repost but why does the taxpayer, pay twice for BBC documentaries?
And why aren’t they publicly available for free openly, if they’re nationally unique and important?
Cancel the license fee, free the documentaries. ALL of them.
repost but why does the taxpayer, pay twice for BBC documentaries?
And why aren’t they publicly available for free openly, if they’re nationally unique and important?
Cancel the license fee, free the documentaries. ALL of them.
A woman’s face is the true indicator of fertility, it isn’t really nearly as amenable to later changes at the gym, at the surgeon or by diet. It’s a true signal, trust it over the body if there is a conflict. If a woman has an average face for her race and a “great” body, the body is fake. It must be, because they’re supposed to have developed at the same time, with the same nutrients and genes and hormones. A highly dimorphic body would also produce a highly dimorphic face by the same conditions.
slight repost for SEO
“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. 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.”
This is how men traditionally found a good wife in a time of petticoats. The face, neck, shoulders and arms show you the rest of her body. Their books emphasize these as important* and their fashions allowed a plunging neckline to better judge fitness. It’s also why they hated make-up, not for the flush but the drawing-on of superior features. This still happens, largely with the midface and eye area. If a girl draws on her nose, just say no.
*They were incredibly bitchy about scrawny, ugly necks and shoulders up until the Edwardian Era. Kiera Knightley’s man bod would be the epitome of ugly. They wanted tapered full shoulders and neck.
That came back in the 1950s, for similar post-war fertility need reasons.
Note the thighs match the neck, so no thin necks either. Lithe arms, nice legs. It’s a rule. They considered the neck and wrists feminine and seriously, what woman nowadays goes to the surgeon about those? It’s a clear signal, still.
Breadth of hips imitated in elbows, palms and knee joints. It’s the same genetic input. A woman with large hips and tiny knee joints has had surgery. The knees develop before puberty to accommodate broad hips. At puberty, they can get even bigger as the legs get longer, so there’s no woman with long legs, regardless of height, and tiny knee joints. It’s impossible, biologically. Otherwise, they’d have biomechanical issues with walking. There’s an angle I can’t be bothered to look up produced by broader hips down to the knee joint and when it exceeds a certain level or gradient the woman can’t actually walk, literal mobility issues. The shoulders aren’t broad in bones (that’s masculine) nor are the feet in women. Long feet are a direct metric of height to stay upright, it’s a hinge but slender feet are the feminine marker and foot-binding’s purpose was narrowness. A woman with broad shoulders and narrow, bound feet has trouble walking. Men also have broader feet to match their shoulders. They throw a lot of weight forward.
A gamine type body, with one or two pleasing features (e.g. just a small waist and long legs) would also produce deficits in maternal instinct and capacity. Caveat emptor. This is important for men selecting a wife, as opposed to a quick shag (what society tells you). If you have a choice of two women, pick the nubile one.
Curvy women may sag, yes, but they don’t come to resemble a man, especially after menopause (see study above).
I’d like to see a study of husband’s desire for his wife by body type. Imagine the outrage. Apples/Naturals would be the worst. Just avoid women with broader shoulder bones than hips. You can tell at a distance.
Healthy shoulders and such are ignored nowadays with dire sub-fertility consequences. Babies eat that fat.
Note, a daintier wrist because the elbow join is broader.
The entire body is a signal, T&A is a ((distraction.)) Padding will do those.
Note the emphasis. That was behind Marilyn’s charm. Victorian body in 50s Americana clothing.
Nowadays we have knee length skirts as normal but very low necklines as odd or even offensive. It’s possible to derive fitness better from the legs, like a deer, really, or a horse, but most men have lost the skill or drive, fetishising tights and heels instead. Upper class men still judge by and fetishize the legs and were behind the rationing shift in fashions to display them. Middle class men fixate on backsides but not hips, which would be a superior indicator as breadth. Lower orders fixate on breasts, high time preference indicated. The woman herself may already be pregnant.
That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.
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.
THESE. ARE. THE. STUDIES. WE. NEED.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
I thought some of you might be curious about my recommendations.
There are American brands that are apparently good (Pure Coenzyme Q10 by BulkSupplements) but obviously I can only cover those available to the UK market.
Top 5 and why.
Pharma Nord Bio-Quinone Q10 Gold Capsules 100mg 150 Capsules
Expensive but well made and bovine capsules too.
£55 for 150 = 36p each.
You take coQ10 with FAT (any kind) to improve absorption.
Multivitamin with CoQ10 100mg, Vitamin D3 2000 IU, K2 100mcg, B Complex, Vitamins A 800mcg, Folic Acid as 5-MTHF 400mcg, Zinc 20mg and Lutein
A bit busy for my taste but you could save money if you want all those things. Great option.
£28 for 60 = 47p each.
D3 is from sheep wool so not vegan but whether you get capsule or tablet (people disagree) it’s quite a hefty size.
COLLAGEM: Collagen Enhanced Dietary Supplement. Award Winner Best Beauty Supplement
This is my vanity talking, the vanity option.
£40 for 14 sachets. The trophy wife option. £2.86 each.
But they fucking work I tried them once. Then my wallet cried like a battered wife, begging me to stop.
It’s a grand a year habit. Those are coke prices*, I expect to look like a literal baby for that money.
Nature’s Best CO Q10 (Co Enzyme) 100mg
Cheap but good. As long as you try no other, you’ll be content.
£24 for 120 = 20p each.
However, I am supplement trash.
Coenzyme Q10 Powder 3000mg (100% Additive Free)
Powder is the best form but inconvenient. This is meh.
£22 for 74 servings listed = 30p each.
Factoring in my laziness, no.
*It’s a way that business and finance people refer to budgeting daily expenses, I am not a coke fiend.
Time for another good old-fashioned shallow posting. It’s mostly about white people because -honestly- nobody else matters if we’re being accurate and this way the weebs can’t get pissy.
Anyway, why have I bothered to address the upper nasal region at length? Consider Marquardt’s beauty mask again (Figure 13). The shaded nasal region is unambiguously European, especially in the upper nasal region, and most non-whites and a number of whites don’t possess this type of nose.
Figure 13: Note nasal region (shaded).
Most non-whites—and some whites, too—have no hope of producing offspring with the fine nasal bones, especially upper nasal region, of the woman shown in Figure 14, even if they bred with her like.
The delicacy is the marker of “good breeding” aka civilization.
I include my own example because… well..
No offence that’s quite an ugly looking white woman used here, especially for a Swede.
Figure 14: A woman with fine nasal bones. Her facial proportions are more appealing for a European than some of the allegedly ideal proportions depicted by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 6; for instance, the eyes in Figure 6 are farther apart than the European norm and thereby more like that in non-Europeans.
Her eyes look weird. Awful example.
Maria Orsic would be much better.
Note: no weird eyes.
Asians literally paint in a massive, deep curve from brow to nose to look more white.
As if the Aryan-coloured contact lenses weren’t creepy enough for that sultry, dead-eyed stare.
They’re not fooling anyone.
And smaller nose, as you can see, is not better. It can make a person look sick (bad breeding) or just plain foreign. It ages something awful. Classic beauties of the Euro or specifically Anglo variety (like this English Rose) actually have a full nose, curved nostrils that don’t flare too much nor too little and a fine-boned nasal bridge all the way up into a more feminine brow, either with a straight nose shape or a slight curve. Rhinoplasties intend to trick the eye with reduced volume but cannot reconstruct upper and midfacial bone structure, especially the dainty variety (well, without a freakish egghead effect).
Straight nose above, and historically:
Compare with a weak nasal bridge, looks a bit like a duck’s bill:
Please ignore the contour makeup and lighting. It’s more obvious without…
It’s objectively, as a feature, an uglier nose. If you shopped these women with Kate or Eva’s nose, they’d be more attractive. That isn’t possible with a classic beauty.
Exotic is not classic. Sexy, yes, but not beautiful. Needs a lot of makeup, like thick eyeliner, to look normal.
An example of weak nose with the curve:
It’s just a little too thin for her face and doesn’t match the nostrils. Close but no.
The bones are clearly heavier in the later examples.
If the jaw is broad, the eyes have more distance. It’s the same with deep sea fish, dammit.
Pretty sure he’s not wearing makeup.
English Rose exceptions are possible with a thinner nose as long as it’s straight and the nostrils and tip relatively full. That way it fits the face.
The brow-nose contour natural to white women is blatant there.
Yes, I spend too much time staring at my fellow woman, but I wanted to figure out why one was hot and the other, not. It was pissing me off. I figured it out though.
It’s secretly the look of civility.
While I’m sure you could track IQ by nation or section e.g. Western Europe, it would more closely tack onto cultural sophistication. This is only partially represented in cultural achievements – artistic, scientific, technologic – genius, in other words. Original contribution.
Let us also address Marquardt’s beauty mask from the side (Figure 15). Marquardt’s beauty mask is clearly that of a European and also that of a masculinized woman; some of the clearly observable masculinized traits [7, 8] include a nasoglabellar region (where the nose meets the forehead) that is curved in a masculine manner, a nose that projects in a masculine manner, a masculine chin region and a sharp gonial angle.
NOT masculine, just white.
White children have this curve, it has F-all to do with male puberty. I had it, everyone I knew had it at school, sit down America the world doesn’t revolve around you and your testosterone neurosis.
Maybe if you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut up?
“curved in a masculine manner” is an oxymoron
nasal projection is feminine
a cherry chin also, feminine (projection, not the same as the jaw where it chews – gonial)
Americans think a normal chin is a recessed inbred wonder.
Beauty has a complex nature.
No, not really. High WHR and so fertility in women, broad shoulders and taller than the average woman for men.
Literally measuring tape tier.
Returning back to Saira Mohan, even though she is able to fit Marquardt’s beauty mask reasonably well, she still doesn’t qualify as a great beauty by European standards.
Standard thot look, eww.
The average girl I went to school with looked better. She isn’t a beauty, she looks slutty.
Big difference. Huge.
Rare example of both.
White men are gracile compared to other races.
They’re still the best-looking.
Bodybuilders starving themselves or mongrel models shouldn’t move your perception for cultural programming reasons. Do they look like an elf or an LA hooker? Case closed.
Rare case of both. Both is the answer.
Note the Asian jawline ruins it.
As you can tell when she turns and how she could’ve looked.
Purer Anglo (North Western European, min) stock is always better for this reason.
Show me one legacy American who looks like that. You can’t.
Even Amber Heard has the manjaw problem and a weak nose.
People in melting pot societies get uglier with every generation and everyone in them gets dragged down eventually (that’s what degeneracy means), compared to what they WOULD have been, it’s just that America has a centuries-long head start on us.
Men are scientifically more shallow.
I guess that’s why Jesus had to tell a man to stop looking and never a woman.
Note: face, beauty (not sex appeal) and attention (split seconds).