Male beauty correlates to right-wing position

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

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

PDF:

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

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

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

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

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

Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

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

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

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


Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

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

European example, frontal/anterior view.

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

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

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

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

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

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

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

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

notyourtypebeautifulthoughtshide

White women and the problem with feminism

Everyone else hates us.

I noticed this immediately but the majority of women aren’t woke yet.

Feminism was supposed to fail us.

If the white women weren’t onboard, they couldn’t make the white men hopeless.

I’m used to those looks so I can spot the sneering bitterness from the other side of a room. I bet FLOTUS can too, that’s why she put this photo on her Twitter, as a wink and a nod to those of us who bother to make an effort.

This very reaction may be the reason normal women choose to hide their beauty as well.

The evolution of facial beauty, including the lips

They always study women for these things in general, it’s dumb.

Beauty is not sexy, sexy is not beauty. Sexy is Hollywood culture and porn, but I repeat myself. Beauty is sexual dimorphism (extremes into their own sex, not a cross-breed), fertility and evolution. ‘Male beauty’ standards would wound too many egos. At least they can go to the gym for below the neck stuff, and you’ve seen the butthurt on height when it’s linked to healthier babies from superior childhood nutrition and hormone balance, as well as genetics.

Many factors here.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1571/1638

http://evolutionbioc334.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/evolution-of-lips.html

There is a hard limit on lip thickness based on the vermillion border and African lips need a masculine high-T jawline to hold the structure’s area size and weight, which neutralises the ‘gain’. They signal sexual maturity of the other lips, that is all. Jolie inherited hers from her father, and this is more common than via the mother, so it isn’t actually specific to women but men (like better nails and eyelashes, it’s unusual in women). A little plumper than her childhood ratio is an individual cue to fertility, not the supernormal exaggeration of cosmetic filler.

Women with a larger mouth require more filler to achieve the same fullness.

African lips also age terribly and sun burn worse. The wrinkles are aging and with tissue loss (aging), sagginess kicks in really quick (pillow lips, stretched natural skin container for artificial material).

Evolutionally, anyone who survived the Ice Age couldn’t lose more moisture than was absolutely necessary. As a mucous membrane, the lips require harsh upkeep and lose a lot of water as well as heat, to keep warm.

A small selection pressure.

marquardt_mask_small-lips-rosebud-mouth

This is the FEMME Marquardt beauty mask you never actually see, because they don’t use it.
The androgynous morphed male-female one is commonly used all over the place to brainwash us.
On the right is the same face by mathematics, with the angles smoothed into a skin-like surface using the neutral colour grey, as artistic midtone. THAT is the most objective female beauty standard.

Look at the area covered by that mouth. It’s a rosebud mouth, tiny BUT ALSO full.
Taut and youthful, but sexy, and not sagging.

Area covered is genetic, based on the width of the mouth opening, fullness by side profile is hormonal. Note the pronounced Cupid’s bow.

Science doesn’t give a fuck about your feelings.

Examples from Old Hollywood

merle-oberon-1933-oval-face

vivien_young-hair-up

hedy-lamarr-young

grace-kelly-doll-angle

grace-kelly-beauty

Maximum area for beauty

Symmetrical faces belong to the healthiest owners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a small breather from all the nonsense clogging the net tubes

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

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

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

you’d have to be an idiot

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

giggle-lol-haha

 

AI is based on race

airacebeauty

People say they want AI. I don’t think they do.
We would not be equals with AI. Whatsoever.
When you disagree with AI, you lose.
Do you know machines? I know machines. I can explain this…
Lighter skin is found in females, to judge the optimal femininity, they go for the palest skin, a sign of oestrogen. High contrast hair colour too, maybe? Just like humans.

Heck, this might be why Elon’s funding AI. To make Tay 2.0

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

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

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

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

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

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