Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Let’s actually read this thing:


Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.

sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first

men also like averages better than mutants

This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)

no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised

show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.

Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.

Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues

biology looks at WHR already

and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.

Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.

Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.

Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.

That’s the most feminine female face possible.

Who cares what Brazil thinks?

The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.

SS is conducted by women in this species.

It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.

Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.

In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.

true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do

men are selected by women though

This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;

rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win

males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;

women don’t court, they are courted

these guys are hacks

males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.

no, that’s r/K already

The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity

no, untrue in humans

because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;

no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things

males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.

yes men age faster

might be genetic, as recently covered

Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)

selected by the females

Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females

women are the ones doing it

these people are idiots

Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females

false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties

miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages

and senesce more rapidly

logically impossible given your prior claim

men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler

they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?

Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.

No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.

In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.

Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.

Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.

This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.

Again why care?

The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”

You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.

It’s pure cope.

Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.

Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.

Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.

Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.

Many anthropologists believe

not science

that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.

….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?

Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.

Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….

This is not science.

In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.


So they’re debunking their own paper.

If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.

If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,


the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).

Mixed race ad propaganda explained.

Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.

Everyone knows.

Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).

These people are morons.

How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.

r v K

As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.

Pro-fat argument.

By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.

association is weak, not causation

distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot

In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.

They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.

More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.


Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.

That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.

The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important

characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
female attractiveness:


the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations

no, relatively means you’re wrong

and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.

Paternal age studies debunked this.

Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.


Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.

This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.

Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.

Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….

It’s called marriage.

Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;


many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.

r-types, not real men

The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was

intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.

Because only pedophiles like children sexually.

Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.

Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.


There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.

Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.

Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.

“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
intuitively obvious

not science

also not causation

when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong

that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
a few.


Why is this being applied to white people?

Who is this intellectually dishonest?

A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.

unproven, not science

Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
life span.

Biology explained this.

As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
mate value.

Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.

Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.

“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE

you are making that up

Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!

Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,


non-adaptive adaptations are impossible

clue’s in the name

what mental midgets wrote this shit?

given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.

no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu

there are young ugly people and older hot ones

Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.


That wall of text for MAY?


This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.

No, we call those sexual predators.

This is now the Pedo Paper.

Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.

aka we guessed

not science

and there is no anomaly

The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.

I doubt it.

These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!

There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!

A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.

aka manjaw

while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.

This is not a paper. It’s a joke.

These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips

I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.


Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150).[21] Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.[22]

MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!

so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia [22]

talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this

anthropology is nothing

He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.

Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait

Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes

Neotony – large forehead (3rd)

Peramorphic – short forehead

Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)

Peramorphic – square or manjaw

The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.

Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.

Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.

One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.

It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!

Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.

“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “

Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
economic exploitation.

because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!

Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!

What sort of weeb would cite this?

. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2

This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.

Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!

A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal

Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.

From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.

If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
human population.

those are pedophiles

Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.

Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.


So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.

That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.

A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway

Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.

Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light

Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.

Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.

What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.

If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.

Genetic load explains that.

Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.

” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”

Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.

K v r

Beauty v “Sexy”, Fertility v Sterility, Real v Fake, Sex v Whoredom/Porn.

We live in the world that men chose, they chose this degeneration. That’s the saddest thing.

Do you really think women would get implants if rich men didn’t marry them?

Do you think women would be able to sleep around, if men refused to fornicate, leading as the moral authority of society for their and their family’s honour?

Do you think women would be thots if all men quit Tinder and stopped weirdly liking photos of total strangers on Instagram?

Men had a duty to hold one another to standards. They failed.

Women respond to conditions men set for themselves, by replication.

Starve the Beast of your attention, it’s making you so tired. Men are visually exhausted by these false signal sexual displays. Hollywood is literally gaining energy from eyeballs and social media is an extension. Guard your heart but also your thoughts. Celebrities look good in part because the attention gives them a glow, it’s a known occult phenomena.

Aging fathers, ugly kids

That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.

Paternal age negatively predicts offspring physical attractiveness in two, large, nationally representative datasets

Freeze your sperm at 18 for optimum freshness.

Effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness is investigated in two datasets.

Various covariates are utilized.

Significant negative effects are found in both datasets.

Effects are independent of birth order.

Findings consistent with paternal age as a source of new mutations in offspring.


The effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness has recently been investigated. Negative effects are predicted as paternal age is a strong proxy for the numbers of common de novo mutations found in the genomes of offspring. As an indicator of underlying genetic quality or fitness, offspring attractiveness should decrease as paternal age increases, evidencing the fitness-reducing effects of these mutations.

That’s a hard rectal red pill.

I’m sure the manosphere will try its hardest to ignore like the dead and defective babies.

The problem is, you think you have time.

Thus far results are mixed, with one study finding the predicted effect, and a second smaller study finding the opposite. Here the effect is investigated using two large and representative datasets (Add Health and NCDS),

holy Jesus a sound method

I almost fell off my high horse

both of which contain data on physical attractiveness and paternal age.

Validity! Validity! My queendom for some statistical validity!

The effect is present in both datasets, even after controlling for maternal age at subject’s birth, age of offspring, sex, race, parental and offspring (in the case of Add Health) socio-economic characteristics, parental age at first marriage (in the case of Add Health) and birth order.

The confound control is practically orgasmic, I can’t wait to see how they mansplain this one away.

That is perfect method. But it triggers butthurts and their precious feefees are hurt by the mere implication that degenerate older dads are bad for their kid’s health. Because all those upper crust respectable 1950s dads were like “60 is the new 20 lol!” Who gives a shit if your kids need you past high school? You got more priceless clubbing times you don’t remember, that’s what really matters. Not seeing your grandkids.

Class, race, sex, age at marriage, birth order, maternal age, offspring age – there’s literally nothing else to control for. Nothing. It’s flawless.


Logically, since women are born with most of their eggs, there wouldn’t be a maternal effect. It isn’t constantly replenishing like the male gamete. Cell division’s a bitch. Male lifestyle for all his years prior

affects the child at conception (and even which sperm is conceived) far more than the details of pregnancy (minus pollutants it’s pretty much the same as in ancient times, the womb is not a new environment).

Maybe add child health although those studies already exist to cross-reference with attractiveness?

As in, are the girls more womanly as adults in WHR and the boys have more manly frames (broad shoulders, narrow waist, which should be a metric of its own)? Or less gender typical? Even androgynous, or fully gender-atypical?

Do younger or older fathers produce better-looking kids in the gendered sense?

[We can tell by looking at old photos but let’s pretend.]

Give me a time machine, please. The ugly wigger types hurt my eyes.

[I have also noted mannish looking sisters tend to be the older, “ugly” sister of two -coughs Beatrice- and the girly looking brothers tend to be the younger, usually gay one. Cannot unsee.]


“In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance). Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms. The male beard is not obviously related to phenotypic quality and may have evolved through a process of runaway intersexual selection.”

The beard can also be a sign of poor grade genes e.g. savages, wolf man. Overall bone structure uber alles.

Maybe factor in sexual activity of the father prior to conception? Especially partner count and STDs. STDs are known to harm attractiveness in the host [coughs David Beckham, most of Hollywood] so why not the offspring’s?

Back to the top study:

The apparent robustness of the effect to different operationalizations of attractiveness suggests high generalizability, however the results must be interpreted with caution, as controls for parental levels of attractiveness were indirect only in the present study.

aka please don’t sue us but you know it’s true

But you can wait forever because the Jews said so!

Say, who owns all the biotech and IVF companies?

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

“According to statistics, around 20% of couples wishing to conceive are faced with certain obstacles that inhibit a successful pregnancy.

Fertility Treatment is one of the most prioritized fields of medicine in Israel.”

Sure, you can wait for decades! Also, cut the kid when they’re born!

We need more future little Viagra users.

Does Circumcision Decrease the Fertility of Sperm in the Male?

“However, birth rates are much higher in countries where the men are predominantly uncircumcised.”

There is no question that an uncircumcised man has a cooler penis than a circumcised man in the flaccid state. For some reason, removal of the foreskin is the reason for this. There seems to be some sort of temperature sensor in the foreskin that may control penile temperature. Removing the foreskin gets rid of this sensor.

It only takes a few temperature degrees of difference to damage sperm. As the penis is in close proximity to the testicles, it’s quite likely that a cooler penis would help keep the testicles cooler (Remember that men are more potent in the colder months of the year). Under these condition, if the testicles got too cold, they can always be retracted closer to the body.

Almost like God gave men a prepuce solely for this evolutionary function in reproduction.

…Now consider this: Circumcised and uncircumcised men have the same penis temperature on full erection, as we stated earlier in this article. So, clearly, there is a specific reason why a natural-uncircumcised penis remains at a cooler temperature during the flaccid state. When the penis is erect it is no longer in close proximity with the testicles, so penile temperature should not affect the testicular temperature at this phase (be the penis circumcised or uncircumcised).

Upon orgasm, the penis tends to retract more into the pelvis (at least with my experience). Due to the friction and increased blood flow that occurred during the sexual act, it makes sense that the penis will have an increase in temperature in a flaccid state post-sex than in a flaccid state previous to the sexual act. Could this retraction be another mechanism for the “heated” penis to steer clear of the testicles?

Go there, science.

Circumcision and Male Fertility: Is There a Link?

Scientists have recently concluded that circumcision can help with infertility in males suffering from two very specific diseases.

So… not generalizable.

Some woman perv studies after all that penis talk.

Women’s faces and voices may be cues to their reproductive potential. If so, then individual differences in indices of female fecundity and residual reproductive value, such as hormonal profiles, body composition, and age, should be associated with women’s facial and vocal attractiveness to men. However, previous research on these associations is sparse, has rendered mixed results, and is limited to Western samples. The current study therefore explored relationships between correlates of reproductive capability (testosterone levels, age, and body mass index [BMI]) and facial and vocal attractiveness in women from industrial and foraging societies. Women’s facial and vocal attractiveness was associated with each of these indicators in at least one of the two samples. The patterns of these associations suggest that women’s faces and voices provide cues to both common and unique components of reproductive potential and help explain the evolution of men’s mating preferences.

Lesson: Avoid the manjaw.

Women change their vocal pitch all the time though. European women are taught to make it lower at school (speak up = louder, lower pitch), Asians try to make it higher. The key is how they sound when hysterically upset. That’s their true level. Europeans go up, Asians down.

Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not.

So partnered, married women. Not single ones.

Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.

Menopause is not the face equalizer you think.

African and European perception of African female attractiveness

Dare you to do the same study with every race judging every other.

Majority of research on attractiveness is restricted to faces of European origin. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across communities due to variations in both facial morphology and local standards of beauty. We investigated the relative contribution of four facial markers of attractiveness based on 101 female facial portraits (standardized, non-manipulated) from Cameroon and Namibia, which were assessed by local male raters and by raters from a distant European population, the Czech Republic. Images from Cameroon include only women of Bantu origin, while Namibians are represented by women of both Bantu (Owambo/Herero) and Nama origin. While controlling for age and BMI, we explored the relationship between female attractiveness and a set of facial traits: fluctuating asymmetry, averageness, shape sexual dimorphism, and skin color (rated and measured in CIELab color space).

In the Cameroonian sample, local male raters favored lighter-skinned female faces with morphology closer to average. The attractiveness of Nama women as rated by Nama men positively correlated with lighter complexion, but this did not extend to rating by Cameroonian men. The attractiveness of Namibian Owambo/Herero women was positively associated with facial femininity and lighter complexion when judged by both Cameroonian and Nama male raters. In all samples, the attractiveness as rated by Czech men was predicted by age and BMI, but not by skin color. We found no significant association between attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry in any of the tested samples. When controlling for age, the effect of skin color on attractiveness turned to be non-significant in the Owambo/Herrero and Nama sample, but remained significant in the Cameroonian sample. Variations in skin color thus represent an important factor of African female attractiveness within the African context, but they do not seem to affect judgements made by European raters.

They don’t want any of them.

Sensitivity to some facial markers of female attractiveness thus seems to be restricted to regional populations and/or constrained by shared ethnicity.

Paler women have more oestrogen. So duh.

Women reject old guys who’d give them dead or ugly kids:

“This finding is consistent with men’s stated preference for young, fertile women in mating and suggests that the typical pattern is generated by women’s limiting role in mating.”

aka their gender role

“older men tend to marry older women, including those who are peri- and post-menopausal”

TIL Korea is so degenerate it has slave markets. Ooof.

So much for the myth that young women have the hots for them. Yeah, I’m sure the Jap schoolgirl came onto you, right perv?

Deadbeats are the end of the West:

Research in evolutionary psychology, and life history theory in particular, has yielded important insights into the developmental processes that underpin variation in growth, psychological functioning, and behavioral outcomes across individuals. Yet, there are methodological concerns that limit the ability to draw causal inferences about human development and psychological functioning within a life history framework. The current study used a simulation-based modeling approach to estimate the degree of genetic confounding in tests of a well-researched life history hypothesis: that father absence (X) is associated with earlier age at menarche (Y). The results demonstrate that the genetic correlation between X and Y can confound the phenotypic association between the two variables, even if the genetic correlation is small—suggesting that failure to control for the genetic correlation between X and Y could produce a spurious phenotypic correlation. We discuss the implications of these results for research on human life history, and highlight the utility of incorporating genetically sensitive tests into future life history research.

I don’t think debtor’s prisons will come back – but if you breed it, you should feed it. I think the abandoned women that existed since Biblical times will just hire bounty hunters to shoot the first family deserter for a share of his life insurance policy.

Patriarchs everywhere would rejoice at culling the cads. The women get a widow’s pension.

Everyone wins. Hey, you said “until death do us part”. Men used to die by their oaths.

I have noticed that immigrant men have a higher pitch than their non-immigrant relatives.

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

Low male voice pitch may communicate potential benefits for offspring in the form of heritable health and/or dominance, whereas access to resources may be indicated by correlates of socioeconomic status, such as sociolinguistic features. Here, we examine if voice pitch and social dialect influence women’s perceptions of men’s socioeconomic status and attractiveness. In Study 1, women perceived lower pitched male voices as higher in socioeconomic status than higher pitched male voices.

A lot of PUAs get shot down for 1. being brown and feeling entitled to a white woman, the lowest miscegenation group also further sickened by repeated forced “refugee” interactions and 2. having a high pitch voice and effete face compared to their national relatives. Compare within the white race, the “Latin lover” in Italy versus Italian immigrants raised and living in London, who sound like cartoon chipmunks by comparison.

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

Same applies to white men who moved South so it appears to be immigration. Either being an immigrant or the act itself makes a man less manly. Most obviously, torso body fat deposition like a woman of their group and the sisters become like the men at home, more athletic.

In Study 2, women independently perceived lower pitched voices and higher status sociolinguistic dialects as higher in socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

Good genes, good brains, good money. Fixating on the money is what ugly guys do – Muslim prince to Jewish media mogul.

We also found a significant interaction wherein women preferred lower pitched men’s voices more often when dialects were lower in sociolinguistic status than when they were higher in sociolinguistic status.

Capacity to protect. Not a desk jockey. The middle-class is effeminate. They want army. No cowards.

Women also perceived lower pitched voices as higher in socioeconomic status more often when dialects were higher in sociolinguistic status than when lower in sociolinguistic status.

Women know quality, really? Almost like our lives depend on it.

Finally, women’s own self-rated socioeconomic status was positively related to their preferences for voices with higher status sociolinguistic dialects, but not to their preferences for voice pitch.

Plenty of men chose to marry down to get a looker out of their genetic league, hypergamy.

Erotic capital is worth it, as you can tell by the fertility study above, even post-menopausal they’re better-looking.

Hence, women’s preferences for traits associated with potentially biologically heritable benefits, such as low voice pitch, are moderated by the presence of traits associated with resource accrual, such as social dialect markers. However, women’s preferences for language markers of resource accrual may be functionally independent from preferences for potential biological indicators of heritable benefits, such as voice pitch.

Women…. making…. mate choices?

mutation load is important?


The broader mouth is masculine

because the overall skeletal frame of a man is masculine and larger too, including the broad mandible (manjaw).

Women also have a lower mandible curve, sometimes invisible to the eye, which is softer.

I shouldn’t have to point this out but… here we are.

Apparently most people can’t use their eyes.

This answers the question of why most men are repulsed by Angelina Jolie, whose lower third of her face is manly – broad mandible, thick-lipped (men are overall thicker-lipped, compared to their sisters) and a wider mouth. Meanwhile, plenty of women find her attractive – because of the lower face, that repulses men.

Hourglass has nothing to do with fat

It’s skeletal. Even at a low body weight, an hourglass woman is still an hourglass.


She was an extreme hourglass, actually. >10inches natural Waist-Hip difference.

Marilyn Monroe was Not Even Close to a Size 12-16

Apparently around 13″ usually. Typical hourglass must be 10-11 inches to count.

Extreme hourglass is up to 13-14.

So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually?  Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of.  Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took.  Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D.


the difference is usually continuous in Waist-Hip, regardless of fat volume based on same genetic deposition across the figure

Make-up can do that, sure.

It’s all the lighting and angles, right?

Tall women live longer than short ones

And from what I know previously, short men tend to outlive very tall ones, unsure about medium to slightly tall height.

The thin finding is ‘duh’ but the height one is surprising.

I guess it’s genetic?

Maybe leg men know best.

I’d like to see a more detailed study comparing within and between race but I won’t hold my breath.

This is why we can’t have nice things

>Women look like women, normally.
>Harassment and stalking, male superficiality and baseness.

Pick one.

Nobody thinks you really want the number or a chat.
There’s only one type of woman that gets solicited in the street, everyone knows it’s an insult.

Anything less than full androgyny is not hooker attire.
Looking female =/= sexual? The most matronly women have worn skirt, dress or heels. It’s a cultural norm.

Don’t talk to strangers.

Not just etiquette for kids!

It is still weird to solicit (actual word meaning) strangers in the street for any purpose, whatever American comedians tell you. Some of us are raised better. Instant bad impression, whoever you are.

She missed out the schizo verbal abuse when you try to politely, passively avoid the pervert interrupting your day.

Imagine if someone at a bus stop called you a bastard for not talking to them. Multiple times a day.
Men would be horrified. Oh, and you can’t physically defend yourself or pepper spray them, and their revolting hands might grope you…

Because they liked your “outfit”.

Gee, why do so many women dress like shit, wear huge coats in public, avoid men or get fat?

Maybe…. men’s behaviour had something, some tiny, little, fleeting influence on that?

Ask yourself: is this something ghetto trash would do?

If so, never ever do it!

You know, if a woman likes you, she can talk to you first?

Or a hey if she didn’t notice you and you’re in the same place for a while?

Avoid the circle of personal space. She can close the gap.

If she keeps it short, move along. A minimal response is basic politeness, savoir vivre.

You never see men’s mags say “15 signs she isn’t interested”.

Subtitle: and how to make a classy exit.

This would be useful.

It explains the entirety of the problem, forcing a reaction (abuse). Kinda like putting your job interviewer in a headlock. One step down from kidnapping.

So what you really have in most cases are men with no idea how an adult is supposed to behave, think you can “tease” people like in school, and worst of all, that think you can talk someone into fancying them.

The fat girls can’t do it, neither can you. Nice guy = great personality. No.

Men over-estimate their attractiveness, excessively. Not fancying you isn’t a personality flaw, it should be expected (most humans don’t fancy most humans), especially when you’re enraged about it. Doesn’t strike the casual observer as sane.

Whether someone is single doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, they aren’t a slut?
Look at the statistics, young people are sleeping around less than their elders.


Those elders (Boomers, Gen X, some Y) and the young vibrants that think porn is real constantly being lecherous at them might have something to do with it. Women do not work like men. Random compliments make us feel worse. We weren’t thinking about how we looked and suddenly this sleaze has an opinion, feels entitled to tell me and thinks I should respond to it?

Like a literal magic word? (how stupid do they think women are?)

Like insincere compliments are hard to get?

Bad compliments are insults.


They make a heap of degrading assumptions.

For instance, women wear “woman” clothes because actually, they’re physically practical! A low neckline ventilates a hot bust! A breezy skirt prevents thighs from chafing (even in thin, non-anorexic women). Do I have to explain the sweat benefits of sleeveless?

Women already know this, ask women you know about the practical reasons for wearing clothes. It has nothing to do with men and entirely what we like. Not melting in summer is among them. Women probably stopped fainting because we could get some sweet, sweet breeze circulation!
If you had two globules of fat on your chest overheating your core body temperature, like a heat pad on your heart [1], you’d want low-cut tops as well. In the Victorian era, this was understood to be the only part you could bare – for practical reasons! Nothing to do with showing off or sex. You’re a perv.

Lingerie ads tell men what we wear has anything to do with them. Not really.

Some women try to dress to avoid male attention and need to wear deodorant under the boobs. Some women with large ones, all over. All over the boob. Sexy, right?

Most women hate compliments because most are from strangers, shallow, rude and poorly thought out.

Street harassment is totally okay if we’re allowed to pepper spray or shoot them.
Since women are the physically weaker sex and a random guy walking up to anyone, m/f, is threatening. Whoever they are. When they seem interested in taking things, willing or not, suspicions are confirmed.

It’s like lending a mugger your wallet. No, we don’t want to “talk”/give a #/”go out”.

We want to walk down a public street, in public, as an unmolested member of the public.

Huge ask, I know.

Walking down a street isn’t an invitation to impose yourself on anyone – man/woman/child.

Think how weird it would be to a man or child. No less weird to a woman.

This used to be standard protocol throughout the entire First World until the 20th century.

I think a lot of you would be shocked by how polite I am IRL. Self restraint is important.


If you compare the way schoolboys harass and intimidate one another, it’s exactly the same with street creeps.
Invasion of personal space, cutting off avenue of escape, forced conversation, rude comments, stupid questions, illegal touching, acting like you’re the one with the problem.

[1] do that experiment, internet! Men could not last more than an hour.

The irritating fact of boob ownership is in winter, you lose heat from them.


East Asian beauty demands

With over 270 million monthly users, Chinese technology company Meitu is in the business of vanity. The company has several apps, but their most famous one is MeituPic – China’s number one photo retouching app. It gives users the ability to alter their appearance with surprising flexibility and specificity.

Yet what is most notable about Meitu Pic is its uniquely Asian features and filters. There are functions to smooth skin, slim the face, add makeup, attach cute stickers, and enlarge one’s eyes.

And change their eye shape, by rounding it out, there’s no other way to do that.

And you thought Snapchat was weird.

I’m starting to think the guys who claimed a lot of makeup was witchcraft might’ve been right. If you’re trying to look like a whole other person… something ain’t right in the head.

Similar to MeituPic, Japan’s Line Camera and South Korea’s Snow also offer facial enhancement features.

catfishing premium

While these selfie apps may differ in terms of functionality, they all help users to beautify themselves in ways that are telling about the markets they serve. They provide an interesting lens on how women in three East Asian countries view beauty ideals – and why certain beauty products succeed in an increasingly influential region…..

look more white has always been their ideal, prior to any contact with white people

paler women have higher oestrogen

thinner faces are more feminine (especially the curve of the jaw) and White women have mathematically thinner faces than Asians

There are studies.

recessed chin there, in case you wanted to know what that was called

nose is similar to African, which has slightly more flared nostrils

European nose is straighter, stronger bridge, pointed, nasal tip can point up

Do they mention this?

Heavens, no!

“Traditionally, East Asian women have been held to a standard of feminine beauty that suggests they should be sweet and gentle. “

Geisha were prostitutes, see other posts.


They were hookers. Not just strippers, there is plenty of art depicting them rolling around with men, penis out.

If they weren’t hookers, nobody would have paid that much for tea. Why did men never learn such a respectable ceremony, hm? Nor would they be depicted with their genitals exposed, like a hooker.

Asian men are broader too, it’s a racial thing before you go there.

Oh, did you think these studies didn’t exist? Yeah, MSM never mentions them huh?
There is categorically less sexual dimorphism in Asians i.e. the men look more feminine, technically, and the women more masculine, since their range is closer in both cases to the androgynous mean.

Eyebrows also vary by race, Asians have that garish Audrey brow but naturally, softer. Flat as a ruler and pointing upward in surprise. Asian women do a lot to change this about their brows (normally by cropping the Shock Tail) because otherwise their eye shape looks more extreme (and alien to Western eyes).

Is this right? That isn’t the point, they do it.

This is the female mask, most beautiful of all races.

Which sex does that resemble to you? Now, which race?

Neither hips nor mathematics lie.

Koreans do though.

You can’t use plastic surgery women in a study of natural (genetic) beauty. Don’t be absurd.

Europe used to be full of those women. This is a Louis Vuitton advert.

It was the ideal of beauty for millennia.

You don’t get to claim that because someone got creative with a scalpel.

Asians don’t have eyes like that. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

I find it suspicious that whenever Asians study beauty, the result is always pedomorphic. There is never any sexual maturity (sexual dimorphism + maturity) in the features, which must be a deliberate, false omission of: high cheekbones, but gracile jawline (rare combination), cherry chin (strong teeth), larger philtrum than men (see Marilyn), smooth but not baby nose, full but not huge mouth, soft brows, higher forehead than men.

They erase all the masculinized features of their own women, it’s unfair. That’s an unrealistic standard.

The method is completely wrong, the aim of the studies is to search for an adult model, a real model. It’s disturbing many of their supposed results could be in primary school.

Compare with similar high contrast (pale, dark hair) but sexually mature.

Please tell me you can see a difference. Only the sexual opinion of (non-pedophilic) normal men (within a race) counts for these types of study into NATURAL, ADULT FEMALE BEAUTY (not popularity, classic beauty). It’s been proven you can only really perceive accurately your own race best. Nudging it into other categories is…morally dubious. Is it right to expect an Asian woman to look European? Is it right to expect every Italian woman to resemble Monica?

Yet I know sexually who men would SELECT – and that’s the problem, Asian variations of this study are prone to emphasize surgery and popularity. It isn’t historical or evolutionary (therefore instantly wrong, you cannot study it without this context). This is Darwin, accept it or don’t pretend to study it.

Some Western studies make the same mistake, fixating on Hollywood (celebrity, popularity) like they’re the best looking people you’ll ever meet (they are not, travel, they are actually subpar even within their own races historically).

Back to Asians.

They choose the Asian-specific features and say that’s the ideal, of all times and periods. …No? It reminds me of fat acceptance. If that were true, they wouldn’t be getting quite so much surgery to resemble a mulatto, at best (philtrum reduction). Both women listed in the Korean article have entirely the wrong bone structure, it is impossible to change the eyes and they are the root of the face. Bad nose jobs aside (like Paris Hilton’s and many stupid women, they got them done too small) their faces are too broad to fit (a racial trait), their mouth is ghoulish (too broad, too wide and fat lipped, Asians shouldn’t get injections it makes their eyes look tiny) and the face is too flat looking since it’s difficult to add (structure) where there’s nothing there.

For comparison, since I’m not denying Asian women can get very good quality surgery, power to them for hoodwinking the stupid marks with a fetish, here is a woman who resembles their template better.

Wang Fei Fei, but she is Chinese so they instantly discount her. Asians hate other Asians.

The stellar example of surgical improvement I have ever seen is this woman.

Im Ji Hye

but she made it obvious with cleavage work so despite being Korean… they immediately discount her.

Again, who is beautiful in the sexual selection sense, little Miss Nine Year Old or Tits McGee?

Their children won’t look like this and it isn’t hard to guess who they’re trying to look like.

Here’s a morph of Asian celebrities (mostly actresses).

Not that they’re getting surgery at all, no. I’m sure Scarlett Johansson’s nose is untouched, like Angelina Jolie’s….

so this isn’t a racial thing but a natural beauty point. None of these bitches have it.

They must wear contacts, for example, to hide the dead-eyed stare. Like a serial killer.

Pic or it didn’t creep me out:


Same huge-breasted woman as above. Instant loss of two points imho once she stops appropriating white women’s eye colours (phenotype range is important to classification). I would be scared to encounter that in an alley, she reminds me of a sexbot. Her neutral there looks murderous. On the contrary, as you can see, getting fuckdoll surgery makes a woman look far less innocent.

The entire purpose in all those cases to purposefully get surgery is sexual enticement (one husband or lots of boyfriends, doesn’t matter).

The breast work just makes it obvious to foreigners.

The so-called perfect Asian face is based on a genetic lie (surgery).

Let’s look at method

One Korean researcher decided to apply Asian features through computer graphics on top of the mask layout, giving the results of the “perfect Asian face”.

No. That isn’t how the mask works, the data is already infused INTO the mask, which can be separated by RACE and SEX. He has essentially scribbled over the truth with only the positive features of surgical, trendy women he wants to fuck. Is that science?

When I say scribbled

I mean scribbled. And with the exclusions (so the whole thing is a sham), it fits white women better.


Yes, very Asian…..

The “perfect face” has an egg-shaped head, big bright eyes, a narrow and sharp nose, and medium-sized lips.


Because the sampled women were all trying to look like THAT.

You can even see through the mask to the way it discounts Asian female features.

The Asian mouth is broader than the mask (mouth corners upturned, width remains constant), the Asian nostrils and nose are bigger than the mask, the Asian face size is bigger than the sketch and should be horizontally broader, the mask brows are lower and curved than the (cropped) Asian ones, the nasal tip and chin of the mask are more defined than the Asian girl, it’s all right there!

I hate noticing things, really. It’s such a burden.

Look at this horse-shit.

“Chinese herbalists have concocted special tinctures, tonics and elixirs for over 5,000 years to specifically address individual skin concerns. This knowledge has passed down from generation to generation and is what we use today to formulate many of our beauty concoctions,” Brian explains.

No, you’ve been giving them plastic surgery, developed in the West, not rubbing their face with tiger’s nuts. Next you’ll claim you invented pearls (Scotland’s had a roaring trade in them too before China stole cultivation methods in the last century).

Anglo-Saxons had herbalism too, you didn’t invent shit (you can’t take credit for inventing a fucking PLANT) but Cheryl Cole’s face is still pumped full of plastic shit. As it is, Europe has better biodiversity of plants and more (most) useful ones for skincare e.g. rosehip, lavender, orange blossom…

why lie?

As for Fan Bing Bing (what kinda name…) any woman who relies on eye makeup to get her eyes to look that beautiful way…, isn’t actually beautiful?

White example

Asian example

The problem with so much deep, structural surgery is that with less makeup, it looks Uncanny Valley.

If you’re going to go to such great lengths to look like us, be decent enough to admit it?

Artist’s “Asian” inspiration, now VS. Victorian Valentine, typical face.

Update: let’s throw this in, why not? re the philtrum and smaller mouth

 When it comes to the face there’s just one shape-shifter and that’s the entire mouth area (i.e. upper lip, lips, and chin). The mouth area is capable of articulating many, many distinct sounds. Just like frequently using the hands, frequently using the mouth results in a slender, lean, and petite mouth, including the upper lip and chin. Also like the hands, disusing the mouth produces a loose, flabby, and enlarged mouth area.

speaking better, being classier = more feminine mouth (small range possible, muscular on top of genetic)

The main muscle involved here is the one surrounding the lips, the orbicularis oris. If you’re trying to achieve a feminine face, I suggest speaking speak with great frequency and articulation. Not all languages are equal though—some neglect the orbicularis oris while others heavily rely on it. French, for example, seems to have a lot of words with the “oo” sound, like “beaucoup.”

dialect too

Many more muscles that attach to the orbicularis oris (mouth) and I believe they are all gender-neutral, or slightly favored by males. This is my conclusion after observing many faces and seeing little to no sexual dimorphism in this area. This is much like limbs, between the chest and fingers or between the butt and toes. They are not nearly as sexually-dimorphic as breasts are to a male chest, but the muscles seem to be slightly favored by males. So the updated picture now shows the orbicularis oculi and masseter muscles in opaque blue to denote that they are greatly favored by men.

but cheekbones are bone structure, literally

zygomatic arch

The final archetypal male and female faces.

                Unlike muscles of the body, some facial muscles aren’t attached to bone at all; some muscles are attached to other muscles. This means that tighter, more-developed muscles can pull on weaker muscles and facial organs. Tight midface muscles (in translucent blue) can enlarge the mouth area—including the base/wing of the nose—if the mouth muscles are weak. The average male partially uses some of the midface muscles and disuses/underuses the mouth muscles. Thus, the average male develops a wider mouth and nose than the average female.

well hold on the jaw is broader, larger and the lips thicken

The average female underuses the midface muscles and fully uses mouth muscles, which results in a pull towards the mouth. This produces a narrow nose, defined philtrum, small mouth, and narrow chin.

smooth nose (defined structure from bridge to tip), higher (length) or more well-shaped philtrum, rosebud lips and cherry chin

but philtrum especially is genetic in pronouncement and an indicator of fertility (men are under-studied)

The entire mouth area is large and loose for men and compact and tight for women.

This is not my opinion as you can see but plainly observable fact. Women have a longer philtrum and smaller mouth by breadth than men. Ah, some troll demands, wouldn’t we observe this in Marquardt’s masks?

We would.

That is the most feminine face humanly possible.

China rigs bikini contest

in the most hilarious way possible.

Asian supremacy so fragile.

Sure, they just “forgot” to include White women.

Terrified of being outgunned by the average girl from Hull.

Who would win? One billion plus Chinese or… the average White figure?

That’s plain pathetic. And how many of those had surgery? If that was part of exclusion criteria, there’d hardly be anyone.

It must be tough holding your barely sexually dimorphic, pedomorphic females to womanly standards of physical development.

Meanwhile, in England-

Shall we blame Royal Mail? Did the invites get lost in the post? Will it happen next year?
The only curves Asians can do are in textbooks, get a reality check.

Stop trying to be white like a Twinkie and be happy with your gamine boy-toy-looking women.

Hell, even black (and I mean BLACK) women have got you on this.
Good for her.
They are hardly renowned in attractiveness studies for ranking top.

Hourglass Asians do not exist, their race lacks the sexual dimorphism. Look at pelvic width, you can’t buy one of those! That’s why their surgery and ‘beauty hacks’ and makeup are the most advanced in the world. It’s called erotic capital because they’re status whores.

Nice? No. True? Yes.

Imagine a Mr Olympia herculean contest with exclusively 100% Asian men. I don’t fucking think so.
So why hold the women to a higher standard? It’s unfair. They can’t compete, this literally proves it.

Good luck finding an Asian woman throughout all of history that looks like this without being trussed up and stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Lesson? Asians lie about everything prestigious.

The market problem with Patriarchy is false advertising of daughters.
They are bred as attractive as it’s possible to go, it’s only downhill from there. Their very demeanor is fake (the scourge of fake femininity) and cracks around menopause if you’re lucky. They are naturally kind only under financial hardship and cruel men. Otherwise, spoiled cunts. The majority of the worst divorce stories involve Asian women, they are ball-busters.
They’re fully looksmax-ed, that is It. That is their peak, the furthest right reach of their bell curve of SMV.

Stop trying to fob off your average-looking under-developed women to the West for anchor, higher status half-white babies. You’ll have as much luck opposing evolutionary preferences as the chubby-pushers. Migration habit to one side, it’s so r-selected to rig a competition so a true one is impossible. Don’t let ‘child per woman’ data fool you, Asians are r-selected, they expand to fill any area they live in until all the resources are consumed (hello Japan). There isn’t a single billion white people, but a 4.5 billion Asians. They are the world majority, well over half of the world population. By comparison, Africa, a bigger continent by survivable habitat, contains 1.2 billion. Asians are now buying up and swarming Africa, this should tell you who is the Ultimate R. They also lack the time preference to resolve basic problems e.g. elderly care (hello Japan).

The demographic threat to Ks is yellow.
If we resolved the African boom problem, they outnumber us about 10:1.

And not one good figure to spare.

They’re not even skinny, they’re just squat, I’ve seen more lithe famine victims.