Short and tall women are slutty

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490900700405
h/t Dutton

I wish they’d look racially, but this explains the r-selected LBFMs.

https://www.academia.edu/32121636/Height_among_Women_is_Curvilinearly_Related_to_Life_History_Strategy
Tall women I have noted, like Tilda Swinton seem to be left-wing in an openly aggressive, manly fashion.
Short women tend to be left-wing in a subversive fashion, i.e. infantilising rape gangs and cheating on their simp of a husband as a “poly”, the type to know they can’t play the tall woman’s game of leftism so fakes femininity to extract resources (from State, Church, simp). Assuming a short woman is more feminine is statistically wrong. She’ll be more likely to cheat from insecurity.

re Keller, M. (2013). The Genetic Correlation Between Height and IQ. PLOS ONE.
I already knew taller men are smarter and kinder to women, they’re protective. That’s why women like them, not the height per se.
Short men view women as social competition so are more likely to bully, gaslight, verbally abuse and hit them. They think domination makes up for lack of dominance. It’s moral cowardice, “pick on someone your own size” as they used to say.
Nature made taller men healthier because they’re generally better people.
Misogyny is a known factor of inferiority and most of them (with vitriol aimed in-race) are shorter than the women or average man, so subconsciously hate their mother.
Height in a man is broadly like a human’s peacock tail. It develops as a signal of genetic quality which cannot be faked and demonstrates low mutation load. There’s plenty of time before the growth plates fuse to get adequate nutrition and exercise so either their parents hate them (and parents hate more ugly children or products of other unions) or they are burdened with so many mutations it’s a small wonder they weren’t miscarried (and probably would have been without modern medicine).
One big reason modern humans are uglier is IVF, the other being maternal care for parents who simply don’t deserve it.
Read into that what you will.
Maybe the solution is more abortion, but more eugenic abortion.

Average height women have “more reproductive success” (Nettle, 2002) – cited top paper.
This also applies to the third world (they cite). Perhaps the fetish for pedomorphic women (short women, short limbs) is an r-select feature?
Men always prefer women a few inches shorter than them as a norm (so probably same class, assortative) but “markedly” short (as the paper puts it) is abnormal and suggests r-type breeding preferences (young and done, no investment).
Tall women are less symmetrical, although the way they write that sentence up is vague to spare blushes.
Medium height women have “highest mate value” – more studies needed on this. What does that actually mean? Just fertility? Beauty? Personality? IQ? What? Good family?
Jealous women were “taller or shorter than average” – damn, dare you to do a cross-racial study, that would be funny. 
So if you don’t want a harpy guys, select an average height woman (for her own race, presumably, also your own?).

If you wanna be cucked, women, marry a short man,

-or men, marry a short or tall woman.

Short is clearly a non sequitur to feminine, as it states short women are more jealous (along with tall women) of “feminine” beauty.

Average women are more repulsed by masculine women but… isn’t everyone? Can you guess my height by that?

I actually thought that was just everyone.

A few screencaps:

  • Humans are K-selected as a species, believe nobody who says otherwise. No, men are not meant to “sow oats”, it’s degenerate. The quality men don’t do that. Reputation evolved to explain this commentary on your genetic quality.
  • K-types are MORE reproductively successful in the long run, as you’d expect. Evolution is about the long run and who actually reproduces, not just “screws” in completely sterile fashion.
  • Married isn’t always better for the children if the parents (or one) are unstable, in loyalty or sanity.
  • Problem children come from problematic parents.
  • If your child is a slut, it’s your fault.
  • Sex is a physical distraction from growing up mentally, usually escaping from childhood trauma.
  • r/K isn’t really a choice, it’s mostly genetics. Posing as the other type won’t work.
  • 65% genetically heritable. Your kids will be just as slutty as you are, whoever you marry.
  • Hot women can hold out for marriage. Not – cannot.
  • Women are more than morally offended when you treat them as promiscuous (when they’re not) because you’re also calling them ugly.
  • If you want a spouse who can pair bond neurologically and raise your children as a good role model, don’t marry a former slut.
  • Better spouses are genetically fitter spouses (average women, tall men).

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?

 

Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Fixing the inbred face

I was going to do this on Prince Harry but managed to resist.

JUST.

Like I said here, it’s all about the chin.

Using the most primitive corrections, you’ve probably seen this guy.

Well I felt bad about pointing this out and also wanted to demonstrate why jaw surgery is by far the most extreme of all. Like, it shouldn’t count as the same person for legal (and genetic) reasons.

In most cases, if the genes were otherwise good, there’s little wrong with the central face.

All you need do is add back the bone’s structures (corrected for race and sex), reduce and slim the ears and actually, he could model!

His jaw would be broader than this but the bare minimum structure has the same effect. This is what I wanted to show. Jaw surgery can turn what we’d normally consider “hideous” people into model material.

So Prince Harry’s children could easily be better-looking than he is because his wife’s strong masculine features would dominate his inbred ones!

The worst living case is Zuckerberg. He looks permanently ill in every photo. The chin causes the lower lip to protrude in a classic gormless expression. There is historical precedent for his look.

Socialists, the small-time dishonest

Oh, you might try to pretend this video doesn’t apply to you.

Like you’re too good to need a boost.

It applies to everyone, don’t lie.

Oh, but you might say, this has nothing to do with the half-way slide from socialism to Communism, which killed hundreds of millions of people.

Well, aside from missing the point, they have studied it.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study

An ideology pushed by rationalizing thieves, which produces more of the same.

Until, eventually, the bandwagon effect means the whole system collapses.

All producers become parasites.

Communism and socialism are great ways of burning up resources.

Problem is, you can’t stop it. Don’t blame the hedonic treadmill, it’s rentseeking group competition. It’s a thieve’s arms race. One group gets X, your group needs, nay, DEMANDS, X+1. Because the resources are still finite so you not only have no choice (WORKERS’ FREEDUMB!) but to participate but you must also be aggressive (immoral).

Communism kills jobs via the security of the labour itself (no trade unions if there’s no boss to depend on) and the fruit (income, savings).

Why so many champagne socialists?

Well, they believe the workers are too dumb to take advantage or they could outcompete. An argument to IQ.

This would be correct if numbers were not worth more in such a system.

You have one man stealing 1 million from the workers.

You have a thousand men stealing a thousand. Which represents the greater problem in society?

Sure, both. But one caused another, didn’t it? Eventually it’s dog eat dog, every man for himself and his family. This sounds like capitalism but too corrupt to have true signals. There is no full rebound. I wonder how that feels…

What about the quality of people involved in this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520657/Troubled-kids-likely-favour-radical-socialist-policies-adults.html

Mentally maladapted for the world, they cannot honestly compete.
So far, so r-select.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/least_surprising_academic_study_of_2017_physically_weak_men_tend_to_be_socialists.html

Yep.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tories-attractive-socialists-conservatives-labour-study-wealthy-good-looking-a8186836.html

TOLD YA SO.

Ugly men encourage cheating

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.

They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.

There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.

Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.

It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.

Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.

Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.

You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.

You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.

So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?

What is the cost of being an ugly man?

Since this topic is popping up again, I’ll indulge you a piece of new research.
The cost of being an ugly man?
$186k.
Yes, K.
The thing you won’t be after reading this.
Remember, if you’re offended, that must mean you’re ugly.


http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mate

My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.”

They care about not starving in the street after being abandoned. The fact it’s common this abandonment happens in our time is a bountiful supply of evidence that the fear is just.

Sample bias in the gold diggers versus everyone else. The pool wanting looks is all, the pool willing to overlook Darwinian fitness (good genes, high IQ correlates to good looks) for cash is a minority, and would that minority be faithful? Look at adultery stats, no. So really they do get both, just by lying about the looks thing to secure cash first. Most women are too honest to cheat, so they go right for the looks as long as he’s stable and sane.

Sex should not be confused with breeding. Marrying someone doesn’t mean breeding with them nowadays, in the era of the starter marriage. If they ask non-gold diggers about who they would breed with, in either sex, the number would soar because it’s critical to your baby’s health that they possess good genes.

Which sex invests more metabolically, again?

Ignore the lookism at your peril. Women naturally gravitate toward better-looking men (better genetic fitness) during times of hardship, for multi-layered protection. You want women to give you a chance? Fix the economy.

The manopshere won’t tell you things like this (and without twisting the findings) because they want shekels more than your wellbeing.