But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_/r/
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]

AHA.

The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)


e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/06/13/success-in-second-language-learning-linked-to-genetic-and-brain-measures/

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

Waist-Hip Ratio and female beauty

The sexual dimorphism for this metric is obviously lowest on Asians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366421

Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.

Hello sexual selection, tied intimately to natural selection.

PDF here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05d6/0e201efb208e8561641d13df30fc6ba3bc1a.pdf

also connected to “desire and capability for having childrenp7 or 299.

so K-type women may have better WHR.

Normal weight women have the most positive attributes associated.

Overweight category was universally unattractive.
It’d be nice to see a male study on this. I think Western women would want more children if fewer men were obese.

Why Asians are considered youthful but not sexy (they’d usually fall in the underweight group):

The variables of attractiveness, sexiness, and good health were located close to each other, suggesting that subjects perceived them to be closely related.

Attributes of desire and capability for having children were located close to each other in the solution space but farther from attractiveness, sexiness, and good health, implying that subjects did not perceive a great similarity between these two sets of attributes.

Finally, the attribute of youthfulness was located alone and away from both sets of other attributes. Thus, subjects apparently did not perceive youthfulness to be related to any other measured attributes of good health, sexiness, attractiveness, and desire and capability for having children.

So there’s that. Nobody’s jealous.

Figure N7 was located closer to attractiveness, sexiness, and good health as well as desire and capability for having children than any other Figure.

Normal weight for frame (and race) + most nubile WHR would make sense.
More of those genes survived.

Figure N9 was located closest to desire and capability for having children, whereas Figure N8 was located between Figure N7 and Figure N9. The figure N10 was grouped along with overweight figures, which were not perceived to be closely associated with any of the attributes under investigation. Underweight female figures, U7 and U8, were associated only with youthfulness. However, underweight figures with high WHR (U9 and U10) were perceived as neither youthful nor healthy, in spite of the fact that their depicted body weight was quite similar to figures with lower WHR.

Women with an atrocious WHR (boy hips, no waist) and under or overweight for their skeleton are objectively unattractive from an evolutionary standpoint. This would apply whether it’s a Jap, a Ruskie or an American.

Stop calling sexy science ‘racist’ because it doesn’t share your fetish.

This chart drags you harder than I ever could.

Your Asian girlfriend with the boy hips is approximately as attractive to the world as the average WHR white fat chick. That’s your level, accept it.

It’s also a fact we cannot accurately perceive attractiveness of the racial outgroup as well as our own, so an awareness of ingroup flaws changes nothing.

Most modern women straight up don’t look healthy, whether they’re American, European or, yes, Asian.

Stop trying to make boy hips = sexy happen. It’s not going to happen.

Look at the damn gradient on that underweight thing. The solution to fat women isn’t anorexia. That also suggests bad genes. In fact, at least the fat percentage on slightly overweight 0.7 WHR women suggests femininity and fertility.

“Overall, it seems that subjects inferred reproductive capability from body fat”

What does a foetus feed from?

“Thus, it seems that although WHR is related to health and attractiveness, body weight is perceived to be related to reproductive capability”

Obviously.

“As a group, underweight figures were assigned the lowest reproductive capability, followed by overweight figures and then normal weight figures.”

Suck on that, soyboys.

You actually tend to downgrade. That’s why the Democrat-voting soyboys all want an Asian girlfriend and expressly don’t want kids with it.

“Overall, it appears that both fatness and thinness are perceived as unattractive, and such figures are not perceived as having especially high reproductive potential. “

Not womanly. Remember that word? This:

Not girly, not sexy, not cute, not hot. Womanly.

You can’t discuss women in a reproductive, evolutionary context without it.

Thus, consistent with the present findings, men did not find thin or underweight figures attractive.

If you only care for other male opinions.

There is some evidence that suggests that being extremely underweight or overweight can have adverse effects on female reproductive functions.

Ya don’t say?

A critical body mass has been shown to be significantly related to the onset of menstrual cycle and its maintenance (Frisch & McCarthur, 1974), although recent evidence (DeRidder et al., 1990) suggests that it is the body fat distribution, rather than body fat mass or body weight, that is related to early pubertal development.

Distribution varies by race.

Africans are the most pronounced in women then Europeans shapely but delicate then Asians last – no shape, very yang flesh (broad but flat or full in the middle like cortisol fat) and almost nothing to distribute.

Am I imagining all of this?

Underweight females (15% below ideal body weight) have been reported to have a higher incidence of oligomenorrhea (menses 35 days or more apart) and amenorrhea and to have a higher prevalence of ovu-latory infertility than normal weight females (Green, Weiss, & Daling, 1986).

Underweight women also give birth to infants who are small and growth delayed, and such infants often have permanently impaired intellectual and physical development (Supy, Steer, McCusker, Steele, & Jacobs, 1988).

Menstrual dysfunction and ovulatory infertility also occur more often in females who are 20% above ideal body weight (Green et al., 1986). Morbid obesity in females with high WHR has been shown to increase the degree of androgenicity (increased percentage of free testosterone) and associated menstrual and ovulatory problems (Kirschner & Samojilik, 1991). Thus, the reproductive success of a woman may be low in spite of a high level of fat deposits if the regional distribution of fat is not appropriate, that is, gynoid.

=Womanly.

Finally, the finding that underweight figures were assigned high rankings for youthfulness but not for attractiveness (or other attributes related to reproductive potential) is difficult to reconcile with some evolutionarily based mate selection hypotheses.

Normal men aren’t pedos.

Youthfulness and health have been proprosed as absolute criteria for female attractiveness (Symons, 1987).

Stick with health.

Health has good or bad, you have no negative way to assess youth e.g. immature.

Features of physical appearance associated with youth supposedly provide the strongest and most reliable cues for female reproductive potential. The present finding illustrates that the relationship of youthfulness and attractiveness is quite complex.

Not really.

A woman who is judged to be attractive is also found to be youthful; however, youthfulness alone does not make a woman attractive. Apparently, youthfulness is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for determination of female physical attractiveness.

crazed pointing-

also, don’t try to chalk this up to taste:

“Furthermore, if the ideal of female attractiveness is arbitrary and ever changing, no evidence of transgenerational stability in the meaning of WHR should be found, as older men are more likely to be exposed to different ideals of attractiveness than are younger men.”

but

“Older men did not associate health with underweight figures, including those with lower WHR.”

TLDR: Pedos are wrong. Underweight, waistless wonders are not attractive.

Study 2, rubbing salt in that fact.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009042

Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of “good genes” in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (∼0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes.

These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men’s neurological processing.

Quality.

Study 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08002298

Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high

Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones. However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low.

This is why we need studies on men too.

Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.

Study 4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906004995

Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness

Attractiveness conveys reliable information about a woman’s age, health, and fertility. Body fat distribution, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is a reliable cue to a woman’s age, health, and fertility, and affects judgment of women’s attractiveness. WHR is positively correlated with overall body weight or body mass index (BMI). Some researchers have argued that BMI, rather than WHR, affects judgments of female attractiveness. To evaluate the role of WHR, independent of BMI, we secured photographs of pre- and post-operative women who have undergone micro-fat grafting surgery. In this surgery, surgeons harvest fat tissue from the waist region and implant it on the buttocks. Post-operatively, all women have a lower WHR but some gain weight whereas others lose body weight. Results indicate that participants judge post-operative photographs as more attractive than pre-operative photographs, independent of post-operative changes in body weight or BMI. These results indicate that WHR is a key feature of women’s attractiveness.

Duh.

Let’s look historically. Study 5

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/6/1436/4729453

Trends in waist-to-hip ratio and its determinants in adults in Finland from 1987 to 1997

Background: Although abdominal obesity has been shown to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of other diseases, secular changes in fat distribution in populations have rarely been documented.

Objective: Our objective was to assess trends in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in the Finnish population during a 10-y period. In addition, we investigated the associations of WHR with body mass index (BMI), age, education, and lifestyle factors.

Design: Three independent cross-sectional surveys were carried out at 5-y intervals between 1987 and 1997. Altogether, 15096 randomly selected men and women aged 25–64 y participated in these surveys.

Results: The WHR increased in both men and women during the 10-y period (P< 0.0001). In men, the strongest upward trend took place in the first 5-y period and then seemed to plateau; in women, the WHR continued to increase into the 1990s. In both sexes, the most prominent increase was observed in subjects aged ≥45 y. The WHR increased in all education-level groups, the lowest WHR being among those with the highest education. Age (18% in men, 12% in women) and BMI (33% in men, 25% in women) accounted for most of the variation in WHR, whereas only 3% was explained by education and lifestyle factors.

Conclusions: Abdominal obesity is a growing problem in Finland, especially in persons aged ≥45 y. These adverse changes in body shape continued to take place, particularly in women, in the 1990s.

Something in the food?

More history, prehistoric. Study 6

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123284

Preferred Women’s Waist-to-Hip Ratio Variation over the Last 2,500 Years

The ratio between the body circumference at the waist and the hips (or WHR) is a secondary sexual trait that is unique to humans and is well known to influence men’s mate preferences. Because a woman’s WHR also provides information about her age, health and fertility, men’s preference concerning this physical feature may possibly be a cognitive adaptation selected in the human lineage. However, it is unclear whether the preferred WHR in western countries reflects a universal ideal, as geographic variation in non-western areas has been found, and discordances about its temporal consistency remain in the literature. We analyzed the WHR of women considered as ideally beautiful who were depicted in western artworks from 500 BCE to the present. These vestiges of the past feminine ideal were then compared to more recent symbols of beauty: Playboy models and winners of several Miss pageants from 1920 to 2014. We found that the ideal WHR has changed over time in western societies: it was constant during almost a millennium in antiquity (from 500 BCE to 400 CE) and has decreased from the 15th century to the present. Then, based on Playboy models and Miss pageants winners, this decrease appears to slow down or even reverse during the second half of the 20th century. The universality of an ideal WHR is thus challenged, and historical changes in western societies could have caused these variations in men’s preferences. The potential adaptive explanations for these results are discussed.

Should’ve controlled for race.

Why not look at male WHR? Plus sperm health? Found:

https://www.drelist.com/blog/bmi-waist-circumference-semen-quality/

  • The volume of ejaculate decreases in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (suggesting an inverse relationship).
  • The sperm quality and viability declines with increasing waist circumference.
  • Investigators also discovered that quality of semen decreases (such as sperm viability, motility, semen volume) with increasing body size; however, no relationship was observed between sperm DNA fragmentation index and physical activity or obesity.

Latter requires time.

Various research and clinical studies suggests that subfertility in men is multifactorial i.e. several factors can impact the quality of reproductive health.

  • Abnormal sperm production: Study conducted by Jensen and associates (2) suggested that abnormal BMI is very strongly linked to impaired sperm production. One of the many reasons is, abnormal metabolism of testosterone (which plays a key role in the production of healthy and viable sperms).
  • Abdominal obesity and risk of metabolic disorders: According to a new study reported in the Human Reproduction (3), investigators provided statistical evidence that abnormal BMI and abdominal obesity is very strongly linked to a number of health issues (such as cardiovascular dysfunction, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and others). Needless to say that these health issues have a deleterious effect on the sexual health regardless of the body-mass index (or BMI).
  • Obesity, physical activity and testosterone: Testosterone levels tends to decline in males who have a sedentary lifestyle. Various research and clinical studies indicates that aerobic activity or exercise can improve testosterone metabolism in males significantly.

1. Eisenberg, M. L., Kim, S., Chen, Z., Sundaram, R., Schisterman, E. F., & Louis, G. M. B. (2014). The relationship between male BMI and waist circumference on semen quality: data from the LIFE study. Human Reproduction, 29(2), 193-200.

2. Jensen, T. K., Andersson, A. M., Jørgensen, N., Andersen, A. G., Carlsen, E., & Skakkebæk, N. E. (2004). Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones among 1,558 Danish men. Fertility and sterility, 82(4), 863-870.

3. Hammiche, F., Laven, J. S., Twigt, J. M., Boellaard, W. P., Steegers, E. A., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. (2012). Body mass index and central adiposity are associated with sperm quality in men of subfertile couples. Human reproduction, 27(8), 2365-2372.

Yet they don’t tell men this information.

Back to women

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789138

Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces.

Both attractiveness judgements and mate preferences vary considerably cross-culturally.

Racially.

We investigated whether men’s preference for femininity in women’s faces varies between 28 countries with diverse health conditions by analysing responses of 1972 heterosexual participants. Although men in all countries preferred feminized over masculinized female faces, we found substantial differences between countries in the magnitude of men’s preferences. Using an average femininity preference for each country, we found men’s facial femininity preferences correlated positively with the health of the nation, which explained 50.4% of the variation among countries. The weakest preferences for femininity were found in Nepal and strongest in Japan. As high femininity in women is associated with lower success in competition for resources and lower dominance, it is possible that in harsher environments, men prefer cues to resource holding potential over high fecundity.

Asia is weird for dimorphism studies.

Hence the focus on health.

While the economy is bad, it isn’t surprising men prefer manly looking women.

It’s temporary. There’ll be a flood of divorces as the economy improves. Men will suddenly see how mannish the wife has been and be repulsed. Menopause also makes women look more mannish, including higher WHR. So much for a youth argument there.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5177465/pdf/nihms827194.pdf

Factors Underlying the Temporal Increase in Maternal Mortality in the United States

They don’t say more non-white mothers or more mixed race babies, so it’s wrong. They guess.

Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Right-wingers are different

It’s that time of year for a study-dump. Read until the end.

Better-looking (on AVERAGE):
https://sputniknews.com/viral/201801311061239797-physically-attractive-people-right-wing/

“Good-looking individuals are more likely to have right-wing political views than less physically attractive people, according to a university study.
The authors of the report, Rolfe D. Peterson from the US Susquehanna University and Carl L. Palmer from the Illinois State University, examined the connection between physical attractiveness and political beliefs, applying multiple surveys measuring people’s attractiveness.
“More attractive individuals are more politically efficacious than their peers and more likely to identify as conservative and Republican than less physically attractive citizens of comparable demographic backgrounds,” the report read.”

Comparable demographic background, an important control.

Better-looking again:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/effects-of-physical-attractiveness-on-political-beliefs/D5214D0CAE37EE5947B7BF29762547EE
PDF at: https://about.illinoisstate.edu/clpalme/Documents/Peterson%20Palmer%20The%20Effects%20of%20Physical%20Attractiveness%20on%20Political%20Attitudes.pdf

“Controlling for socioeconomic status, we find that more attractive individuals are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy, identify as conservative, and identify as Republican.”

SES control is important.

Better-looking:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716302201

“Politicians on the right look more beautiful in Europe, the U.S. and Australia.”

How to tell May isn’t really right-wing.

They should also study disease load (emphasizing STDs, which do affect appearance) compared to partisanship.

Support meritocracy, oppose the cult of equalism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597814000223

“Higher self-perceived attractiveness (SPA) increased support for inequality.”

Self-perceived, relative.

Have a ‘look’:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916312028

“The political sympathies of scholars can be accurately assessed from photographs.”
“In contrast to politicians, Right-leaning scholars were not more attractive.”

The scholars haven’t hired image consultants.

What, do you think a man buys an expensive suit just for the suit?

“Right-leaning scholars were better groomed.
Controlling for grooming, Left-leaning scholars were more attractive”

This is supposed to be looking at genetic attractiveness, true attractiveness, not clothing/haircare/make-up?
Okay, I’ll let them have that one. They’re better at faking it, a trait of narcissism.

Less likely to cheat when expected to cooperate:
https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study

Neurologically different:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”
We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”

So they’re more gender neutral in the brain?
https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20050121/intelligence-may-be-gray-white-matter#1
Because the same IQ can still be produced by structural differences between the sexes.

“Researchers found major differences in the amount of gray and white matter in the brains of men and women of the same intelligence, suggesting that men and women may derive their intelligence in different ways.”

“”These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” says researcher Richard Haier, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, in a news release. “In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive impairment diseases in the brain”

Again, the same IQ score.

SAME.

Man Card isn’t a MENSA card, accomplish something.

Sexual dimorphism didn’t stop at the neck.

But white matter is generally more important for HIGH IQ:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/412678/brain-images-reveal-the-secret-to-higher-iq/
White matter could only be imaged recently.

“They found a strong correlation between the integrity of the white matter and performance on a standard IQ test.”

Although grey matter can matter too, white matter cannot be denied EITHER:
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/17/9/2163/272753

Positive relationships were found between FSIQ and intracranial gray and white matter but not cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Significant associations with cortical thickness were evident bilaterally in prefrontal (Brodmann’s areas [BAs] 10/11, 47)

IQ so real you can scan someone’s brain, almost.

and posterior temporal cortices (BA 36/37) and proximal regions.

Sex influenced regional relationships;

Before any sexist bitch goes to twist this, different does not mean inferior. This is a study of intelligence, NOT stupidity.

You can’t prove a negative and individuals are not groups?

The obvious pointed out? Okay, let’s continue.

women showed correlations in prefrontal and temporal association cortices, whereas men exhibited correlations primarily in temporal–occipital association cortices.

K.

An idiot reading that would assume women are smarter, prefrontal doesn’t always mean smarter, necessarily, it’s just a group-level skew of structural difference. However, it does explain the higher female average.

Again, average.

In healthy adults,

important distinction, many brain studies are conducted on the undeveloped (teens) or pathologies

neither of which generalize to a HEALTHY, ADULT population

[sorry for the smart people tuning in, idiots twist what I type]

greater intelligence is associated with larger intracranial gray matter and to a lesser extent with white matter.

Plot twist: both matter.

Almost like we evolved.

Variations in prefrontal and posterior temporal cortical thickness are particularly linked with intellectual ability.

PF – registered as female strength, generally.
PT – registered as male and female strengths, generally.

This isn’t better/worse, it’s apples/oranges.

Even race overwhelms sex as a confound in IQ (so does class, education etc).

Sex moderates regional relationships that may index dimorphisms in cognitive abilities, overall processing strategies, or differences in structural organization.”

Trans. sex differences real yo.

Overall, key word.

Moderates, may index, differences. As in, these processes still occur but like a road trip, each take different paths different enough to map but not distinct enough to be unrecognizable.

Reminder

Estrogen, which men also NATURALLY produce, also boosts brainpower.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/estrogen-boosts-brainpower-actually/
Study here but my commentary explains it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104582/
Whereas, everyone knows, testosterone (which women also produce) correlates to violence.
Nothing is all-good, all-bad in hormones.
“A moment of silence for all the women in history who married dumber men.”

They should study political economic wing and compare it to natural/un-supplemented hormone levels.
As in, a man who ‘needs’ steroids for vanity is less of a man.

They should also look at whether men going onto steroids drop in IQ score because it competes with their organic estrogen that makes them handle stressors better.

[Update: after checking, they did. Here it is.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608708/

“long-term high-dose AAS exposure may cause cognitive deficits, notably in visuospatial memory.”

“These results remained stable in sensitivity analyses addressing potential confounding factors.”
The dumb jock stereotype is true!

WAIT.

It gets better!

Actually, it causes brain damage!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25986964
This is amazing!


Fake masculinity is really bad for men. You can’t cheat code becoming a man.

CONCLUSIONS:

Long-term AAS use is associated with right amygdala enlargement and reduced right amygdala rsFC with brain areas involved in cognitive control and spatial memory, which could contribute to the psychiatric effects and cognitive dysfunction associated with AAS use.

The MRS abnormalities we detected could reflect enhanced glutamate turnover and increased vulnerability to neurotoxic or neurodegenerative processes, which could contribute to AAS-associated cognitive dysfunction.

Now the right amygdala enlargement sounds like the natural conservative difference but understand it’s rooted, not in experience and genuine masculine virtue, but chemical dependence. Without the drugs, it’ll shrink right back and possibly atrophy.

This would be like congratulating a tall guy who took HGH for his superior genetics. No. It’s a superficial, fake result.

The cognitive control is impaired, that’s regression. The meat head stereotype is true, biologically. Useless.

I wonder how many male suicides were on steroids? Both groups happen to be middle-aged men in fear of the Wall.

Whatever the details, it makes them biologically vulnerable compared to their natural state, the opposite of fitness.

Ironically, they’re more vulnerable to microplastics and xenoestrogens. 

To further screw the point in… that brain region explicitly mentioned?

Right amygdala rsFC study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997418/
“In high HA scorers, we also observed stronger right amygdala rsFC with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), which is implicated in negative affect regulation.”
It’s a girly brain thing to do with harm avoidance. [aka common sense]
“may represent a vulnerability marker for sensitivity to stress and anxiety (disorders).”
So the meat head with reduced volume (therefore not conservative*) is dumber, senses dulled by drugs and more likely to fail to get the brain signals to avoid trouble. Sounds like a future in handcuffs. They can’t perceive danger nor regulate negative emotions like anger or shame after rejection. Basically, they’re future chimp-outs waiting to happen, whatever their race**. Less able to CONTROL emotions, the broflakes.***

Hair-trigger temper calling out people for looking at him.

The guy who picks on people but never actually expects to get hit.

Will grab a woman and be shocked she slaps him. That’s the one.

*because, again “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”

[as referenced above]

yet they have less?

So steroids make men more left wing. It isn’t the correct area and type to be considered otherwise.

ISN’T SCIENCE FUN, FELLOW RED PILLS.

ACCEPTING FINDINGS EVEN WHEN WE DON’T LIKE THEM, BRO.

My guess is it messes with their sexual reward system and produces impotence, porn addiction, dissatisfaction.

https://www.simplymedsonline.co.uk/blog/how-does-anabolic-steroid-use-affect-erectile-function/

Steroids do cause impotence (PC term is ED). Does it lower sperm count?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744441/

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER.

“Anabolic steroids abuse and male infertility”

I am good at this.

“Infertility is defined by the WHO as the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse and a male factor is present in up to 50 % of all infertile couples. Several conditions may be related to male infertility.

Substance abuse, including AAS, is commonly associated to transient or persistent impairment on male reproductive function, through different pathways. Herein, a brief overview on AAS is offered. Steroids biochemistry, patterns of use, physiological and clinical issues are enlightened. A further review about fertility outcomes among male AAS abusers is also presented, including the classic reports on transient anabolic steroid-induced hypogonadism (ASIH), and the more recent experimental reports on structural and genetic sperm damage.”

hypogonadism = tiny balls

“In layman’s terms, it is sometimes called interrupted stage 1 puberty”

You’d have to be a moron already to think supplementing that shit makes you manly.

Nice muscles bro, shame you hit rewind on puberty!

They impair their body’s ability to naturally produce testosterone in future…. idiots.

Darwin Award category?

Big Pharma’s best customer? Like Israel’s Viagra use. Israel and America, top consumers.

https://www.haaretz.com/life/MAGAZINE-israeli-porn-is-booming-and-the-industry-insists-it-s-about-more-than-just-sex-1.5472336

(((Coincidence)))

**Logically we should restrict steroid use to lower the crime rate. We can’t have gorilla people chimping out and blaming da drugs.

***There are few things less masculine than a man who throws tantrums because Hulk RAGE entitlement. The mantrum has neurological correlates, as we can see.

As for the ACC lefty brain finding:

https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog//know-your-brain-cingulate-cortex

..I didn’t forget.

“Through these connections, the ACC is thought to be involved with a number of functions related to emotion including the regulation of overall affect, assigning emotions to internal and external stimuli, and making vocalizations associated with the expression of states or desires.

No comment.

The ACC also seems to contribute to the regulation of autonomic and endocrine responses, pain perception, and the selection and initiation of motor movements. Additionally, there are other areas of the ACC that are involved in various aspects of cognition ranging from decision-making to the management of social behavior.”

And about sexual potency….

I order these for a reason.

Right-wingers more sexually satisfied:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8943/study-conservatives-have-better-sex-lives-liberals-amanda-prestigiacomo

“A new YouGov survey, which asked over 19,000 participants from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark about both their politics and their sex lives, has found conservatives to be happier in the bedroom than liberals, with those identifying as “very right-wing” found to be the happiest.”

So much for the benefits of slutting. Muh experience. Yes, experiencing a burning sensation.

If you want a better sex life, don’t be a manwhore.
Chastity is a virtue. Less stress when single, hot sex when married.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/right-wing-people-more-likely-to-be-happier-with-their-sex-lives/

Sluts reee.

I deserve an Ig Nobel for all this connection-making. It could save the West.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

While I’m putting out fires imagined by shrill men.

Click through.

BAFFLED, JENKINS!

Women slut shame women – or attractiveness?

Women do shame slutty women… but this study is highly flawed in the method.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/women-more-likely-to-punish-sexualized-women

Studying clothing as a proxy for behavior is based on a false belief.
“As predicted, both men and women gave less money to the models who were dressed provocatively.”

That’s not the same thing as behaviour, is it? Dressing feminine isn’t provocative.
Sexual jealousy needs to be measured in other ways, many of the biggest sluts dress like men, deliberately so women can’t detect them and men don’t suspect.

If they signalled visibly, they’d be less likely to get away with the deception of mate poaching, logically.
And higher testosterone (highly sexed) women prefer to dress like men
e.g. Amber Heard.

“The researchers noted that this is “consistent with our view that sexually-accessible women are perceived as more likely to cheat on mates or poach the mates of others.”
No? Your evidence doesn’t show that. Too many assumptions.
Erm, what about a study with men in suits? There are plenty of reasons to dress well. It isn’t usually about other people e.g. the cocktail dress. It could be to attract one person, including a spouse.

It’s easy to dismiss their non sequitur by glimpsing at history.

People used to dress better all the time, they were NOT more promiscuous.

The hippies dressed like shit.

Confounds:

Attractive people tend to be richer, another cause of jealousy.
More gender conforming people (feminine women, masculine men) tend to attract envy from the androgynous. Don’t cut down tall poppies for the bitter, encourage it.

“The results showed that women were considerably more likely to reject offers they deemed unfair, meaning they were willing to lose out on money just to punish their sexually accessible opponent.”
Plenty of women are jealous of a good figure.
If you’ve got it, flaunt it.

Sorry for not being fat?

But where’s the data on punishing male promiscuity?
Married men don’t like being around such sluts with their wife.

Oh, that doesn’t make women the victims in PC narrative, so they don’t care.

On that page they also link a study showing short men are indirectly aggressive to taller, more attractive ones.

Male on male shaming is a thing.

Study it.

Attractive people are less promiscuous, stop basing your methods on false assumptions. Why eat from the whole buffet when you can just have the caviar?

Quality doesn’t want quantity, stop projecting your lust for them.

They also didn’t study the looks of the person rating the models.

They didn’t use male models. It’s weird this is allowed.

“This complements previous evidence that men and women are motivated to objectify sexualized women via different mechanisms”

Men would like to think naturally sexier women are available.

They’re not and especially not widely available . And even average clothes will still make them look sexy.

Any woman who’s worn a boring office uniform with a pencil skirt knows that.

If they studied attractive clothing against sexual availability, it wouldn’t point the way they think.

Video: Disney’s hypnotic neotony

It isn’t suspicious that it sexualizes children at all, perish the thought. Children can’t have a romantic life. Child marriage is a polite term for state endorsed rape.

The classic Princesses are more popular by appearance because they actually look like women, they’re just beautiful, not cute. One is sexually attractive and the other socially because it’s vulnerable, but in an adult brain this can be manipulative. Comparing competence between related people, one looking cute and another looking mature, would be an intriguing test of this. So would a cute wife serve as wife in their job role performing duties or become needy and flakey like a child if pressed unlike a more womanly woman? It could be medical too, blood pressure and chronic disease risk assessment.

The classic Princesses have more even emotions than the new bratty rebel type ones. People miss the old Disney for the grace these ladies used to have. Disney ladies are effectively dead and buried.

Based on the fox experiment, the pathological altruism of N. Europeans might also connect to visual markers of historical civility e.g. paler skin and this could be studied: skin tone x altruism in a lab game. Noblesse oblige could be genetic.

Fear of the outgroup (and this could apply to humans) does depend on how responsible the environment is for teaching life lessons, harsh ones. Let your kids hang round nice people with lots of tattoos and a gangster trying to lure them into a van has better odds. A parent’s choice in friends, where they have bad taste, can literally ruin them for life. Kids don’t make the distinction, they only see family. They trust but not blindly, based on the things you superficially see in people you trust but don’t make the connection.

It’s like letting them handle hot wax and wondering why they get tons of burns from touching other hot things. They need the mild pain and being told No on small stuff, to avoid life-ruining dangers. Going easy on them is depriving them of the lessons to survive without you. Permissive parenting is responsible for many damaged children, it’s a known finding.

Correction: he says human infants have flat faces, this is particular to certain races, especially African and is largely based on nasal bone differences, rather than the whole face and skull. The profile between babies is totally different but there’s a learning curve in spotting it. Breadth of face is very mature and masculine and Asians, for example, have among the broadest human facial type, so judging by one bone (nasal bridge) or “the jaw” like it’s one thing is another error. How a human face “looks” or “seems” from the front is really atrocious science. There’s more jaw development (major human maturity marker, the species is gracile-jawed) it just projects to the side and consequently, always smaller eyes (they’re paired processes, because it’s a maturation process on the whole area so the eyeball is crowded out by growing bone). A rounded forehead is infantile BUT again, varies by race because it’s skull shape and even subrace.

Short limbs can also be a sign of defective genes or stunted growth (poor diet, stress, heavy labour) so it cannot be relied upon as a trait.

On another point, another difference: African people, for example, “depend” less on their parents, they tend to hit puberty earlier. They also tend to have hardier bodies, shown best in the frame.

The guys who complain about make-up

are also the ones who’d complain if a woman smells like anything other than floral body lotion.

Like, they’ll criticize women for being fat but also being “high maintenance” i.e. not fat.

Nah-uh!

By ancient standards, you’re more decadent than a French king.

Think how poofy you’d be.

 

You sleep on fluffy pillows, on stitched mattresses, with plush blankets, having used liquid soap, shampoo, conditioner, toothpaste, deodorant, a comb, an electric razor, central heating/air conditioning, with a glass of cold milk waiting in your refrigerator if you wake up thirsty. You think this is nothing and feel entitled to this and more.

 

Who’s the vain one? When are these guys dispensing with all their vanities?

First up, the smartphone! Ultimate vanity symbol! Don’t need that!

Right….?

Right guys?

No, you won’t give up modern comforts so STFU lecturing everyone else.

Do it yourself first and then you might have something to signal with.

 

Being attractive isn’t a sin! These embittered boys are like SJWs and want everyone else to stop making an effort because they’re too lazy! (Covert narcissism, their ego is triggered because they stand out for not making the effort).
R-types want an equalist playing field, remember? Equal outcomes. They actually believe it’s better we’re all equal in stench and skin ailments (skin cancer exists) than feel insecure some dude next to them on the train is wearing nice jeans and a cool cologne.
Men against make-up, for a third-world society looking and smelling like shit.
It already does, in my opinion, let’s not make it worse. The average person makes less effort with their appearance than at any time period before in all human history.
Fashion history exists, whether you read it or not.
Porn taught you “make-up” (please define make-up, guys who can’t spot eyeliner) is a sexual invite and you’re pissed the fiction is fake. That isn’t the world’s fault. That’s your fault for being dumb. (They also think natural beauty is a sexual invitation because addicts are gullible idiots).
What other people look like and how they groom their body has nothing to do with you. Stop being so shallow and obsessing over it.
Grooming is a basic primate instinct. If you don’t have it, you’re clinically depressed.
They look at a naturally pretty girl and think she’s a bitch for wearing lipstick – who’s sinning here?
Jesus himself went off on one at the person who dared call his oil bath vain. There is a spiritual bond between how we treat ourselves (with respect) and how we act in the world (decently).
How dare any of you Americans (and it’s always Americans) shame people about simple standards of appearance?
I’ve been to your country enough times to know you have Fuck-All to be proud of in the appearance stakes.
Romans 12:1, NKJV. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service
1 Corinthians 10:31, NKJV. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV. “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
And there’s nothing sinful about having a woman’s body either, God made that too. To insult a woman’s natural form is to blaspheme God’s design.
Genesis 1:27, NKJV. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Beautification is not a sin, and never has been (there are plenty of Biblical references about good, moral wives looking good too and being the pride of their husbands) it’s about a First World living standard and a longer lifespan, pride is the sin. Like presuming to judge other’s non-silicon appearance and the body/Temple God gave them…
If you look at the history of cosmetics, it’s always been primarily about health because, guess what? Healthy people are more attractive! Cosmeceuticals are not a new thing! Only in the past couple of centuries have they been separated off. Why? Legal reasons. Lower standards for non-medical products to hit the market or that they couldn’t prove the really subjective claims e.g. radiant smile. What’s that? How do you medically prove that?
These would be the “men” who attack other men for wanting to make the best of their appearance.
Leave them alone and join a pro-ugly group, you losers.
Sorry attractive people enjoying their life make you sad, but this isn’t a company’s fault, it’s evolution. [Explain sexual selection without attractiveness, I fucking dare you.]
Since it’s none of your business unless it’s your wife, join a monastery if attractive things frighten you. Do you balk at flowers and smiling babies too?
If everyone went back to smelling like ass and swamp crotch, you’d still be bottom of the barrel and whine about it. Fitness still exists.
Sports are as decadent as Hollywood but the guys claiming models shouldn’t be paid for what nature gave them never ever apply that logic to the genetic freaks known as athletes.
They’d only be happy in the world of Harrison Bergeron because pretty people couldn’t oppress them by comparison. Dya wanna ban Photoshop too? You do, don’t you?
It’s basic etiquette to look good and act good too.
This isn’t an either/or, don’t try to spin a false dichotomy out of this.
Looking like a slob is a sin as much as being it. It’s literally a sin to apply sloth to your personal care habits.
When are you banning mouthwash for making men seem more attractive than their natural oral bacteria (including the likes of Herpes) might suggest?
Jesus never used mouthwash. QED according to you.