Women repulsed by tattoos

Men think women will be impressed by a tattoo, but they’re not – Polish study

“Men with tattoos are likely to provide serious competition for a woman’s attention, at least in the eyes of other guys, but women themselves actually aren’t that impressed. That’s according to research published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, where 2584 heterosexual men and women from Poland viewed photos of shirtless men, sometimes digitally modified so that their arm was emblazoned with a smallish black tattoo depicting a generic symbol. The 215 men among the participants rated the inked bods as more attractive than tattoo-free comparison models, which presumably reflects in part what they think women are looking for in an ideal male partner. But the female participants didn’t rate the tattooed gentlemen as more attractive; moreover, they considered them worse prospects as partners and parents.”

Men like tattoos, not women.

Men cannot judge what women want….

Unless they’re bisexual. There’s a reason homosexual men love tattoos.

And that was with a small tattoo.

If low IQ men are doing it, don’t!

The cultural conformity is based on Hollywood, hook them up to lie detectors and look at female dating history.

Look at whether they shun such people or deny offers from them.

Do a perception of IQ and personality disorder study.

Otherwise it’s like racial studies, the impulse to be agreeable will cause them to lie about the intensity of their repulsion. Look at what they DO.

Proofs, two.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204734.htm
“The presence of tattoos on forensic psychiatric inpatients should alert clinicians to a possible diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and also about the potential for histories of suicide attempt, substance abuse and sexual abuse, according to research published in Personality and Mental Health.”

Sauce police, take note.

CAMBRIDGE WRITES

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-psychiatric-treatment/article/tattoos-what-is-their-significance/D2C57CCCA55C75378A8804FAF55147E2
The prevalence of tattoos is higher among people with mental disorders and those likely to come in contact with mental health services. The motivations for acquiring a tattoo are varied and tattoos can give clues to the presence of particular psychiatric conditions and to the inner world of patients. Psychiatrists need to be aware of the health and safety issues surrounding the tattooing procedure and be able to give appropriate advice to their patients if they wish to acquire a tattoo. The issue of capacity must be considered. This may be particularly relevant for clinicians working with adolescents, the most common age group for acquiring tattoos. Owing to the high proportion of adults who subsequently regret their tattoos and the associated psychological and social distress, clinicians should be aware of methods of tattoo removal.”

Maybe the Nazis should’ve let the mad ones brand themselves?

I’m going through a traumatic time in my life, let’s brand me with a lifelong reminder! That’ll help!

Biased researchers can’t find anything good, such as higher creativity.

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pbs.20150404.14.pdf

“Conclusion: Tattooed students seem to be neither less intelligent nor more creative than other students.”

Didn’t study general pop., students are already filtered by IQ.

Tatted people are not more creative.

They do, however, make an unusual “baaa” sound.

 

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.

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.

The Pill and attractiveness

Bet the title caught your attention, didn’t it?

http://www.blogos.org/thetakeaway/birth-control-safe.php

It’s an abortifacient, as covered before, that’s literally the only way it can work.

You can’t be anti-abortion and use The Pill (unless there’s also a barrier method so the uterine implantation doesn’t matter).

Partner choice. Pheromones and body odor have more of an influence on who we choose as a partner than we realize. Usually, people are attracted to others whose odor indicates they are genetically different. But when on hormonal birth control, not only does the woman tend to choose men who are more similar,

And consequently, cause poorer health in their children.

she is chemically less attractive to dissimilar men.

Plenty of women marry the wrong man because they were on the Pill.

You don’t tamper with the mating instinct. God/Nature guides you to the right one.

I’ve noticed women on the Pill were less attractive overall too, more vindictive (the hostility of a pregnant woman, maybe because of reduced attractiveness and the insecurity it produces) and I’d assume the men on their version (it was trialed) would be less attractive also. This could be studied but nobody is willing to offend. It’s almost to the point I can spot the women on the Pill against those who never had it.

The women can seem technically as sexy (or sexier if they lacked estrogen before) but they’re somehow less attractive.

All you’d need to do is take photos before and after Pill use (1 year?) and see if one is more attractive. This may be why younger photos are more beautiful.

This has a couple of potential repercussions. If a woman is on hormonal birth control when she chooses her mate, she will be less likely to become pregnant because of the genetic similarities. In addition, when she goes off birth control, she will be less attracted to her mate.

False love, arguably the marriage doesn’t count because she was on drugs.

Sound mind?

The Pill is psychoactive. It has psychological side effects.

Conversely, if a woman waits until after she’s in a committed relationship to go on birth control, she may find her mate less attractive while on it.

That one is unlikely, this is purely a selection phenomena.

See women on HRT in middle age for debunking it.

Whether decreased interest occurs after she starts or stops taking birth control, it could adversely affect her marriage as she inadvertently finds herself more attracted to men other than her husband.

Doubtful.

But it could make her less attractive to her husband.

The Pill (any hormones) also throws off development. Women don’t stop physically developing until their mid-twenties.

Social, sexual peptides and mental illness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479945

It’s all well and good discussing amygdala – like you could find it easier than a clitoris – but if you won’t look at the chemistry you’re going into a wet subject totally dry.

STDs and child disease

I was reading this

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/oct/16/itvs-victoria-illustrates-how-19th-century-sexism-helped-syphilis-to-spread

because I wrote that piece on syphilis.

As well as causing infertility, syphilis can induce miscarriages and stillbirths. Some children born to syphilitic mothers will never show any signs of infection. Others die in infancy or develop serious health complications.

And antibiotics are failing.

And it struck me, wait, that continues on. It never disappeared.

Except women are still the ones blamed despite men counting more partners in studies (most sluts are men, mathematically and willingness plays into this) and there are links to psychiatric conditions.

No pill for ruining your legacy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/herpes-virus-may-be-trigger-autism

Top of my mind.

“It’s a very important paper,” says Karen Jones, a behavioral neuroimmunologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved with study. “It’s also really important to remember that not every mom who has HSV-2 is going to have a kid with autism.”

The idea virgin brides will prevent any STDs or medical grievances is absurd.
Chastity applies to men as well for good reason. Purity is physical?

This idea either sex can both have their cake and eat it is childish. Have it All is a lie sold to weaklings. Adults make difficult decisions, you don’t pop into the Perfect Husband/Wife mold overnight, it takes years and plenty of omissions!
To put your future wife and children at risk like that when sex toys exist should count as abuse, since abused children have similar problems, including catching the diseases of the parents.

http://bigthink.com/videos/kathleen-mcauliffe-and-impact-of-disease-on-sexual-attraction-and-fecal-transplants

The microbiome sexuality link remains strong.
Any sex, but especially anal.
Wow, I wonder which sex was brainwashed into being obsessed with that?

The focus on women is based on the fact we carry, we aren’t the source of the problem.
That’s medically impossible to be both cause and effect.
Fresh infections cause the most damage. Whose fault is that?

Women hate the pretty ones

http://time.com/2979618/women-red-sexual-threat/

“derogation”

Yes, I’ve been on the receiving end of that.

Bullies always think they’re subtle when their tactics rely on it being the opposite, forceful.

I think the casual clothing arms race was about not getting bullied.
All this nude makeup and clothing signals conformity.

Covering up the natural red of the lips and literally being a beige person.

Great for getting otherwise petty friends.

Man repellent.