high test.
Here's a high test
>>36789686
I thought all men are attracted to women with a high hip-to-waist ratio - it isn't a sign of "high" test levels if your taste is normal.
that's like saying 5'9 men are tall, unless you're saying next to women or men who are below average height it makes no sense.
>>36789707
Here's anotha one
>>36789707
why do people like you even come here
>>36789686
lets expand upon that
the fashion industry 60-70 have been dominated by gay men who design clothes for women with no assets. (do not mistake this as muh curves arguement)
that being said, in male lead hedonistic publishing such as playboy (etc) had always had that bust-waist-hip ratio going.
we maybe unto something.
>>36789314
/thread
>>36789714
I've been on b too mich
>>36789707
Back to le reddit you go
>>36789758
>flabby asses
Even I have a more supple ass than them
>>36789711
It's a matter of priority. Let me put it this way: A high estrogen figure is MORE important for high testosterone men.
Say you have 10 women lined up, they're all objectively equally attractive all things considered across the board.
But each one has a trait that is better than the rest: One's the best dressed, one's got the best face, one's the funniest, one's got the most toned body, one has the highest estrogen type body etc.
An average test guy might go for the one with the cutest face, and a low test might even go for the one with the most domineering personality (shudder). But the High Test man would go for the one with the High Estrogen body (big tits, big ass, slim waist).
In general terms of course.
>>36789728
you're saying playboy readers have high-test?
>>36789283
fertile women
>>36789869
is that the result of higher sex-drive?
this is high test
>>36789877
well high testosterone does give you a higher sex drive, meaning you want to fuck MORE. But if the high sex drive per se or the high test is responsible for the preference of high estrogen women I don't know.
Does it matter?
>>36789872
no, that the ideal body of men and that of the fashion industry lead by gay men and women are 2 two different things
>>36790236
>Does it matter
say you had two men - one who is "naturally high-test" and when healthy is at 900ng or whatever it is while suffering low-testosterone symptoms at 600ng, and one who is "naturally low-test" and when healthy is no higher than 500ng and not suffering low-testosterone symptoms until he reaches 300ng.
I don't know if testosterone works that way, but if it does then both men should have a high sex-drive at 900 and 500 respectively - but if only high-test males like high-est females (or much more so) then having a high sex-drive if his levels were still only 500 wouldn't mean anything since it isn't especially high.
that's why I was wondering anyway.
>>36790246
I agree with that but also think the playboy ideal isn't the same as the ideal for a high-test male. I use average-test or medium-test to describe the hourglass, victoria's secret model type. The reason high-test threads have so many of those women in them is most men are average-test.
>>36790300
>I don't know if testosterone works that way
It doesn't. Low testosterone isn't relative to your base level, it's relative to other men. If you have low test you will exhibit low test symptoms.
>>36789283
somewhere it began with a small notion of the women that are not fat, but just extremely curvy, who are build like women made to deliver babies.
But it was only a small notion, that was then taken over by fat people seeking to find somekind of validation.
Just as "we wuz kings and sheeeit" is a desperate plea to have some relevance to the world, the fats have their own cries for relevance, which is high test things.
>>36790353
>if you have low test you will exhibit low test symptoms
that's the way it's medically diagnosed but it doesn't work that way physiologically. I had low-testosterone symptoms but because I was only at 300ng they wouldn't diagnose me with low-testosterone, even though that is low for my age.
>>36790442
>I had low-testosterone symptoms but because I was only at 300ng they wouldn't diagnose me with low-testosterone
Well you are at the low limit for "normal range" but as you said you had low test symptoms because you have in fact quite low testosterone.
Low or High test is not binary, it's a scale.
>>36790714
If it was relative to other men as you said then I wouldn't have had low-test symptoms until I was out of of the normal range. It's medically relative to other men, but individuals will have low-test symptoms at different levels.
So I'm wondering whether some men have a higher set range than others. Similarly to how some men have more aerobic capacity and it takes more exercise to see the benefits as well as more exercise to tire them out, and some men have less.
>>36789748
A goddessssss
>>36790779
You don't have low test in the same way that someone with a 75 IQ isn't technically retarded.
You definitely have low test, you just aren't below the threshold. Just like a manlet is a manlet even if he isn't out of the normal height range. He's still fucking short!
>>36789283
High test girls are more manly, obviously. We here at fit can handle them because he have exceptionally high test.
It's like the alphas that sodomize the beta males in the wild. Their test is so high, it's still straight because their test is so much higher by comparison.
As you can see, it is totally straight and high test to like traps, also.
Hope this helped clear things up for you.
>>36790861
I had the symptoms, though - which suggests to me that you're wrong to say having low-test is "relative to other men" >>36790353 as you said here. Using the medical measure as evidence that it's relative doesn't tell us anything about the physiology because (as shown by my experience) the medical measure and the physiology don't match up. The medical measure is relative to other men, but that isn't a reason to think that physiologically what's high and low test (in terms of behavioural changes like we're talking about in this thread) is relative to other men.
>>36789590
>this OP
No, OP, this is not high test. This person apparently is retarded and can't tell the difference between fat and high tests.
