Gender roles are good

I’ll bang this drum around both types of sexist controlling pig until I die.

Nobody’s gender role is to oppress anybody else, those people are either insecure and projecting (cough certain religions) or straight up predators. Men and women negotiate and if a man in a couple wants to cook, that’s literally none of my business.

I don’t get the American busybodies judging a marriage they aren’t in – it works, for them, so who cares?

In a couple, they negotiate. That’s it. Don’t like it? Leave. This isn’t hard. It’s the purpose of courtship. MGTOW, MRAs, SJWs make it sound hard because they’re all scared of “getting hurt”. Okay, don’t date. That’s okay. If you shouldn’t be dating, stop.

There is no ‘boss’. It isn’t work. It isn’t a master-slave situation (at least… outside of the bedroom).

Why don’t more Americans get this? Did sitcoms brainwash you that hard? No spouse is on top. They are ONE. Made one flesh. They are a unit. Don’t misquote the Bible at me.

Demur on the topic of other people’s personal lives. I’ve seen ostensibly mens blog after mens forum turn into a huge gossipfest. Huuuuge. Men gossip way more than women now. It’s ugly. It’s also a sin but w/e.

Anybody trying to claim (including virtue signalling of how Their Marriage would be so magically superior) that one Group is superior, by existing, is appealing to Communism. Sorry. Marxists aren’t superior. It’s false consciousness to claim otherwise. This is communistic thinking in the extreme, dissolving your identity into the group (ego death but bad – groupthink, hivemind, the mob) and thereby being proven Worthy and magically Superior, 5eva. You are born and what that is, isn’t an accomplishment. Men aren’t superior. Women aren’t superior. It’s apples and oranges. Nobody is superior. The concept doesn’t apply to human beings, we’re individuals (or organisms). The Gender War construct is Anti-Natal psyops from Cultural Marxism, they openly admitted they wanted to destroy the nuclear family. Considering a man and woman are required, willing it, they triangulated the genders and their willingness to cooperate with their own race (in every race). The entire world is not a tribe, there is no Best Ever Man and Best Ever Woman in the Whole World. Even if there were, they’re still gonna die. Stoicism explained this thousands of years ago. It’s futile, an ego trip. Say you reached this Peak. So what? Or more scary, now what? How lonely would that be? Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch is an abstraction, it isn’t an instruction manual. Americans misunderstand a 19th century philosophy book as 20th century, direct self-help (which is Freudian in origin). He was heavily, heavily sarcastic in his writings, a fact many 7/8th grade reading level Americans cannot perceive, due to the age and translation of the text.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10323/ddg#10331

At the fine-grained level, teasing and a kind of snorting sarcasm are among Nietzsche’s most common modes of expression. His writing is riddled with jokes and snarky comments. Unfortunately for readers, understanding the humor — or indeed recognizing when he’s having a laugh — often requires a pretty good familiarity with the history of philosophy, intellectual history, and arts in Europe up to his time. Nietzsche trained as a philologist, or what we would now call a “classicist,” and he assumes his reader is familiar with his classical references….

He was mocking the very guys who follow him dumbly, like Marx.

Poe’s law applies to old text too.

Context for:

‘It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.’

‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’

‘There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.’

‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’

‘I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step was a good thought, the second, a good word; and the third, a good deed.’

true joke joke true true, respectively

The second is very morbid because have you seen some injuries men returning from battle had back then? Lame, crippled, half their face missing.

The last is the Law of Attraction, if you wanna go there. Basic stoic thought control.

‘And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.’

A hopeful skeptic.

‘You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.’

Oh but that one isn’t edgy enough, bro!

‘Enjoy life. This is not a dress rehearsal.’

Don’t die for gains in the gym.

‘To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.’

Normies but Victorian. Cuz we’re so smart, with our internet access. Our ancestors didn’t understand shit, man. Where is our Shakespeare? We don’t have one. Carry on.

Relative to the gender role thing:

‘Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.’

‘No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.’ Don’t be a lemming, especially chasing after something that can never be real. It seems like a secular attempt at theosis.

Then again:

I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule — and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)

Oh, the irony.

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Let’s actually read this thing:

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=fchd_facpub

Abstract

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

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

men also like averages better than mutants

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

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

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

Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.

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

biology looks at WHR already

and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.

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

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

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

That’s the most feminine female face possible.

Who cares what Brazil thinks?

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

SS is conducted by women in this species.

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

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

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

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

men are selected by women though

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

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

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

women don’t court, they are courted

these guys are hacks

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

no, that’s r/K already

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

no, untrue in humans

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

no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things

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

yes men age faster

might be genetic, as recently covered

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

selected by the females

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

women are the ones doing it

these people are idiots

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

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

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

and senesce more rapidly

logically impossible given your prior claim

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

they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?

Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.

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

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

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

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

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

Again why care?

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

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

It’s pure cope.

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

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

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

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

Many anthropologists believe

not science

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

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

Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.

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

This is not science.

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

WHR, FU.

So they’re debunking their own paper.

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

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

no

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

Mixed race ad propaganda explained.

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

Everyone knows.

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

These people are morons.

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

r v K

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

Pro-fat argument.

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

association is weak, not causation

distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot

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

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

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

Accurate.

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

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

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

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

????

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

no, relatively means you’re wrong

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

Paternal age studies debunked this.

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

Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

It’s called marriage.

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

weakness

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

r-types, not real men

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

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

Because only pedophiles like children sexually.

Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.

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

duh

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

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

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

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

not science

also not causation

when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong

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

aka NOT EUROPE.

Why is this being applied to white people?

Who is this intellectually dishonest?

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

unproven, not science

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

Biology explained this.

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

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

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

“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE

you are making that up

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

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

BULLSHIT SON.

non-adaptive adaptations are impossible

clue’s in the name

what mental midgets wrote this shit?

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

no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu

there are young ugly people and older hot ones

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

MAY.

That wall of text for MAY?

MAYBE?

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

No, we call those sexual predators.

This is now the Pedo Paper.

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

aka we guessed

not science

and there is no anomaly

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

I doubt it.

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

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

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

aka manjaw

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

This is not a paper. It’s a joke.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotony

wiki-tier

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

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

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

talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this

anthropology is nothing

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

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

Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes

Neotony – large forehead (3rd)

Peramorphic – short forehead

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

Peramorphic – square or manjaw

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

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

Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!

Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!

What sort of weeb would cite this?

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

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

Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!

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

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

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

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

those are pedophiles

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

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

RIGGED!

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

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

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

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

Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light

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

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

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

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

Genetic load explains that.

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

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

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

Aging fathers, ugly kids

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

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311035

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.

Abstract

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.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sins-Of-The-Fathers

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

https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/dads-smoking-before-conception-harms-kids/

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.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000682

e.g.

“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?

https://www.fertilitybridge.com/blog/2018/4/11/battleforivfmarketwallstreetvsprivatepractice

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

https://hmcisrael.com/specialty/ivf-israel/

“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.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648044

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility/

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513814000269

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812000475

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816302318

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:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816301283

“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:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816303671

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381400052X

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

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

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

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

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

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

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

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women…. making…. mate choices?

mutation load is important?

 

The broader mouth is masculine

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

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

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

Apparently most people can’t use their eyes.

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

Hourglass has nothing to do with fat

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

QED.

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

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

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

Extreme hourglass is up to 13-14.

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

35-22=13

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

Make-up can do that, sure.

It’s all the lighting and angles, right?

Disney is piss-easy to analyse

That’s why children love it. And I don’t even have to make you sit through a lecture.

e.g.

This also explains non-Western maligned figures such as Kaali, scary mother who’d go to war for her children.

A coward would’ve seen the dragon, the power of women, and run away. He’d forever think of women as only Lilith – pure evil, because he was trying to trespass where he didn’t belong (as an unworthy suitor).

For a modern example, picture the ghetto scum who shout pornographic things at women and act surprised when they’re told to fuck off. They set the crude tone.

Every man alive knows the difference between saying “nice dress” and “nice tits”. They both mean the same thing, it’s a question of showing respect. If you don’t respect WHOEVER you speak to, why should they show respect to you?

It isn’t actually a compliment, to other men they don’t say ‘sexy’, they say “you look good”, they imply virtue. They give respect.

It reminds me of “give him a chance” …why? You date him if you want, women are not a lottery.

It’s bullshit when women say it about their fat friend and it’s dangerous when men say it about creeps. Men don’t have female creepdar.

I despise fake femininity because it suppresses the wrathful impulse to punish wrongdoing and protect the good. That side always comes out eventually. If it isn’t protective, it can turn abusive much like false masculinity’s aggression, made from buried passivity and resentment.

Misogynists see the wrathful side of every woman because the women sense it and are correctly punishing their misogyny. You are not entitled to kind treatment, it is earned. If you treat women like shit, don’t expect women to act like that’s acceptable. Men set societal standards in morality but women have the task to enforce them.

Feminism just thought it could fuck with evolutionary formula  because men dropped the standards for themselves and men changed the rules to evade paternal responsibilities (now the taxpaying man funds the deadbeat male).

Tapping into female energy

Women need to be told this?

Women need to be told this.
I oppose fakers of masculinity and femininity because the energy is off and it doesn’t work but people mistake it for the real thing. Femininity isn’t just doing nothing, obviously.
It has nothing to do with men though. In a room full of women and all alone, being able to do that is normal. The mind isn’t the enemy, the mind isn’t some anxious blob of neuroticism like modern people assert. Neither is intelligence purely male, to look after a baby that can’t tell you what it needs requires a very real intelligence. In fact, intelligence is neither male nor female, the basic level of it is human. Too many skills overlap to think otherwise but men are quicker with rationalizations to protect their ego. This comes down to less of a work performance mindset and remembering you’re a person first. For men too, it would be useful to remember you are not a gear in a machine and to stop ruminating. A barrage of heavy self-loathing is not “thinking”.
The body’s already male or female so you don’t need to push it hard or try to parody your gender role.

The scourge of the bitter mother

I wanted to write about something for a while that really doesn’t help the right-wing and only appears to move Overton. I expect a lot of hate for this, but …fuck it. As you can see, it’s a taste of their own medicine. Judge not lest. 5,000+ words.

If you don’t like it, shake it off.

Nobody talks about it.

We all see it, nobody says a word.

Who are they?

The prissy mothers you see all over the internet, so full of scathing resentment of other women that it almost tinges the screen green. One of their favourite topics is rape. They will go on and on with a Just World fallacy a five-year old would balk at, victim blaming women for, basically, “asking for it”.


That… isn’t how it worked. Ever?

It’s like saying “don’t get burgled”, if they target you/r house, that’s it. The predator of man is man and the predator of woman is man and if men can’t fight off other men, what hope do we have?

Crickets from the women who think, genuinely believe, they know everything.

Their “advice” boils down to “don’t be attractive”… sorry, I didn’t realize I stumbled into a fat acceptance meeting?

With friends like these, who is the enemy, again?
Whatever you look like, the way men work, some of them will find it hot. Yes, even camo pants and bulky sweaters. Should I walk around in a three-piece suit like it’s sexual Kevlar? Some of us are so innately sexy, honey, whatever we wear looks good. Sorry???

Ah, but they’d find fault with that too, huh? The New Shrews.

Everything you do is bad and you’re a bad woman because they don’t like you.

No, fuck you. Fuck you and your abundance of time to tell other people how to live.

Some of us aren’t here for male attention and we were here first. Sit down, Sandra.

You hate femininity. It isn’t evil, it’s not sinful, it’s divine and beautiful and sensuality =/= sexuality.

The enemy pours poison in your ear to think otherwise. Genophilia is good too.

A woman in a nice red dress isn’t looking to steal your husband, calm down.
Everyone fears the Marilyns of the world (like Kibbe Romantics can help their bone structure!) but nobody suspects the real sluts, the Graces and Audreys and other yacht girls and homewreckers (true story). If you actually observed, the women who unapologetically dress like women (no hate) are typically the least promiscuous. What is there to gain, they’re already attractive. Do we ask men to hide their shoulders because a woman might fancy them? It’s absurd and socially oppressive. We aren’t savages and even they had greater freedom. Why would a natural, feminine woman want leftovers either, if they’re even looking for a man? However, desperate women (for sex or A Man or marriage) can’t get away with dressing for show because 1. it’s unnatural to them, 2. having no taste, they don’t know how and 3. they want less attention on their actions, such as sleeping around. This is common female experience and suggests to me these women never got out much. Or they’re veering to the mean girls end of the spectrum, like a clinical narcissist.

“If I can’t have it, no one can!” – crazy hoe

No contact lenses can hide those green eyes, babe.

They hate the signal (esp. of youth) because they don’t have it, not because it’s wrong.
This is the frenemy and we aren’t thick, we can sense it. They can actually gaslight women into feeling bad about their beauty, it’s sick. Nor does a beautiful girl or woman have a duty to sleep with anyone, it’s innocent visual pleasantness, what is up with American entitlement now? It’s obnoxious. Do they key sports cars too, are they these people? Do they stamp on daisies and kick puppies?

Your opinion has no basis in fact. Beauty is scientific and good.

It’s good for society and people who want to corrupt that innocence are the ones you should be denigrating.

As I read, and it always stuck with me, women were raped in a time of petticoats and no ankles, clothing has nothing to do with it. Predators go for body parts and it’s like saying we should ban kitchen knives because serial killers like them. In the First World we expect a basic standard of behaviour. This type of female, however, chooses to prod and cackle at the misfortunes of other (white) women. It’s cunty.
It puts people off the right-wing and makes all mother types look un-maternal (what compassion, such love), embittered and bored (constantly carping on about pop culture online). If all you do (80%+) is bitch, you’re a bitch – and this goes for the men too.
I’m tired of hearing the same strawman applicable only to middle-class American campus dwellers and Sex and the City groan-inducing comparisons. I’m sick of it. Please find a new fiddle and a different tune. The broken record is putting off me and I frequently shitpost on b.

Don’t make me meme you.
Get your ass to a therapist if other women (minding their own business) make you irrationally angry, that is insane. Misogyny is possible in women (self-loathing) albeit rare and racial loathing is presently more common but sexual, gendered loathing of the feminine (or of an action only when a woman does it) isn’t unheard of. The Bible calls it envy because it’s your in-group. God made femininity, who are you to say that’s wrong?

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-22.htm

greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness

All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.”

7/8 bitches. Off the high horse, time’s up.

Cut it out like a tumour before it kills you.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/green-eyed-monster.html

Why green? It’s poison, these emotions will stress your body and harm you.
They won’t harm the object that triggered you this cotton-picking week.

http://www.sensationalcolor.com/color-meaning/color-words-phrases/green-with-envy-2109

You’re not helping, you know you’re not helping the rest of us but worst of all, don’t care. It’s all about dem feels. And male approval from strangers on the internet, which is exactly what instawhores do too?
So don’t act as if you’re better than them. You need your narc supply just like they do. They get it from tit pics, you get it from bashing the women posting titty pics. Where is the good here? Do men really need to be told up isn’t down? Repeatedly telling men the obvious like they’re a retarded toddler is the reason they avoid you or are otherwise rightly suspicious of your motives. Bitching doesn’t add anything to the conversation and most of you are incapable of rational thought. You add nothing. Shouldn’t you be enjoying your families than dedicating 50+ hours a month to online shitposting? What kind of example does that set to the little ones? Oh, a woman has a career and she’s happy? Wow, how awful. Cue laugh track, right? Spinsters didn’t exist in the 50s! And nuns aren’t real women because they didn’t breed! The longer we look, the more it looks like you oppose the latter rather than the former. Why do you care? It’s a literal waste of your time, take up canning. Be useful. I laugh at genetic suicides as much as the next edgykin but there’s a limit and that’s about half an hour a month. Yet… this is ALL you do, all you contribute? Nah, fam. I’m not having it. Considering the odds of collapse and unrest, you could pop them out like a rabbit, have fifty kids by IVF and they could still all die in the next ten years. You’re not immortal because you have a pussy. Your plan isn’t foolproof, you’re foolhardy. I bet the doctor who delivered your baby was a woman or certainly the midwife and God help you if you need the help of a female engineer one day to fix your machines. Women contributing to society isn’t the issue. The way we do it doesn’t matter, the fact we do it, does. We could all sit around taking welfare for period pain and we don’t. There is an almost autistic obsession in these harpy women that conforms to the baby cult for privilege points and it’s ridiculous in historical context. You’re still outnumbered, look at Asian and African demographics. Your sons could easily, easily die in the next war. There is no laurel to rest on, the pedestal doesn’t exist. The work isn’t done once the midwife hands you the baby. Woman is a lifelong career.
I expect emotional incontinence from SJWs but I’ve tolerated it from supposed “tradwomen” for long enough.


Clean house, you sluts.
Fun fact: a slut refers to a woman who keeps an untidy home and/or demeanor. You are the epitome of uncouth. This is the true reason women can’t be openly right-wing amongst themselves, women like you. You’ll smack ’em down like a bug for trying. Where is the class? No, there’s only shame for having simple dignity like having nice hair or dresses.

This is you.

Getting into slanging matches like the slag down the road isn’t persuasion. If it’s an easy target, stop and think. The seekers who typically find these women first don’t feel the slightest warmth from the very people who could help them (maybe) but would rather beat them when they’re already down. Stunning and brave.
Women need to help one another, that’s what feminism was supposed to be before they stole it. Hating men is backwards, hating other women is also backwards. Both sexes need one another or society dies.
When I can feel the toxic waves of victim blame (tell the little girls of Rotherham that, you’re just like the social workers who told them they were hookers) and jealousy that a woman isn’t part of the Mombot hivemind by native disposition, even I feel deterred from certain ideas. Burn the witch! Shun the outcast! There have always been exceptions – Captain Obvious. It is fundamentally off-putting. It’s totally negative and offers no useful, practical advice. They fill in the blanks of a stranger’s life with a catastrophic worst case scenario (clinically unhealthy). https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-catastrophizing/
e.g.

>I can see her skin/shape
>She must be a slut

Sorry, do you live in porn? Are you from Pornland, where that isn’t a non sequitur?
Move to Saudi Arabia if the sight of perky breasts offends you so.

You know what proves a woman’s character? Her actions!

Shocking, I know! It’s called integrity!

A woman can have hypothetical power over men and never, ever abuse it!
(Psychologically: They know they would in the same situation and project).

Some of us have a moral compass. Fashions are based on social norms, practicality, and not individual choice. There will be people who hate me and pre-judge me for wearing heels and other people who like me for the exact same thing. It’s a waste of time caring. Pleasing everyone is impossible.

A woman could walk around naked (and if you live in Sweden, in their culture it’s normal) but if she doesn’t sleep around, you can’t insult her! Because she doesn’t do the thing! You can’t call her a slut or other behaviour-based insults unless she actually does those things. Otherwise it’s called defamation (there were/are laws about slandering a woman’s sexual honour specifically because other women are the main culprits, think Medusa’s punishment) and you’re a nothing more than a jealous, vindictive cunt.

Fact you can take to the bank.
(Yes, men do it too, so? Everyone already knows they’re bitter about what they can’t have).

I heard from a man once some piece of witty gold. He overheard some women talking about me (my dress was knee-length, people!) and I was upset about it. To console me, because they were really jealous over the fact he was there with me and felt responsible, he said:

“How do you know a woman’s attractive – without ever seeing her?” he grinned, leaning down.

“I dunno, how?” I said, trying not to cry in public.

“All the other women hate her.”

I laughed and it’s never bothered me since. Great riddle. Great man.

It’s true, they just want us to cover up and hide away. Is sleeveless banned? Are ungloved hands too pretty? A woman with good skin or even features must wear a face mask like some Harrison Bergeron costume party? What’s with the social acceptability of bitter individuals nowadays?

Another common, more overtly vitriolic one:
>own vagina
>expect to be raped


No. We fought wars over this. No. And does that mean men or little boys deserve it too? [No.]
In the onslaught of anti-white propaganda, the last thing women need is to be shamed for having tits by so-called allies. These snipes want other women to be ruined and traumatized for life because the idea makes them feel good. It’s twisted bullshit. It’s creepy how they salivate over fellow women’s hypothetical suffering “you’ll be sorry” style.
Were the women in Germany on NYE “asking for it”? No, STFU. Shit happens. You know who else thinks all white women are automatic whores? Muslims, straight outta the Muslim playbook (Koran). Such progress. Much culture.

If women are the greatest victims of this toxic culture, victim blaming is the last thing anyone should do. Does every woman have a man to protect her, family or husband? No. Funds to live somewhere safe? No. Money to buy clothing that doesn’t look High St i.e. a little bit trashy? No. They don’t care about the truth, they care about being sadists and stamping down women. I can’t be doing with control freaks, it’s so Mrs Grundy. I waited years to bring this up.

Slander is a cancer. It’s the hallmark of postmodern morals. Don’t do it.

If you’re going to take the moral high ground, you don’t get to sneer from it. People found you because they wanted help, not yet another woman-basher finger-wagging and trying to hide behind the pitiful criticism shield “as a mother”, the shit-tier right-winger’s As a Woman…

Being a mother takes nine months, being a woman takes a lifetime. Being a good woman comes before everything else. Is anyone else done with the Pharisee Matriarchs? I’m just fully done at this point.

I’d like to plop those women down in front of some of the infertile women I know and make them tell them, to their face, why they’re a bad person. To the women and wives who cannot afford children yet and refuse to be irresponsible burdens on the taxpayers or their husband. These are real people you humiliate in sweeping statements, like you know their life. How presumptuous and ugly. They don’t dare start on men, more worthy of scorn, who sit around drinking, hollering, deadbeating. No, start on the easy targets. You’ll really get women to look up to you that way…

Face it, you aren’t tall enough for this ride. Hop off the bandwagon before we chuck you.

These women have privilege, sure, I haven’t seen a single one of these women who isn’t firmly middle-class. Your comfort is not the norm and your assumptions are frankly embarrassing. You’re out of touch, how nice that you have an 18-acre farm and don’t need earning potential, but shut up and let your husband do the talking like the Bible says. By the way, I’m 99% sure he visits hookers on the side like most married “conservative” men who spend their time verbally opposing “degeneracy”. “We live in a society…” doesn’t really work when I can almost see your husband cringe behind you.

Twenty years ago, these women would just be bashing men. It’s only now white feminism has turned on their page 3 hating kind they magically find the right. How convenient. They’re so principled.

I’m waiting on one of them to eventually get sued for providing medical advice without a license and lawsuit insurance (all doctors have).
Telling people they have to have children could actually kill them, maternal death happens.
The “disclaimers” you put on videos and such don’t actually count? A judge would laugh at you. If you have a channel and hundreds of hours of footage devoted to guilt-tripping women into getting pregnant, yes, you knew what you were doing. There is a very clear motive.

Expert is that way of behaving, intending that people do exactly as you say. I’m very careful to look like a raving nobody despite having real authority. Crazy like a fox. How many fell since I started? Still here.

Showing is fine, telling is legally binding.

You wouldn’t tell them to go base jumping because oh, that’s dangerous!

It isn’t as if maternity services are lacking or non-existent, is it? IS IT.
It isn’t like labour is to women what war is to men. The most common cause of death or injury.

You can’t play leader without some real culpability. Yay for being treated equally!

It reminds me of the PUAs who think putting up a sign about recording in their bedroom legally counts, when porn actresses need to sign a model release (to record) and legal distribution rights contract (who gets to see the footage). Idiots don’t know their law and it’s your own fault. Arrogance is illegal in many forms.

The fact you filmed without legal consent means the whole interaction is unconsenting!

Back to the scourge.

Those women are not good mothers, I can tell you now. These women act like saints because they’ve pushed a baby out of their twat with an epidural. Your fertility is not an accomplishment and fertility is neither a sign of moral grace. “As a mother….” type, pretentious and sickening. It isn’t about the politics, it’s about the attitude. It’s ugly in lefties too.
I waited and waited, hoping for a natural evolution of the dialogue.

If all we can do is bitch about pop culture and insult other white people, we’re already dead.

Where is the prosocial focus, people? Where is the building one another up?

If a woman gets the instilled sense nothing she ever does is right, feeding that won’t make her listen.

Where’s the discussion of quality? You might be married yes, but to a piece of shit, we don’t know? Show us! Just getting a ring on your finger isn’t the status symbol of old, there are plenty of dirtbags buying a Moissanite ring and lie that it’s a diamond, as if that metaphor doesn’t show you how far we’ve fallen as a civilization . “Passing off” is illegal? That’s grounds for divorce, honestly. Traditions exist for a reason. Where’s the filter here? Crickets on the subject. Helpful. Don’t even bring up the savagery of lust matches, that might make unwise people question themselves and we can’t have that! Anything but that!
We don’t have the courtship rituals or family filtration anymore, plenty of trash get married in Vegas. There is no innate status to marriage anymore due to this ease, you aren’t necessarily a better person for it. In spite of this, oceans of smug.

Er…

Why?

Really, why?

I haven’t seen a single person address why. I’ve seen a lot of footage.
You just stand there, smug because you got married. No rhyme or reason.


Something that happened to you. All the agency of a stump. Lefties, at least, are smart enough not to be smug about a party that happened once. It isn’t a big deal. If you swore never to divorce, we might care.
Are you superior to Newton, Joan of Arc, Sappho or Tesla, then? They never got married and they’re more valuable human beings than most who will ever live.

It’s such a superficial way of viewing it.

Married = Moral.

No? Plenty of awful people are married. Your contribution isn’t that. It isn’t even children, no shortage of shitty parents in the world. And what do women do once the kids grow up, wither and die? Grow warts and become witches in the outback?
Is a woman’s only contribution her loin meat? Don’t children and older women contribute anything to society?

Crickets from the gobby girls. If it isn’t ALL about them and their “lifestyle”, they don’t care.

Like everything in the world will magically become good if everyone is married?
I don’t have to test your IQ to know it’s low if you really believe that.

Before somebody asks about the traditions, it’s logical proof of gender role success:

If a man can’t afford to get engaged, he can’t afford to get married. If a man can’t afford to get married, he can’t afford to “keep” a wife, as it was commonly well known. He certainly can’t afford to raise kids, plural, (3-4+) if a tiny diamond is out of reach. She isn’t working, right? Single income, just like you wanted.

h/t the snarky conservative with Dixon Diaz

And why diamond? Well, you intend to be married for life and pass on the stone to your daughter, don’t you? Everything else cracks. Americans don’t remember but Europe does. Look at the antique market. Plenty of diamonds, hardly any other stones. Emeralds, considered a coloured diamond, are rare choices because they scratch to buggery very easily. Try doing your research before vapidly deferring to “women are crazy”. I’ve had to help male friends shop for engagement rings and they were shocked it was so logical (always spring for the comfort band, guys).

There used to be entire books (h/t WM A Alcott) about how to be a good husband, it was a whole genre! Men would take decades, growing up and learning, training. And you think…. turning up?

~whispers~ I don’t think so.

Husband doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are plenty of good bachelors and plenty of adulterous scumbag husbands. Go outside once in a while.

These snooty housewives can be just as hypocritical as the SJWs, ignoring any data they dislike. Anything that’s complicated, unknown or hard to think about, they reject out of hand. It’s weak, I’m done sitting here silently waiting for women older than myself to get their shit together. They fawn over men for existing (sad) but hold women to impossible and contradictory standards. That is not healthy. It’s just as sick as the culture we grew up in. Get your act together and get over yourselves.
And they’re never great parents, always average at best. Like, if your life’s gonna revolve around something (or your ego): be dedicated to it. Read the research journals, cookbooks, encourage the best of both daughters and sons – don’t just do the bare minimum 50s housewife LARP in a frilly apron and act like everyone should kiss your feet for it.

They de-sexualise themselves like the Virgin Mary in a pathetic bid to get respect.
That doesn’t work. The fact you care so much about strangers’ opinions means you won’t get it.

I feel like posting tits or GTFO because they expect all the rapt male attention of jiggling D-cups and bring none of the substance. Okay, you …exist…

???

Now what?

Shouldn’t you be spending this time with your kids? Friends? Hobbies? Church?

You don’t see African women popping out eight kids acting like Gaia incarnate.
I saw a pregnant photo of Spencer’s Russian honeypot and I just burst out laughing.
She actually angled the shot so it looked like the sun was shining out of her belly.
That’s narcissism Beyonce would be proud of. I’m fairly certain it was heliocentrism, the Sun does not, in fact, shine out of your vag.
The Disney princesses aren’t married for a reason. You’re not important anymore.
This is an attitude problem which stems from callow pride and is also found among the ghetto. It isn’t classy, please stop.

“Oh, I cook my kids’ food!”

…. you’re SUPPOSED to!

The virtue signalling is obscene. “Well, I never had a one-night stand!” Neither have most women currently or in all human history. Your point?

They act as if pop culture is real. Look at the stats. No, it’s fake. Get out more.

Not that I let men off the hook. The man who acts like a hero for not being an alcoholic at the bar and spending his time with his children is literally doing the bare minimum also. Co-parenting is a trendy word for being.. normal. Children need a lot of time with both parents. Men don’t get to skip off to a club or hang around with their friends more than their wife. Neglect is a form of abuse, guys.

“The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” 1 Cor 7:4 When you marry, your time belongs primarily to your spouse. That’s the “commitment” part. I don’t get to take a job, turn up three days of five and wonder why I was fired.

Another common topic is clothing, as aforementioned. Because when the Queen wore that low cut coronation dress, she was such a skank. Because shaming the female figure is helpful for our purposes in encouraging women.
You disgust me. Unless you’re wearing a niqab, some man somewhere will find you attractive and according to the Bible, it’s his fault. Are you holier than the Bible too?

Before someone tries to @ me with a quote like I haven’t read it, should women have long hair?
I think a woman should have long hair as long as it wouldn’t be dangerous to her and as long as it’s more flattering. Now, how many men with #opinions on long hair, have never had it? You have to tie it up, you have to pin it back. Braiding is an efficient way of keeping it clean and neat. So when the Bible slags off braiding of the hair, what they mean is the three-hour updo with a solid gold pagan headpiece when your husband can’t afford it. [1]

Pictured: probably out of most budgets.

It does NOT extend to keeping it up out of food (she cooks, right?) or away from machinery so she isn’t scalped (you like her scalp, right?) or clean and not covered in baby vomit. The feminists don’t get everything wrong, you know. Just most things.
While I’m on my high horse for the season, the Bible does actually tell women they need to work. Stupid Yanks confuse this with taxable income. Per hour, housewives work more total hours than their husbands.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/chapter4/chapter4.html
Acknowledge the work women already do, because the State sure doesn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work
“In the United States, the latest available data from 2014 shows that women undertake 14.58 hours per week on household labor.” Gee, why are women entitled to alimony? Almost like wife is a job! It’s “free” conditional on the lifelong union, because home management is really a full-time management job, if you’re doing it properly, hence the jarring pricing once the union is dissolved (by the State, not God). Investments have value.
Women are supposed to work as hard as men, equally yoked, it’s in the Bible. (Proverbs 31:13 on) we must pull our own weight, independence isn’t some newfangled (Jewfangled?) invention from the 1960s, women entered the workplace always. If she’s going to do that work anyway (say, the increasingly popular flexitime from home) who are you to a tell a marital union you have no part of, that she can’t earn money from it? That’s between her and her husband, it’s nothing to do with some judgmental opinionated nobody whose only qualification is a vagina.

I don’t see them pining over the deep meaning of Timothy. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Applies between women n’ all. That’s the job of her family. Even if you’re related to a woman, you probably don’t understand her situation from the outside and if you aren’t going to physically help, shut up! The nag talks and talks and pretends they’re helpful, really they’re emotionally venting and trying to look good. Das pride.

1: It is also important to dress and act your station. The modern obsession with dressing poor is rude if you aren’t because it makes your family look poor and your husband look like a failing provider. Read old books.

Corinthians also discusses why not everyone is suited for marriage “I want you to be free from anxieties…” and personally, I don’t think any of these women have a right to sneer on the celibate. No, your baby-making twat doesn’t make you morally superior to a woman who acts like a nun (and look at the stats, it’s common to not sleep around now). Defaming other women is expressly condemned throughout the Bible and it’s sick to see women calling everyone who isn’t exactly like them a whore, basically. God made your body, don’t be ashamed of it (just don’t flash anyone either). This isn’t complicated.

Would I want to be friends with most of these women, I think. And no is the inevitable answer, they are quick in temper and scorn without due consideration and reason.

“She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.”
Shouldn’t we expect the kindest behaviour from woman to woman?
If you’re going to be a cunt, at least be somewhat practical and recognize the reasons and exceptions, Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn’t dropkick the fallen but you wouldn’t know from how they behave and give all of us righties a bad name.

Mommy blogs are the ideal: helpful, practical and sanctuaries from the reminder of degeneracy.

Up with Mommy blogs and fashion blogs and home decor blogs and hell, female DIY and natural science blogs. Down with preachy whiny Domestic Goddess nauseating delusions of superiority.

Speaking about good women like they’re shit is bad for the cause, shame on you, Brutus.
It only gives men and foreigners an excuse to treat us like it too. Judas got paid, Patreon whores.

They are obsessed with finding people they are allegedly superior to, I’m bored now.

“I’m not like the other girls tee hee hee” is over.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/my-xtmas-wish-for-you-please-please.html

Hatred is broadly speaking a waste of time, unless you need it to feel normal.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-red-pill-must-indeed-be-pill.html

“Those who talk most about themselves having-been Red-Pilled are examples of ‘false-awakening’: still asleep but merely dreaming that they have awoken”

I don’t think new readers quite understand how often I take the piss out of myself.

This is a shit blog and entirely pointless, we won’t change a thing. I know that. You won’t change a thing either. At least I don’t do the grandiose thing and put my hair in rollers to appear in a Youtube video with a face like a slapped arse.

We have limits.

Narcissism in the Family

The covert narcissist will pull others down to feel better about themselves. It ain’t right. This simply isn’t cricket, ya hear?

“Though the narcissistic father is a formidable bully, I suspect the narcissistic mother is, in many ways, often much worse, if for no other reason than that she can cunningly exploit the stereotype of the angelic, saintly mother who criticizes her victim only out of ‘concern’. Remember that while we normally think of narcissists as self-absorbed egotists, many can come across convincingly as selfless and altruistic, all for the purpose of gaining narcissistic supply from being thought of as such saintly types.”

http://unitycounsellingservice.co.uk/understanding-narcissistic-behaviour-narcissist-hates-others-happiness-joy/

They laugh at women for their special qualities, I think that was the obvious thing. Yes, there have been plenty of female geniuses, read a book and stop giggling about women “acting like men”, the brain doesn’t work like that. For example, IQ is more dependent on white matter organisation. Guess what women have more of?
You aren’t cool, you’re ignorant. You aren’t edgy for telling white women they’re dirt like the media does. None of this stuff is as simple as you make out, once you actually look.

Read something that isn’t a magazine.

The stereotypical housewife is an ignorant shrill cow and you’ll filling it to a tee. It’s a pox on the pro-natal right.

This is why we can’t have nice things

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

Pick one.

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

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

Don’t talk to strangers.

Not just etiquette for kids!

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

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

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

Because they liked your “outfit”.

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

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

Ask yourself: is this something ghetto trash would do?

If so, never ever do it!

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

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

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

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

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

Subtitle: and how to make a classy exit.

This would be useful.

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Like insincere compliments are hard to get?

Bad compliments are insults.

Why?

They make a heap of degrading assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge ask, I know.

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

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

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

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

Observation:

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

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

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

WHO DESIGNED THIS?

It’s impossible to impress the insecure

I was thinking about why women don’t feel socially safe looking feminine when I thought back to all the personal attacks a woman suffers for dressing-up from men who feel insecure (less able to acquire her, like furniture).

If you have standards, they’re too much (despite being totally personal). “High maintenance” like adults are meant to be anything else. What’s the male version? Is a man wearing a suit desperate for attention? Should we change the female uniform code so women don’t have to dress “sexy” (this I would accept).

Make up your minds.

If you don’t have standards, there is also something wrong with you. “Lazy, sloppy, let herself go.” According to what societal standard, they don’t exist. If it’s legal to dress a certain way, socially we agreed to let it slide with the hippies.

Do they want clothing laws brought in? Would they magically want exemption? It’s a weird kinda controlling like every woman is their wife and they have the right to look a certain way near her in public (….no). A woman you aren’t married to does not represent you (narcissists think this). They feel entitled to control people they aren’t even related to purely on the basis of sex. Hence, what they want changes, to see how high you’ll jump for them. This isn’t porn, you don’t get to choreograph how everything looks. It’s real life, women should be telling them to fuck off but they fear being hit. Instead we give them a disgusted look and hope they learn (they don’t, they just wanted a snippet of attention, however negative).

It’s a catch 22. Were it safe to show secondary characteristics (say, expensively tailored 50s dresses) women would still fear the verbal abuse from the men who claim they want a woman to look “good”.

The thot thing was a great example of how demented men can project anything they like onto a woman via her appearance. Imagine if we did it to men – oh, he is wearing a hoodie so he’ll never make anything of himself.

They say we rely too much on magazines (most don’t read) yet expect women to dress “sexy, but not pornographic” as one male friend puzzling over it, put it. “Yeah...that doesn’t make sense. Men are just instincts until they think about it. That isn’t consistent – at all – but it feels right.” They feel entitled to a certain visual display (Postmodern Lie, men display sexually like a peacock, females select in evolution) and presume it’s all for them, the object woman must want (personal) attention (if we did, we’d come up to you and talk) but that a woman’s appearance should entice ..but not be distracting. That is literally impossible.

It’s mutually exclusive to say, look casual but like you made an effort, to look cute but also sexy. It’s magazine rhetoric, funnily enough. Men fall for it more than women, being more visual. They think it’s possible deep down and get frustrated with women for not performing. (The times I wear dresses and heels, men whine it’s impractical, literally, we think why do we even bother). And a lot of the way a woman looks, we have no control over. Some women are naturally neither, it’s about features. Some women can only look cute and sexy doesn’t work if they try (the ones men tend to insult as slutty, they aren’t but they’re “trying too hard” so the male brain codes “for me, male” = slut, because they’re insecure and assume only a slut would want their notice) but some women can’t help looking sexy, (same with men, it’s natural dimorphism, they don’t have to try) whether it’s cup size or the way they walk (height, build, bones in men). The maliciousness of envy haunts these people, it’s a sick society of mediocre bitches. Being good-looking (and god forbid, not trying to hide it) is not a sin. It’s the classic model who fears people looking at them. Why should they wear clothes that don’t fit and give them injuries (really, they do, it’s biomechanical stress)? Why shame women like there’s something wrong with the way God made them? What’s wrong with women? No wonder so many dress like men! (Or men like shit). Or look fat deliberately so men don’t see them. (Or wear layers to look fat). To drop off the radar where you’re a (insult) if you try and a (insult) if you don’t , at any particular event or time. This isn’t like pets on parade. It’s maddening to try and explain this past men’s egotism (sometimes women’s) and intellectualizations caused by it.

If someone enjoys looking healthy, let them!

And every man’s line of Thing is different so were it possible to please ONE man all the rest would still hassle us. More this, less that, STFU.

It’s like something out of Harrison Bergeron. So many men have become SJWs thought-policing how women look and even WALK. “Too much wiggle” one friend was told! Pelvic width isn’t a fucking choice!

Women have so much in this species we can barely walk!

Women also get told we’re sticking out our chest when we have correct posture. WTF.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333161/Men-judged-say-women-employed-looks-says-Clare-Balding-hits-gender-divide-TV.html

“Men are judged on what they say while women are employed for their looks”

I bet you before decrying that line as false, the very men I’m referencing will look up photos of what she looks like before weighing the merit of her argument. Studies back her up, job applicants are judged more on looks in women and more on words in men. A man’s word literally means more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3388287/Women-judged-appearance-job-hunting-Employers-sexes-rate-women-photos-judge-men-words-application.html

It’s easier to lie than get a face transplant. Women would rather choose the male’s bias criterion.

This nails it.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/oh-just-fk-off-say-women-20180125143116

Rachel Williams, a female from Kent, explained: “Apparently, if you have a vagina people think they have the right to judge you on every single thing you do . Even your actual vagina.

OK, hypothetically we should look like adults. And children shouldn’t.

Why aren’t men held to comparable standards? Where’s the t-shirt shaming brigade?

What happened to the Biblical judge not lest ye be judged? There is no societal standard because it’s only half the population, that isn’t a standard. This won’t distract us from the hypocrisy of men dreading the day standards return.

Imagine if we insisted all men looked tall. That one feature. Men would howl. Well, many women aren’t naturally curvy, you’re probably thinking of plastic surgery curves. I have to keep telling men, you can stand up straight around me if you want, I won’t insult you for it. They instantly perk up. The naturally attractive ones have got it in the neck so long they slump to avoid further persecution. Think of the neck pain.

Back to this one particular man in my life, he nailed part of his psyche.

It has nothing to do with you but it boosts your mood to see a pretty face, a nice body.”

“Endorphins or some shit.” bless

“This is going to sound terrible but when we see a woman who looks good, we instantly think – she’d look good with us. I feel like a selfish prick saying that but it’s true. It’s the mystery, maybe? It’s easy to forget she might not be interested if we’re really emotionally invested in that picture in our heads, normally showing off to our mates.”

There is no polite way to reject a narcissist. Ask a bartender.

There’s an element of using women as status symbols. Badges of attractiveness. Sounds like a pedestal.

“The same man can be secure or insecure at different times. Even if there’s nothing actually wrong with us. We’re always a little insecure around women we personally feel are attractive. To us. We tell ourselves it makes us braver but looking back there’s the odds of feeling like you need the ground to swallow you up because you acted up and now it just makes you cringe, long after that person forgot you. It’s a learning experience, I know women have something like it but there’s a pressure. Men have a stronger memory for rejection, I think but most of us get over it and feel it isn’t personal.”

As they learn more about the individual women, they project less onto her. That’s how crushes can die.

Back to the pathological ones.

It’s a cruel burden to place on women. Look good for me and nobody else but me – in public. How the fuck does that work, in practice? Anyone? And if we catch on and don’t appease them, out trot the ad hominems. Verbal harassment is illegal but they never expect to be held accountable for the way they target women, it’s a niche social predation. They get a thrill from ego-bashing. It’s nothing to do with the woman or a nebulous intellectual concept like standards. They want to attack someone vulnerable compared to them, it is bullying.

It’s treated like a character flaw, entirely unrelated to behavior (which at least has an argument for character alas, hypocrisy looms again). Individual women don’t choose the fashions of our time, gay men do. We work with it e.g. hemlines.

Shit post deserves shit graphic.

There are two kinds of the wrong kind of attention: physical predation and bullying.

Make up your mind guys. Men never used to be allowed to comment specifically on a woman’s appearance. Notice how they looked better? Men don’t even know what they want.

The absolute worst part is the interrogation that younger men now think is their right. You wouldn’t hear Tim Gunn trying to beat down women for what they wear or how much time they spend on their appearance. And that’s his job! If you watch these gay guys, the pros are actually very professional and helpful. If you’re going to be judgmental, at least be a pro about it?

Meanwhile, it’s rather common to hear accusatory trap questions like “how long did you spend on your hair?”

If women look like shit, it’s men’s fault. If they punish us emotionally (women are more sensitive, they know this) then it’s no wonder they give up with natural self-expression. Women don’t dress well for sexual attention. That’s projection. It’s why men dress well and make an extra effort. The world is not a date. Women don’t even feel comfortable looking sexy/too sexy on a date because it isn’t authentic to their normal self. Men make us neurotic, I’ve heard it. Women just like feeling that way, we dress well around the house or when going out to see friends.

Looking the part can also be a marker of respect, women dressing up for one another is respectful. The guys who complain about the women who are deliberately dressing like shit in revenge (normally fashion setters) are chalked up as success. Good, he feels disrespected, the little bitch. They don’t want the attention. Why wear a dress if a creepy guy you know is going to feel entitled to openly comment on your legs? You can’t help having legs.

“Tights cover up too much they aren’t sexy. Oh, but some tights are too sexy….”

We cannot win. We wear what we like at this point. Same as men.

If only men took more pride in their own appearance, they’d understand the importance of presentation. It shows your values system e.g. short to high heels – productivity versus artistry. Women in clubs aren’t really thinking about men, they’re thinking about dancing and looking good in photos. The reason for being there.

Men really do assume on this that the world revolves around them (average men of no accomplishment) and when women respond to the dis-incentives, they cry like babies about it.

If you habitually ask women what they weigh, they’ll start to swaddle up their body in so many layers you stop asking. Men can be so rude nowadays. Hot men on the Tube also cover up to avoid comments and being groped! If you ask the rude ugly ones the same things, they get defensive but in a hostile way. “What are you implying?” I heard one say to a friend. Well, he was trying to neg her into looking vain, random man who approached her based on her looks. They look like morons. …Insulting someone doesn’t make them like you, it’s all so transparent. Negging someone codes in female emotional intelligence as = I feel you’re superior to me, here’s some reverse psychology. Men are not the Svengali masterminds over women they believe. A woman who likes them will pretend it works, humour them like a child. I don’t care if those ones end up alone but there is a general trend of sneering at people for following too much fashion or not enough or merely dressing WELL. The opinions of normies and conformies is a degenerate model. Gotta point that out.

They’re walking brand advertising. Sometimes they tell you you should be wearing certain clothes and not the brand you look good in. Straight men can’t do fashion 9/10.

Look up all the clips of these buffoons mansplaining to Gordon Ramsey that he can’t cook. Go ahead. See how many you can tolerate. Arrogance is a hideous quality in either sex. Leave them to it. What do you care if they look like shit, it’s their life to ruin?

They treat other human beings like Barbies. Wear this, do that, don’t say that. Just like SJWs. They don’t explain that something is important to the genuinely naive and ask them to consider it. They are disrespectful. Women are being put off both SJWs and them. People are individuals. If people run blogs saying the opposite of me I don’t give a fuck.

Men are suddenly noticing the douchebag epidemic (used to hiding behind a screen where you literally can’t punch them) because the cancer is spreading to themselves.

“You have no right to criticize me” this man had heard, when he turned back an accusation of looking a certain way back on the d-bag. Self-awareness of a turnip. I’m sure there are obscure bullshit explanations you can pay for of what the prick was trying to do, maybe some crap about an AMOG when this lovely, charming, handsome man was quietly minding his own in a pub but human social groups respond well to cooperation. Poaching people is a sign you suck, you shouldn’t need to do that.

Stop fronting like you want a fight when you’d cry like a bitch not to get hit. These “little shits” acting like Scrappy Doo must represent a lot of the male death statistics from stupid life decisions. Keep bullying people and you’ll eventually hit on the ones who’d kill you for it. Life isn’t a movie, you are not Tyler.

(Handsome men aren’t all pricks, contrary to popular belief. In fact, they’re uncommonly nice. They don’t have to act all tough because they don’t feel lacking and they want women to know their personality. Ugly people often lie about how the good-looking ones – naturally- are often the complete package. They’re fault-finding in imaginary lands. The douchebags calling all loved-up men jerks who don’t appreciate women, where his version of ‘appreciate’ is using them as cum dumpsters.)

Someone else can make this into a graphic.

Woman likes nice, ugly man. D-bag says: he must be rich/what a cuck.
Woman likes handsome, nice man. D-bag says: he’s a jerk/she’s shallow.

You cannot impress insecure people because they are deluded. Reality offends them.

Woman hates man who treats her like shit. D-bag calls her a feminist cunt.
Woman hates man who is rude and immature. D-bag says she is in denial… or can’t handle him. ….Neither can men. He’s too cool. It’s his curse.

Insecure man and insecure woman like each other. D-bag thinks this is normal and how men and women have always interacted. Life is hopeless. Never change.

That is the sort of crap I oppose. It’s good for nobody.

Women since the dawn of time only had bitchy comments from other women. Nowadays, men are the prime bitches. Result? Nobody is attractive.

There’s also an anti-white component to it. I’ve never heard a white man who did this start on a non-white woman, especially an Asian, who they praise for the same things. Men seem to be enforcing a visible androgyny on white women, shaming us about literally making the average effort that is expected of mature adults. It’s really creepy to us. Why should his, one random guy’s, personal (sexual) tastes have any bearing on the way we are (gender is psychological) and what’s wrong with looking what we are (female)? Young men are literally talking down to women like they’re our fathers but overbearing and anti-feminine.

What’s going on?

They hate seeing happy people when they aren’t. If they can’t get involved (to drain you emotionally), they do the spiteful ego version of smashing up your sandcastle.

Then wonder why they’re lonely. Seriously?????

The most common sense explanation beside stalkers and rapists for catcalling? The way we look has nothing to do with them, we aren’t pieces of meat at market, it’s a human living their life rather than sitting around bored and angry in a ruminating comparison match. At times, it’s just low class men trying to get noticed by a woman who takes care of herself. If we could physically defend ourselves legally, the lip would stop. Men don’t go round telling one another to smile. It’s either polite chosen recognition (professional, friendly) or a personal, sexual signal. To try and control someone’s body like that, the foot-in-the-door domination of it, you might as well ask them to get on their knees. Translated power dynamic: Put your life on hold to do something that will satisfy me, go out of your way for a stranger. You can’t win. If you do it, they might take the forced signal as sexual interest in desperate delusion, if you don’t, they insult you for being normal and they’ve wasted your time on petty mind games. Get a life. In reality, some people won’t smile at you, macho man. They’re not the ones with issues. Men would seem gay if they tried to police one another like that, forcing a sexual power dynamic on an unsuspecting person. (Gay men do this to other men so don’t tell me I’m imagining it, it’s a key reason straights are freaked out. Being treated the way they treat women.)

Oh, you’re not interested, really? Maybe you’re being coy and secretly very, very gay…

Maybe you’re playing hard to get…. so we can ignore your No. You aren’t so much a person as an object of lust.

Homophobia: rape culture isn’t real unless a man wolf whistles me.

People are not all friends, this isn’t an episode of fucking Barney. We have every right to hate you but we don’t hate men. We hate bitches. If you hate yourself and that’s why you’re insecure, see a shrink.