Hot v. Beautiful

Nope, hot does not exist.

That’s Hollywood and porn brainwashing.

It didn’t exist fifty years ago.

There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.

e.g.

That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).

Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.

Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.

Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.

It’s obvious with celebrities.

Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?

Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?

What are you being told to select by media?

The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?

The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?

There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.

Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:

Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?

I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!

Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.

I see it all the time.

e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.

Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?

At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.

Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.

We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.

But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.

This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.

In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.

“Hotness” is easier to market.

You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.

He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.

He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).

That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.

Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.

He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.

Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.

Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.

No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.

It’s like pulling up weeds.

Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?

Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.

He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?

That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.

*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.

Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.

Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.

So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.

It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!

There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….

You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.

This guy keeps lying.

You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.

There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.

Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.

This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).

Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!

He doesn’t tell you this.

It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.

Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.

The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.

This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.

He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.

NOTHING.

Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.

They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.

Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.

Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?

Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.

comment

I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)

True, they were lying, assuming the other could.

Women, on the other hand, always could.

Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.

I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.

If they’re honest.

An erection is a solid binary.

If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them

Men who can are called gay.

That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.

Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.

Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.

Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.

Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.

comment

I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.

It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.

Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.

It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.

Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)

comment

These people are so condescending and boring

They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.

He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.

comment

Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.

Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).

Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!

It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…

You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.

Male attractiveness genetic, not gym

I was shocked.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/171790

Abstract only, you can read the rest.

Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.

So far, so obvious.

Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Good method.

You win a cookie.

We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.

Two cookies.

Health advantage (fitness) over mean.

We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.

All the cookies.

You didn’t fake anything.

In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,

Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?

and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.

See, this is how you science.

THIS IS HOW YOU SCIENCE.

Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,

straight women, regular straight women

if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary

and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.

Thank you!

Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.

A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.

It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.

I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.

Male beauty predicts sperm quality

Duuuuuh?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000138

It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.

Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

Fitness and reproductive success, bound.

Darwin wins again.

And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).

Study: Women like men (not testosterone)

TLDR: Looks count, bitch!

Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.

Shall we?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180507074239.htm

“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”

Told. You. So.

A better question, how did I know this?

Years ahead of time.

(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).

They aren’t controlling for male beauty!

In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.

It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!

It’s BONE STRUCTURE.

HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!

The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!

(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).

“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.

You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.

Who might women find more attractive?

The richer ones? The weirder ones?

or

THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.

[Fuck’s sake, people.]

“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””

With a solid method, lookism is real.

Accept it.

We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?

LOGICALLY.

They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.

Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.

Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.

Sexual dimorphism and health

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/Suppl_1/S93

“Incels” reee.

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health.

Being fertile = female health as a teen. More women are viable than men. Most men would die in crime, competition and war.

To be fair

Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy,

Duh.

but not as attractive.

Also obvious.

Gym rats and dudebros can’t make up for an ugly mug or low caste with bulked-up bitch tits.
Women aren’t stupid.

There are tons of Muslims gunning it down the gym, thinking they can magically interest white women.
Look at them on instagram.

This doesn’t work.

Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive.

What is “attractive” now is just sexy, vis a vis quite masculine (big lips need a big jaw) and the old classic beauties with fine, smaller features in harmony were the fertile ones. Ideal:

These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.

Patriarchs don’t let their daughters marry pretty sluts, either.

Women do care about appearance, just genetic cues; not something easily faked with estrogenic wheatgrass powders and self-destructive vain exercise habits. Straight women are not attracted to men who look – sorry – gay.

The two options in modern life aren’t slob or effete but you wouldn’t know it looking.

A man is not measured by the size of his muscles or his notch counts.

Fitness is real masculinity, you earn real muscle by building something or fighting someone.

We could build orphanages and pave roads but no, that’s low status work-out, can’t do that! Might be patriotic and prosocial!

The hospitals and old manors crumble while men “slave” to look half-starved and wax their chest, history will deserve to mock your generation. The rich bastards on the Titanic had a gym.

Useful people got PAID to work out! I know! Crazy!

Many of history’s greatest men were slender virgins and they’ll matter more than any of these “Beautiful Ones” suiciding themselves out of the gene pool. Women want men, not some metrosexual who might come out as gay once they’ve pumped you for three kids. If you see a white woman, with an Asian, note he isn’t the gym type and was willing to propose and raise a family (what makes a man).

Male beauty = good genes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690211/

Please, stop denying this. It isn’t very red pill of you.

There’s sufficient text there to see it’s a concrete connection – not limited to symmetry, not vanishing upon single-side presentation, please stop denying this. It’s getting difficult to watch.

Full paper because there’s always that one guy where you can tell what he looks like through the screen, like a fat acceptance activist.

https://scheib.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2015/05/1999_scheibetal.pdf

Just because they’re scared to use the word beauty in connection to men doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, insecure men are worse than SJWs sometimes.

These studies ain’t hard to find.

You manosphere types are just lyin’.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487409

Symmetry is actually a misnomer, since symmetry is a feature of feminine beauty.

It was recently proposed that symmetry is not a primary cue to facial attractiveness, as symmetrical faces remain attractive even when presented as half faces (with no cues to symmetry).

This is the issue with treating the sexes as the same, especially in evo studies?!?!???

Here, we use real and computer graphic male faces in order to demonstrate that (i) symmetric faces are more attractive, but not reliably more masculine than less symmetric faces and (ii) that symmetric faces possess characteristics that are attractive independent of symmetry, but that these characteristics remain at present undefined.

I don’t see men arguing we must study this for equality’s sake. [but we should]

They seem to prefer ignorance.

Harder to lie about your alpha genes when it’s literally written on your face.*
Deep down, they know. That’s why so many ‘players’ get plastic surgery.

But women are fake, right, guys?

*again, alpha is a pair and a breeding couple, not an individual, it refers to a social rank