Pretty fertile

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.

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?


Averages matter

No moving the goalposts.

“blending pictures of Caucasians and Asians to form a hypothetical Eurasian composite”

not how miscegenation works

The authors wrote:

The disadvantage of computer-generated mixed-race composites is that they may not precisely capture the appearance of mixed-race individuals.

Damn right!  However, the major problem is not one of precision but of accuracy.  Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids generally look more Mongoloid than Caucasoid because: 1) Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbonesrobust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness [American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105-134; year 2000]; 2) some trait variation is due to dominant and epistatic genes; and 3) the genes associated with primitive features likely comprise of an excess of dominant genes with respect to the newer mutations behind the more-recently-originating facial features disproportionately found among Caucasoids.

One quibble: Broad cheekbones are robust but not attractive.

They’re flat. Very very flat.

“However, in contrast to the first two experiments, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, a result that has been previously reported in a different study.”

When you didn’t skew your method enough to be PC.

“Therefore, the individuals that went into the average female Caucasian likely disproportionately included ugly, obese white women (possibly of mostly Irish ancestry).  In this case, the blending appears to have improved the attractiveness rating from ugly to unattractive.”

Yeah, that’s a fair test.

Figures 5 and 6 below show the pictures used in the third experiment.  One reason behind the attractiveness of the actual Eurasian composites (EurasianAV) in Figures 5 and 6 is the narrower face due to less prominent cheekbones, narrower than even the Caucasian!  The Eurasian facial breadth should be in between the European (narrow) and the Asian (broad).

They do that on purpose to rig the finding.

Supposed Cauc75 looks Celtic, ancient Briton type.

Fuck-all to do with even Eastern Europe!

Their upper fake average is noticably more white than the actual lower pic average.

Again, fellow Brits have more good looking people by volume than other European countries.

So-called Cauc75 looks like my relatives, so I know it’s full of shit to call that a mix.

Genetic isolation from the invasions of European landmass preserved our features.

That’s why so many models are from our isles over Denmark/France/Germany/Poland etc, same reason applies to Asians with Japanese models, more sought after (by genes) and have a higher volume of Lookers than Asia mainland.

They also rig what data they release, omitting profile data.

Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view).  I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm.  Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?

How dare you know statistics.

How DARE you.

Flatter faces in whites are considered by neonate doctors a sign of genetic disease. If they spot it in a newborn white, they do other tests for specific things, most of which are linked to retardation of the mind too.

Nasal bridge low, flat midface, short nose – Eurasian traits.

Williams Syndrome nose:

Our gut reaction as white people against mongrelization (in this case, Eurasian mixing) is an aversion to severe genetic disorder.

It could be a coincidence or not, who knows? What does it matter, since an aversion is there?

And has every right to be.

As for the eyes….

Look up downies, harsh but true.

Similar eye shape, tilt angle and placement on face to the Asians without monolids too.

So… there’s that.

Whites don’t find flat faces or stretched, narrowed eyes attractive.

even in fellow whites like Cumberbatch (for the eyes).

Technically, it isn’t about race but avoiding deformed offspring (or deformed looking, who’ll meet the same sexual selection ‘success’).

Caucasoid v Mongoloid skull

Health of mixed race discussed here:

The authors controlled for age, sex, verbal IQ, grade point average, family structure (living with one or both parents), and family education

On the other hand, there exist several examples in the animal literature where matings between more genetically distant individuals within the same species/different races result in offspring that are less healthy than the parents, on average, [30-37]  and this cannot be blamed upon struggle with identity formation.  There also exist examples of hybrid vigor, but nothing remotely close to hybrid vigor is seen in Udry’s data. 

Udry’s data are compatible with the likelihood of race mixing improving one or more parental traits in some mixed-race offspring, who may be better off than both parents on multiple counts, provided that a greater number of mixed-race offspring are overall worse off than both parents.  The former possibility is surely not implausible given that the tremendous racial and species diversity out there implies that nature does not rule out equally-well functioning/better functioning novel genetic correlation structures, which could be brought about by race mixing, though the chances of improvement would typically be slim if more distant races are involved.

it’s selfish

the parents improve their own DNA at the expense of the child

It is seen in Table 2 that those identifying as mixed race have worse health than even populations known to be highly admixed (American black, Native American, Hispanic).  This could be accounted for if one assumes that first-generation hybrids who have the worst health/behavior problems would disproportionately not be very successful in reproducing, i.e., the healthier mixed offspring could, within a few generations, set up a mixed-race population that is healthier, on average, compared to the first-generation hybrids, but for this mixed-race population to approach or exceed the overall health of the original single-race populations, it would take many generations of [naturally] weeding out the unhealthy and settling toward a novel population-typical genetic correlation structure that corresponds to good health (more on this and on hybrid vigor in a subsequent post). 

Nature’s laughing at all of us, really. That time never exists.

This also assumes the mixed race want kids – no or fewer than average, from what I read and talking to them.

Zero or below replacement level, and lower numbers for kids they actually have.

To conclude, it is irresponsible for any scientific organization to pretend that race mixing has no adverse health effects and it is obviously inappropriate to portray race mixing as desirable or virtuous.

30. Aspi J: Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 2000, 84 (Pt 3):273-282.
31. Edmands S, Feaman HV, Harrison JS, Timmerman CC: Genetic consequences of many generations of hybridization between divergent copepod populations. J Hered 2005, 96:114-123.
32. Garnier-Gere PH, Naciri-Graven Y, Bougrier S, Magoulas A, Heral M, Kotoulas G, Hawkins A, Gerard A: Influences of triploidy, parentage and genetic diversity on growth of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas reared in contrasting natural environments. Mol Ecol 2002, 11:1499-1514.
33. Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR: Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol 2004, 13:3379-3388.
34. Neff BD: Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004, 101:2381-2385.
35. Peer K, Taborsky M: Outbreeding depression, but no inbreeding depression in haplodiploid Ambrosia beetles with regular sibling mating. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 2005, 59:317-323.
36. Thornhill R, Moller AP: Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997, 72:497-548.
37. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E: Lerner’s concept of developmental homeostasis and the problem of heterozygosity level in natural populations. Heredity 1985, 55 (Pt 3):341-353.


Charles Darwin on race mixing; more here (don’t take this very seriously):

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, “It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case.” An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, “God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes.”(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.

Sixth commandment…..

thou shalt not adulterate

Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. 

nurture has been debunked (adoption studies)

[1] Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.
[2] Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.
[3] Dr. P. Broca, on ‘Hybridity in the Genus Homo,’ Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

A study on cruelty would be interesting.

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]


The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)

e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

“Neotony” isn’t an Asian thing

If I don’t correct the pedophiles trying to feel normal, who will?

Humans are considered by some biologists to be a youthful looking species. We have weak (gracile) jaws compared to say, gorillas and large heads compared to say, chimps.
Stop trying to snowflake a biological possibility of prevalence.
It isn’t Asian or even characteristic of Asians (anime isn’t real!), it’s more prevalent in women than men (but common to humans) and can occur in Asians. However, most Asians have narrow, upturned (i.e. not round) and small eyes – thus cannot count under that heading. They are the least youthful on that feature!

You know, on average and before Daddy’s plastic pays for new plastic.
There are plenty of Asians who don’t have it (most by definition, attractive people are always a minority in their own population) and get the most surgery in the world to reset their masculine bone structure where possible in easy areas like the jawline and brow bone.

The technical un-PC term is “pedomorphic” so….


Don’t go round telling people you find that hot.

Another error made on purpose by perverts?

Young isn’t the same as sexually immature. Men are sexually disgusted by signs of sexual immaturity so quit pushing that or show me some amazing, ironclad studies to back up your claim.

p.s. A fetish isn’t covered by sexual selection. Please stop getting evolution wrong, America! If you’d pass over the many white, black, whatever else women with larger eyes and smaller gracile (not under-developed/inbred/immature) chins then what you really have is Yellow Fever, a paraphilia (fetish). The Kibbe gamine type exists in all races and Asian culture expects women to fake it. So they do.

Youthful (but NOT immature!!!) features indicate health. That’s it. That’s all.
As in, an Asian looking really cute by plastic surgery with no waist, boyish hips and poor fertility doesn’t count under the biological model as fit. Because it isn’t real. Biology covers what is natural only. It also covers evolved historical conditions, new transportation and the race mixing that is possible isn’t covered because it’s novel. I’ve covered as much as possible that’s available to discuss online with the medical issues boyish women have with childbirth. If C-sections didn’t exist, a lot of Asian women would die, especially if the baby is half-white. Most women who go in for IVF are Asian (and have a higher failure rate than White women) and nobody knows why because nobody is allowed to study racial differences openly.

If they cared about these women, they’d study things to actually help them.

Fetishists miss the part about the eye shape and size because the common black eyes (again, contacts don’t count as genetic!) cue to their stupid brain that the woman is in love with them (pupil dilation) and not a threat.
Their cartoons look like white women, they get surgery/hair dye/makeup/skin glue/fake eyelashes to look like white women and their husbands cheat with Russian prostitutes. Actions speak louder than words.

What’s been called “psychological neotony” by some obvious pedophiles is emotional retardation and intellectual immaturity. That’s all retardation is, being stuck in an earlier stage of development. Humans have life stages, to not grow up is disturbed. They are just as bad as the vapid Valley girl.
If it’s vapid and stupid when white women do it, it’s the same when Asians do it. Stop white (yellow?) knighting. Fake femininity is obnoxious.
Neotony or in accurate anthropological terms, pedomorphology is allowed in society because we’re decadent, it is a sign of civilizational regression to encourage showy incompetence. It’s literally the female equivalent of the soyboy. They’re useless and act like children to get out of their citizen’s duties in life. And you’re falling for that?

It’s your life to ruin, I guess?

Black women have a tendency to act strong to get male resources, Asian women have a tendency to act weak to get male resources. White women can go either way with Eastern European acting weak and Western Europe acting strong(er).

But your hierarchy is fake science.

As a race, the “neotonous” features as characteristic belong to Europeans.
Show me a mathematical computer study that tops this.

Marquardt female ideal, sexually mature and youthful.

Proportionately large eyes, high, well-formed cheekbones, full but not huge lips and narrow mouth (youthful mouth indicator for femininity, not fullness which men have moreso) and a fine nasal bridge, soft brow bones and cherry chin, gracile thin jawline and thinner overall face shape closer to oval ideal, 2:1 ratio.

I drew this in case some bitch can’t do ratios.

Shapely philtrum (predicts uterine health), proportionate ears and nostrils (evolved to climate), healthy eye distance (neither too big or too small, beauty is healthy average because it shows a low mutation load)!

Fits closest to Europeans, matching up to corroborating dating site selection data and male preference attitude surveys who would preferentially date a European woman.

European fits it best based on youthful features, then Africans because they have large eyes and full lips and THEN Asians. The eye area is crucial for this. If you don’t have youthful eyes, you don’t have it.

One warning:

Looking like a baby also means looking like a boy, femininity is different. It is not childish, it’s womanly.

The classic beauty within her race does not look like a girl.

Femininity has certain features which coincide with youthful and healthy.

Women have longer, thinner faces including noses and paler skin than their racial male counterparts. This is constant throughout all races. Don’t look at models for an average, they’ve had work done.

Basic rundown for you to begin your own research.

I hate explaining the obvious. The white woman picture has filled lips, ignore that detail.

You might argue, where’s the Marquardt data for that?

Here’s the face-on beauty ideal for women from their global dataset.

Name that race.

Fully feminine and neotonous face with the contours shaded correctly.

Note the longer nose but more delicate bone structure (as opposed to yang angular).
Note the thinner face and reduced mouth width.

Basically everything above it.

Oval, check. Thin but not under-developed nose, check. Round curved brows, check. Narrow mouth with full lips (so incredibly proportionately feminine). Soft features including round normal eye shape, check. Heavily dimorphic, check. Long face compared to male average, check. Small but developed chin, check. High delicate cheekbones, check.

Example of those IRL.

This is so blitheringly obvious to me I struggle to put it into words.
I guess I’ve been trained to see this but did you never notice?


Pretty/cute/sexy are absolute shit compared to beauty.

Black women are higher on this trait of neotony than Asians and everyone talks about them like dirt when they don’t deserve it.

Africans have great eyelashes too, unlike the majority of Asian women.

The eye area is the hallmark of this trait. So African women can look great in 20s makeup.

I’m redpill which means I tell the truth, even when it isn’t about my own group.

Compare with the Asian standard model based on the dataset of averages.

Looks very masculine to me. Very angular, very strong, very yang.

No, neotony is the least Asian thing. I’m sure their surgeons will be pleased to hear you ever considered otherwise. One sign an Asian woman had surgery is that her chin now looks inbred and under-developed, like European royalty sometimes did.

Her larger Asian skull formed in the uterus and by chopping and sliding and trashing the bones to look more European, by proportion it now looks weird and doesn’t fit with the rest of the head’s bones.

There’s a definite look. Example in white people.

The chin looks weird. Not a good look.


You can’t hide your real bone structure, even with surgery.

The skeleton is inside you.

Gene for nose shape found

Figured I’d remind you this exists in light of  How To Judge People By What They Look Like’s detractors.

The four genes mainly affect the width and ‘pointiness’ of noses which vary greatly between different populations.

Populations = races

Pic or it didn’t happen

Compare to Marquardt’s work, which should be compared to character traits and faults in a meta-analysis.

Are people who fit this mask just good-looking or good people, period?

The researchers identified five genes which play a role in controlling the shape of specific facial features. DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3 and PAX1 affect the width and pointiness of the nose and another gene – EDAR – affects chin protrusion.

See attractiveness tag.
Perception is invaluable.

“Few studies have looked at how normal facial features develop and those that have only looked at European populations, which show less diversity than the group we studied. What we’ve found are specific genes which influence the shape and size of individual features, which hasn’t been seen before.

try looking

“Finding out the role each gene plays helps us to piece together the evolutionary path from Neanderthal to modern humans. It brings us closer to understanding how genes influence the way we look, which is important for forensics applications,” said the first author of the report, Dr Kaustubh Adhikari, (UCL Cell & Developmental Biology).

Isn’t it a little superficial to assume the genes just code for appearance of the face and not the brain behind it? What about forehead size and brain size?

The study identified genes that are involved in bone and cartilage growth and the development of the face. GLI3, DCHS2 and PAX1 are all genes known to drive cartilage growth – GLI3 gave the strongest signal for controlling the breadth of nostrils, DCHS2 was found to control nose ‘pointiness’ and PAX1 also influences nostril breadth. RUNX2 which drives bone growth was seen to control nose bridge width.


The genes GLI3, DCHS2 and RUNX2 are known to show strong signals of recent selection in modern humans compared to archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Denisovans; GLI3 in particular undergoing rapid evolution.

You should be forced to disclose any and all plastic surgeries before marriage, with photos of the real face. Otherwise it’s genetic fraud.

Guardian quote

Proper nourishment in early life and providing a stimulating intellectual environment are vital for achieving good brain growth and development and this lasts through life. In other words, brain growth in childhood is important not only in determining how bright you become but how bright you stay,‘ said Martyn.

‘That is the real message from this study: that we have to ensure infants and children are brought up in conditions that optimise brain growth – partly to provide us with lots of bright young adults but also to reduce risk of decline in higher mental function in old age.’

When I object to poverty, I see the long-time consequences.

Lower national IQ. We’re sending all those nutrients overseas.


Gen Z grew up with organic food. Coincidence?

Study: The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty

Meta-analysis/Review paper. Top tier.

Click to access rhodes.meta.analysis.pdf

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.
It confirms the obvious…
…..Femininity is the strongest component of female attractiveness, but it showed no association with health (although only one study has looked for this). Femininity may signal fertility rather than health per se (Johnston 2000, Johnston & Franklin 1993, Symons 1979). The reasoning is that high estrogen/androgen ratio are associated with both feminine characteristics (e.g., small jaw, full lips) and fertility. A preference for feminine faces, therefore, would target sexually mature females. Facial femininity could also signal individual differences in fertility in adult females, to the extent that femininity declines with age.
How men age in attractiveness wasn’t studied, nor cross-referenced with sperm quality, which pisses me off. I wanna see the data on that.
What do you expect, it’s mostly men conducting the studies in this field.
Recently, male facial attractiveness has been linked to genetic heterozygosity at sites involved in immune function. Future studies should determine which components of male attractiveness (masculinity, averageness, symmetry) mediate this link, and whether female attractiveness is also linked to heterozygosity at these sites. A more direct test of a link between attractiveness and immunocompetence could also be done by challenging the immune system.
However, this seems to reinforce a youth link in both sexes via immune function and cellular quality.

Paper: The Morphometrics of “Masculinity” in Human Faces

I’m a gift that keeps on giving today.

Click Download PDF.

…We outline a morphometric strategy for estimating separately the face shape patterns that underlie perceived masculinity and maleness, and for computing individual scores for these shape patterns. We further show how faces with different degrees of masculinity or maleness can be constructed in a geometric morphometric framework. In an application of these methods to a set of human facial photographs, we found that shape features typically perceived as masculine are wide faces with a wide inter-orbital distance, a wide nose, thin lips, and a large and massive lower face. The individual expressions of this combination of shape features—the masculinity shape scores—were the best predictor of rated masculinity among the compared methods (r = 0.5). The shape features perceived as masculine only partly resembled the average face shape difference between males and females (sexual dimorphism). Discriminant functions and Procrustes distances to the female mean shape were poor predictors of perceived masculinity…

You can see when a man is low-T.

Or a woman is high-T.

Right off the bat, manly men have a more pronounced jaw (and chewing muscle which squares it off), flatter brows, broader face, wider nose, less point to tip projection and larger nostrils, even lips (female is bottom-heavy), smaller eyes which slant upward (as opposed to doe eyes which point down due to orbital space pressure) and less of a point to their chin.

Man, I love being right. Notice in the extreme feminine, the inner 2/3 of brow is thicker and thins toward the edge, the opposite of the male. What may seem like a larger chin in men is more of a broad fusion of the mandible at the centre than a specific trait (when it fuses wrong, you get cleft chins or a dimple). Large cherry chins are rather feminine. Female eye distance can be greater if the chin and facial shape points down, giving a childlike triangle look.