The evolution of facial beauty, including the lips

They always study women for these things in general, it’s dumb.

Beauty is not sexy, sexy is not beauty. Sexy is Hollywood culture and porn, but I repeat myself. Beauty is sexual dimorphism (extremes into their own sex, not a cross-breed), fertility and evolution. ‘Male beauty’ standards would wound too many egos. At least they can go to the gym for below the neck stuff, and you’ve seen the butthurt on height when it’s linked to healthier babies from superior childhood nutrition and hormone balance, as well as genetics.

Many factors here.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1571/1638

http://evolutionbioc334.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/evolution-of-lips.html

There is a hard limit on lip thickness based on the vermillion border and African lips need a masculine high-T jawline to hold the structure’s area size and weight, which neutralises the ‘gain’. They signal sexual maturity of the other lips, that is all. Jolie inherited hers from her father, and this is more common than via the mother, so it isn’t actually specific to women but men (like better nails and eyelashes, it’s unusual in women). A little plumper than her childhood ratio is an individual cue to fertility, not the supernormal exaggeration of cosmetic filler.

Women with a larger mouth require more filler to achieve the same fullness.

African lips also age terribly and sun burn worse. The wrinkles are aging and with tissue loss (aging), sagginess kicks in really quick (pillow lips, stretched natural skin container for artificial material).

Evolutionally, anyone who survived the Ice Age couldn’t lose more moisture than was absolutely necessary. As a mucous membrane, the lips require harsh upkeep and lose a lot of water as well as heat, to keep warm.

A small selection pressure.

marquardt_mask_small-lips-rosebud-mouth

This is the FEMME Marquardt beauty mask you never actually see, because they don’t use it.
The androgynous morphed male-female one is commonly used all over the place to brainwash us.
On the right is the same face by mathematics, with the angles smoothed into a skin-like surface using the neutral colour grey, as artistic midtone. THAT is the most objective female beauty standard.

Look at the area covered by that mouth. It’s a rosebud mouth, tiny BUT ALSO full.
Taut and youthful, but sexy, and not sagging.

Area covered is genetic, based on the width of the mouth opening, fullness by side profile is hormonal. Note the pronounced Cupid’s bow.

Science doesn’t give a fuck about your feelings.

Examples from Old Hollywood

merle-oberon-1933-oval-face

vivien_young-hair-up

hedy-lamarr-young

grace-kelly-doll-angle

grace-kelly-beauty

Maximum area for beauty

Scientists still complain and explain away the clitoris

It isn’t a vestige, it’s more developed than the penis. Look it up.
Not everything is about your dick. Really.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/researchers-reveal-an-evolutionary-basis-for-the-female-orgasm

So jealous.
I’ve spoken to plenty of men with heavy jealousy over not having one, it’s silly. It’s almost as bad as womb envy.

There’s no need for the male orgasm either, it certainly isn’t needed to finish or impregnate. Women aren’t rushing to say it’s purely about them, get over yourself. Feminists have a valid point on this topic, it’s essentially saying our biology is an accident although we were here first. Biologically.

“From here, Wagner and colleagues deduced that the female orgasm must have been an important part of reproduction in early humans. Before spontaneous ovulation, the human clitoris may have been placed inside the vagina”

WTF face

I am embarrassed on their behalf. For them. It’s a system, light up one, other can be too. Without direct contact. Bear in mind, most of it’s still internal – wrapped around the vagina. We haz MRIs, guys.
Naturally according to Darwin there is ALWAYS a biological reason aka the purpose of biology.
You don’t get to assume there isn’t and work from there, evolution is established. You need to prove there ISN’T. Otherwise, reject male orgasms too. Sounds kinda insulting, huh? Maybe your wife only says she doesn’t believe in them too?

The natural reason, the obvious answer?
Female mate choice. Like basically all the social species. Not male. The woman has the choice, same as now.
Also known as the theory of Sexual Selection.
Shocking, I know.
It rewards women prior to the carrying and dying in childbirth thing. That’s why the clitoris, fools.

If anything, the male orgasm is a vestige of the female, based on the way Y chromosomes shape development of the fetus from female. But hey, why science, huh?

It also tops up the hormone levels in the reproductive system just in time for the sperm to arrive.

Obvious timing is obvious.

Why can’t slutty men find non-slutty wives?

It’s the big question, isn’t it?

Manwhores complaining about not finding a ‘good’ wife after admitting/bragging they can’t keep it in their pants?

teadrinking sipping pretentious sarcastic bitch mmhmm not my problem lol

World’s biggest mystery.

You should totally start a male supremacy cult based on it. That’ll get all the babes.

You deserve a good woman, right? Hey, when you went psycho manipulator on those other women, it was funny! It wasn’t abuse! Take a joke! You’ll brag forever about how many women you ruined and wonder why only the broken ones are attracted to that.

Yes, it’s all pesky woman’s fault.

Thanks to birth control, today’s degenerates are tomorrow’s genetic suicides.

For the rest of us, there’s matched pairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating#In_humans

Outside of physical appearance, assortative mating in humans occurs over a wide array of traits. These include socio-economic status, educational level, various attitudes (religious, political, racial and ethnic), personality, psychological traits and mental disorders…

If only the ugly sluts are attracted to you… guess what.

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Have it All is a lie you purchased instead of long-term happiness. Now you’re a bachelor, the male spinster. You wanted a reputation, it’s a beacon, a loud and clear signal for one type to come and another to run away. Maybe your red pill should be a cyanide cap.

inspired by

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/are-you-new-to-the-manosphere/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/is-game-or-pick-up-a-con/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/r-types-want-r-types/

Provision requires fidelity. You fail as a man. You lose. Good day, Sir.

Lock/key is a poor analogy

It doesn’t prove anything.

Except the degeneracy of fornication.

The premise is unintentionally hilarious. What’s the prior here? Logically?

Women are supposed to limit themselves, as if reproduction is a sin (Bible says No) and men can do what they want (Bible says No). Angels fell for fornication. It’s up there with rape. In fact…

If women are supposed to keep their legs shut for their ‘owners’ (husbands), any man who beds a woman and doesn’t marry her is a rapist.

The Bible does imply this too.

It used to be on the law books as things like Breach of Promise. Aka it used to be illegal to defraud/lie to get sex historically too. Rape by fraud would be traditional to reinstate.

She is incapable of consenting except to be wed, in a church, with her previous owner’s (father’s) permission.

They’re implicitly arguing against the Sexual Revolution. A feminist event that allows them to sleep around. Because they defend their ‘right’ to sleep around… (not endogenous, not a right).

Fallacy of Poor analogy.

They’re implicitly saying that all fornication is rape and sex is otherwise stolen from women by criminal men. We’re helpless. As in, we can’t consent to the guy using the metaphor either. It’s an argument to female hypoagency. Also sexist to men, as all rapists and aggressors who only want one thing.

Men sluttier than women

Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.

There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.

cute wink

Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.

Now, a little theory…

Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …

Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.

If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.

This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.

In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.

You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]

Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Isn’t science fun?

This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.

Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?

Nobody mentions this. So I have to.

Today’s women, yesterday’s prostitutes

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/08/05/todays-women-yesterdays-prostitutes/

I take issue with an over-reach regarding this topic. It’s rhetorical and makes us all look stupid.

Every time you hear an otherwise intelligent man discuss this topic, he will make a rare lapse and blame women. It’s trendy and edgy, they think.

i.e. the problem is women’s sexuality.

You can cut the woman part out, the problem remains.
They are discussing something where it literally takes two.

Unless they’re casually suggesting all men will suddenly turn gay?

I don’t think so.

Sexuality, period, is the destructive force. 

Anyone’s. In aggregate. Look at Africa.

Take a long, hard look.

Previous civilizations knew this. So you either bought in with marriage or forgo the benefits. Women don’t visit hookers. Which sex make up the majority of porn addicts? Perverts? Deviants? Sluts? Have you seen the paraphilia data? The STDs rising among young men, who pass it around easier for the same act, based on anatomy?
If you get to blame testosterone, well, women have that too. Some have naturally high levels. Does it excuse rape, because logically, if hormones rob you of agency I find that a rather sexist argument against your fellow man. To blame your body for the will of the mind makes a man into an animal, not deserving human rights. Women cannot attack men based on our hormones nor vice versa. If you are incapable of restraining yourself, you have no right to be beyond the confines of an asylum. The same could be argued of oestrogen but that hasn’t been linked to aggression as much as crying and craving chocolate, I think we’re safe.

History of Great Empires and their social decline?
The Greeks weren’t famous for screwing little girls.
The Romans did not have their most depraved orgies in women’s bath houses.

Which sex was at the centre of all these? The sex that to this day, holds the title of the Probable Sex Criminal? More paedophiles, at least? Can we agree that’s bad? Look at the crime data, the Right Wing say. Okay, we’ve looked by age, race, what about sex? Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Are the men involved less culpable for those crimes, as they demand female paedophiles be punished? [correctly] Does this not seem like a grand distraction to you? We have millennia of evidence on this one, unlike all other demographics.

If men (with power) get the sex they want, Empires fall. Lesson of ancient history.

You know what that means? You don’t get to blame the women. Especially since you also argue from the other side of your faces that women are weaker (physically true) and rely on men for protection (somewhat, historically, yes) – which makes women the victims of male power, logically?

You cannot argue two opposite things. They contradict, its impossible. Logic, invented by better men. Biology says men are the ones with the power, as does history. So if anyone is to blame, if either sex is ‘It’, men dropped the ball in the West. If there is an issue in the Sexual Marketplace, as the sexually dominant sex, that is the man’s responsibility.

This is not even complicated, logically. Moving on to details.

Cultural Marxism would’ve been impossible without the Sexual Revolution.

Why did the Sexual Revolution come about?

The Pill yes, but also to force women into the workforce while appeasing their men.

It was entirely economic. A quick way to make money Post-War. After all, millions of men workers had just died. Positions were available. Taxes were lacking to rebuild basic infrastructure.

Tradition, which is to say, Patriarchy, was more restrictive of male sexuality than female.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/patriarchy-discourages-all-promiscuity/

Nobody mentions this fact.

Nobody dare ask why.

So no, you don’t get to argue Down with Vagina, whatever your emotions on the subject from pure to bitter, but that everything from Tinder to porn addiction is fine because you like it. We are not F60.89 leftist hedons here. Is it wrong of me to expect some maturity, a defining trait of men previously, on this issue? Can they look past self-interest and their own throbbing…. opinions?

It’s either a bad behaviour for society, or not. They’re casually arguing that promiscuity damages women, but not men? From what? Where’s the biological evidence?

Please, post it to Nature. Science. Collect Nobel in Medicine for averting disaster.

Ask the mature question.

Is the behaviour bad for the individual, full stop? Long-term? aka The Future?

All the evidence thus far says it is.

Neuroscience is catching up to bad social policy.

yourbrainonporn.com

You are harming yourselves.

Like any self-harm, first you must acknowledge a problem to fix it.

For argument’s sake, let us assume every woman in the West shut her legs tomorrow.

Okay, what happens to male sexuality then?

It’s impossible to balance a one-sided equation.

Come on, you’re smarter than this.

Expression is fine. Let’s keep it social.
The political is very personal, but the personal is not political. Unless you trust future adminstrations not to restrict your sexuality, keep it out of public politics.

There’s nothing wrong with men and women voting (see UK GE 2015, Brexit, Trump).
There’s nothing wrong with either sex owning property. If you study real history, not the past 300 years, inheritance was quite common among widows, who outlived their husbands usually. Property went to the family, blood, disregarding sex. To say women didn’t hold property is a feminist myth, and they do this deliberately, as you can’t prove a negative, and many ancient societies held them in the family too. While the men were away fighting, guess whose job it was to manage those estates? The women. To this day, women run the home. It is our domain. Now tell me who ‘owns’ it.

However, arguing against the evidence of pair bonding damage, vital for successful marriage, and expecting nuclear families to blossom out of overstimulated Pajama Boys as if by magic?

https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601

Doomed.

Random OT, sorta

Aside from strawmen, over-reactions and non-sequiturs…

Cosmetics were used by both sexes until recently, including rouge. Like today, they are medicinal. Many modern formulations are good for the skin, at least providing a UV barrier to make skin cancer less likely. Actually, men invented high heels, men wore tights/stockings first, and French poofs wore blusher and lipstick first in the West. Men also wore restrictive clothing, to suck in their guts, including corsets. Corsets (old clothes) and togas (very old clothes where breasts were exposed) are sexier than jeans and hoodies (modern clothes).
Just because a bad person does something doesn’t make it a bad idea e.g. plenty of bad people donate to charity.
The red lipstick thing had nothing to do with America, get over yourselves. It was our Queen, I covered this in detail. You followed us, America.