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.

Male attractiveness genetic, not gym

I was shocked.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/171790

Abstract only, you can read the rest.

Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.

So far, so obvious.

Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Good method.

You win a cookie.

We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.

Two cookies.

Health advantage (fitness) over mean.

We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.

All the cookies.

You didn’t fake anything.

In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,

Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?

and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.

See, this is how you science.

THIS IS HOW YOU SCIENCE.

Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,

straight women, regular straight women

if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary

and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.

Thank you!

Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.

A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.

It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.

I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.

Female longer legs more attractive

Click to access BertaminiBennett2009.pdf

Again, duh?
It’s like the male height preference but in women, it’s an indicator of genetic health.
It’s also class based. Upper class women have longer legs, if you studied it.

It’s culturally well-known here, and you can often spot a woman’s breeding by her legs.

Mini-skirts weren’t showing off the legs or skin, it was all about the bloodline.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/legs-are-marker-of-femininity/

Better parentage (father’s side usually), better legs. Lower class women miss this entirely. They show more skin – of stubby male-looking legs. It doesn’t work. There’s also a good way to spot men dressed as women since cellulite is a secondary sexual characteristic of women only. Smooth muscular legs are the preference of homosexual men.

I’d be interested to see a study of short female legs and female ugliness and also short female legs and fertility issues e.g. IVF use. Logically, there should be a connection.

Male beauty predicts sperm quality

Duuuuuh?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000138

It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.

Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

Fitness and reproductive success, bound.

Darwin wins again.

And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).

Immune response reduces female attractiveness

More evidence for the attractiveness = health brigade.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/4/20130255

“Instead, plasma cortisol level was negatively associated with attractiveness, indicating that stressed women look less attractive. Fat percentage was curvilinearly associated with facial attractiveness, indicating that being too thin or too fat reduces attractiveness. Our study suggests that in contrast to men, facial attractiveness in women does not indicate immune responsiveness against hepatitis B, but is associated with two other aspects of long-term health and fertility: circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and percentage body fat.”

That’s great except-
cortisol is part of the immune response process.
Directly.
So…. yeah.
https://www.verywellmind.com/cortisol-and-stress-how-to-stay-healthy-3145080

Biologists know this.

I’m at the stage where I can spot Royal Society errors in under five seconds.

Sort your variables out. Acute cortisol release is anti-inflammatory.

Fat also lets your body free up energy quickly to fight illness. You need “some” depending on your body (race, sex, energy needs, diet).

Some (correct) biologists want it relabeled as an organ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/923153.stm

“Researchers have found that fat plays an important role in protecting bones and organs, regulating hormones and the immune system and managing women’s reproductive systems.”

Women just need more fat (as a %) for pregnancy (it’s most of a year, come on).

Try studying men, I doubt it doesn’t manage theirs too.

Like the free metabolic energy is scared of testicles or something.

Study the signals, quit with the noise.

To prove my grief, read this sack of shit Intro.

Can you tell me what’s wrong with it?

“The growing field of evolutionary psychology reports a large body of evidence to suggest that standards of beauty are not arbitrary cultural conventions, pointing to, for example, cross cultural agreement in preferences for cues to health and fertility [1]. Furthermore, a number of studies suggest that facial preferences emerge early in childhood, before any cultural standards of beauty are likely to be assimilated, suggesting we have a strong inborn universal standard of facial beauty [2]. Evolutionary psychologists interpret preferences as strategies evolved owing to the selective benefits accrued to those who chose their mates based on these criteria (reviewed in Rhodes [3]). To argue that such preferences are adaptive, however, it is necessary to show that preferred traits serve as cues to fecundity, health or other traits that enhance fitness, and contribute to higher reproductive success.

Nature or nurture, fucking PICK ONE.

Studies linking facial attractiveness and health records in men, however, have found only weak or no association between facial attractiveness and health (reviewed in Rhodes [3]).

method?

Recently, Rantala et al. [4] found that men’s ability to produce antibodies in response to the hepatitis B vaccine correlated positively with facial attractiveness, suggesting that men’s facial attractiveness indicates immunity in humans.

Vaccines. Evolution. Don’t use those two ideas in the same sentence.

I can and shall laugh at you derisively.

Thus, by choosing men with attractive faces as partners, women may get direct benefits by avoiding contagion and indirect benefit by increasing health and immunity of their offspring.

???

Because, in humans, both sexes are choosy,

rlly

one could predict that female facial attractiveness may also be associated with immune defence and sex hormone levels.

Y

However, to our knowledge, studies testing association between female facial attractiveness, immune defence and stress hormone levels are lacking. Studies linking facial attractiveness with indices of health have led to mixed results:

Where’s “health” on a blood test?

while certain studies

cherrypicker

have found some evidence

no
measurement error

that facially attractive women are healthier [5–7], other studies have found no association [8–10].

method?

Rantala et al. [11] found that the link between facial attractiveness and immune response in men was mediated by their facial adiposity, not their masculinity (facial masculinity was however associated with immune response, independently of facial adiposity). Thus, we could expect that adiposity in women is associated with the strength of immunity and attractiveness. The aim of this study was to test whether facial attractiveness in women is associated with the strength of their immune response, circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and adiposity.”

Proof you don’t publish Asians and assume they’re all smart.

This is in the Royal Society.

Guess the race of the diversity hire running this English historical society now?

Estrogen is inflammatory. Testosterone is anti.
(So guys bitching about women with endometriosis are idiots, they have more).

HOWEVER

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991007083730.htm

“Braude’s new idea is that testosterone signals infection-fighting white blood cells to go out of the blood stream and into the skin. He says it’s also possible that testosterone merely triggers the stress response, and other steroids from the adrenal gland then execute the redistribution.”

a woman with elevated testosterone won’t be more attractive

women are not men!

Study: Women like men (not testosterone)

TLDR: Looks count, bitch!

Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.

Shall we?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180507074239.htm

“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”

Told. You. So.

A better question, how did I know this?

Years ahead of time.

(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).

They aren’t controlling for male beauty!

In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.

It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!

It’s BONE STRUCTURE.

HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!

The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!

(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).

“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.

You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.

Who might women find more attractive?

The richer ones? The weirder ones?

or

THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.

[Fuck’s sake, people.]

“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””

With a solid method, lookism is real.

Accept it.

We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?

LOGICALLY.

They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.

Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.

Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.