Male beauty correlates to right-wing position

Strong men aren’t much into helping the weaker competition, since your genetic looks are an advertisement.

(You could argue lifting weights is ‘lying’ about your natural somatoform and strength level, much like applying excess makeup to alter bone structure, fake masculinity and fake femininity, much like muscle implants or breast implants give off false cues about fertility and chemical dimorphism.)

PDF:

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30390-7/fulltext

You might disagree with my use of the term ‘male beauty’ but if we’re studying female constantly it follows there must also be a standard for men even if you prefer to call it handsomeness… it’s still beauty.

I love how the method is biased but the result came shining through.

“Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.”

Now a study about the women, to make it scientific.

Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.

I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.

There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.


Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.

European example, frontal/anterior view.

Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.

Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”

Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).

Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.

Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.

What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.

notyourtypebeautifulthoughtshide

Symmetrical faces belong to the healthiest owners

Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11182573

calling a direct link to mutation load, also explains why better-looking people age slower and the high IQ, high attractiveness correlation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26858521
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17238049

“There is a shared concept of what constitutes an “ideal” face. Anthropometric methods are preferable to cephalometric methods in determining the “ideal” face’s dimensions, since anthropometric methods are valid, three-dimensional, non-invasive, suitable for a great variety of purposes, and easy to implement
“distinguishing features make it extraordinarily beautiful. Such features make a female face appear both child like and mature as well as expressive.”

maybe it’s called the male gaze because it’s more objective? lucky for men

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25999883

“the results indicated that both beauty and cuteness were detectable in peripheral vision, but not in the same manner.”

https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2016/06/race-and-age-influence-judgment-of-facial-attractiveness-brock-research/

““This is the first study where we provide direct and strong evidence suggesting that our face recognition models are less refined for these unfamiliar face categories,” she says.”

my theory for yellow fever guys getting short-changed in SMV is correct
but they see us clearly

“Caucasian participants agreed more on the Caucasian faces they found attractive than on the Asian faces they rated as being attractive. Interestingly, Asian participants agreed equally on the attractiveness of both the Asian and Caucasian photos they rated.”

they’re getting screwed but not in the way they think

Trying to go back to the scholarly-type posts, for a little while.

a small breather from all the nonsense clogging the net tubes

book links, academic papers to trigger idiots, that sort of thing

like, at this point-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12834020

“The last decade has witnessed an upsurge of interest in the research on facial attractiveness. The development of computer graphics has allowed to objectively investigate the conserved features of attractive faces. Averageness, symmetry and sex-specific traits have been associated with attractiveness.”

you’d have to be an idiot

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21650092
“I know you are beautiful even without looking at you: discrimination of facial beauty in peripheral vision.”

giggle-lol-haha

 

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Langlois.pdf

Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life. In contrast, both fitness-related evolutionary theory and socialization theory suggest that attractiveness influences development and interaction. In 11 meta-analyses, the authors evaluate these contradictory claims, demonstrating that (a) raters agree about who is and is not attractive, both within and across cultures; (b) attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; (c) attractive children and adults are treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; and (d) attractive children and adults exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults. Results are used to evaluate social and fitness-related evolutionary theories and the veracity of maxims about beauty.

D is the kicker. Natural outer genetic beauty appears to match prosocial, heavily culturally-informed behaviours aka inner beauty.

Beautiful people also have higher IQs, suggesting greater overall fitness.

See my link about The Mating Mind. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin accounts for intelligence as part of the package of attractiveness.

Link: The Male Wall

http://simpleguyskills.com/male-physical-attractivenessaging/

Mark Paul Gosselar is someone who was in his prime much earlier in life. The first pic of Gosselar is him at age 19 and the second one is him at age 28. As you can see, he’s well past his prime at age 28.

Chances are, though, unless you inherited genes like Tom Cruise’s, Tom Brady’s, or Brad Pitt’s, if you’re past 35, you’re most likely past your prime in looks.

32 was the age I figured for the best genetic specimens.

Wow, I’m impressed to see helpful information on this topic than yet another silly wine quote.

Wines spoil too. Well, rot, actually. Men have a need to settle down in their physical peak too, unless they mistakenly believe they’re Peter Pan. The male sexual peak is 18 according to sexology. Such males like to say the male peak is middle age. Convenient, considering that’s all they have left to snag a wife.

Let’s take a prime example.

Brad Pitt.

Age, spot the physical peak.

Simply search <name> <year> to try it with others.

in 1991

in 1997

in 1999

in 2001

in 2003

in 2005

 

in 2013

in 2015

Don’t trust your lying eyes. It’s like fat acceptance, they think if they repeat it often enough, it’ll make them hot.

Female attractiveness and male resources, an exchange

As explained by Monroe.

Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty?

You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty….

But my goodness, doesn’t it help?

And if you had a daughter, wouldn’t you rather she didn’t marry a poor man?

You’d want her to have the most wonderful things in the world and be very happy.

Why is it wrong for me to want those things?

Telling a woman not to crave the security to raise her children is like telling men to have children with ugly women out of pity because don’t they deserve a chance? It’s unnatural and wrong, morally.

If you don’t like it, get a sex change.

These are evolved response sets.

Men want babies. They crave sex and companionship.

Women want babies. They crave love and commitment, and isn’t the last easier with a man who can afford to commit time, too?