Blackpill A worldwide 2024 study showing the differences between what people say they want and what they actually want in a partner

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

So, I just noticed this chart on Twitter, showing the differences between how much people SAY they want in a partner, and what they ACTUALLY want:


View: https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1814349987276538030#m


Obviously, this intrigued me, since I'm always looking for more stuff that confirms the bullshit about "confidence", "personality", "good sense of humor" being what women want, instead of looks like us male pigs do, and that's why we inkwell, cause we are just bad people and bad people don't get laid.

So, I went to the Twitter account that apparently first posted it and found the original study:

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

Well, let's just say that I liked what I saw.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but inkwell, those studies you show don't mean anything, they are just about Americans or Westerners and they have tiny samples!"

We often hear copes like that, so I hope that our detractors will like this study then:

This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N=10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β=.19and an effect of β=.11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric.

The study's even as recent as can be, from July 2024. So, let's stop yapping and wasting our time and go straight to the important parts, shall we?

On the whole, stated and revealed preferences aligned in terms of ranking, although some intriguing differences did emerge. For example, the attributes “confident,” “a good listener,” “patient,” and “calm, emotionally stable” ranked considerably more highly as stated preferences than as revealed preferences.

So those traits, headlined by our beloved "confidence", are what people say they want, but not what they actually want. Also, jfl at "emotionally stable" also being there.

Then:

In contrast, the attributes “attractive,” “a good lover,” “nice body,” “sexy,” and “smells good” ranked considerably more highly as revealed preferences than as stated preferences. In fact, “a good lover” was the #1 largest revealed preference but actually ranked 12th in terms of stated preferences. (We also conducted separate analyses on the partnered and single subsamples, revealing identical conclusions; see Tables S10 and S11 in the Supplemental Materials.)

THOSE are the things people actually want in a partner, and as is pointed out, both single and already partnered people have those same preferences.

"B-b-b-b-but, that's what men want, women are different, they aren't so visual."

That is what some of our friends might tell us, so let's look further:

Table 5 also calculates gender differences in the preference for attractiveness (i.e., the average of the items “attractive,” “nice body,” and “sexy”) and earning potential (i.e., the average of the items “ambitious,” “financially secure,” and “good job”). Some theoretical perspectives anticipate that men will place greater weight on attractiveness, and women will place greater weight on earning potential (Buss, 1989). These gender differences indeed emerged when participants reported their stated preferences. Nevertheless, consistent with past meta-analytic work (Eastwick et al., 2014) and the very small level metric analyses documented in Table 3, these gender differences did not emerge in participants’ revealed preferences.

Once again, this is only about people saying they want something other than they actually wanted. When asked what they wanted, men and women chose different traits. When actually choosing a partner however, there were no differences and both men and women went straight for looks and so on.

Men’s stated preferences tended to underestimate the value they actually placed on “attractive,” “nice body,” and “sexy” by about 6 ranks (out of 35; 1 = highest ranked, 35 = lowest ranked) on average. That is, their stated preferences for these three traits ranked 9, 18, and 17 (respectively) but their revealed preferences for these three traits ranked 7, 13, and 6. However, women underestimated the value they placed on these three traits by a full 13 ranks (out of 35): Their stated preferences for these three traits ranked 18, 28, and 23 (respectively) but their revealed preferences for these three traits ranked 8, 17, and 5 (i.e., about the same as men).

As for “ambitious,” “financially secure,” and “good job,” men’s stated preferences underestimated their value by about 4 ranks: Their stated preferences for these three traits ranked 25, 25 (tied), and 27 (respectively) but their revealed preferences for these three traits ranked 22, 24, and 20. In contrast, women’s stated preferences overestimated their value by about 4 ranks: Their stated preferences for these three traits ranked 22, 17, and 18 (respectively) but their revealed preferences for these three traits ranked 24, 25, and 21 (i.e., again, about the same as men).

Men care about money more than they admit, while women care about money less than they claim, and ultimately, neither gender cares about money anywhere near as much as they care about looks.

In summary, both men’s and women’s stated preferences appeared to underestimate the weight they place on attractiveness, but this underestimation effect was more pronounced for women than for men. In contrast, men’s stated preferences slightly underestimated the weight they placed on earning potential, and women’s stated preferences slightly overestimated the weight they placed on earning potential.

Now, I literally just discovered this, I guess there's a lot more to say about this and more blackpills to find there, but I think those two pages, if even that, nicely encapsulate everything we need to take away from this.

Spoiler: Boyos

@DarkStar @based_meme @reveries @GeckoBus @Pancakecel @Incline @Mecoja @Copexodius Maximus @EpedaBIGDICKENERGY @ItsovERfucks @Ron.Belgrade @K1ng N0th1ng @Incedel @Gendocel @weaselbomber @LeFrenchCel @Uggo Mongo @Jason Voorhees @anandkonda @Defetivecuckachu @CircumcisedClown @RealSchizo @To koniec @VideoGameCoper @lonelysince2006 @lennox

 

[KING NOTHING]

Saved for later reading. GN boyo.

 

[Sloth Vs Koala]

The blackpill is proven once again

 

[VideoGameCoper]

Great study. I love how the men are more honest about the importance of looks than women are in stated preferences. Just shows once again that men are more rational and honest.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

This might be one of the remaining experimental results being tested and consistently reproduced in social sciences which isn't susceptible to the replication crisis.

Men's Looks Matter More Than Women Admit, Study Shows

Among men considered moderately attractive, women do pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits.

www.livescience.com

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Saved for later reading. GN boyo.

GN to you and the other boyos as well.

 

[DarkStar]

Thanks for the tag mang, I will read along with that other thread tomorrow

 

[ItsovERfucks]

Thanks for the tag brocel

And also

The blackpill is proven once again

 

[lennox]

I've worked so hard on my social skills. And for what?

 

[Emba]

The blackpill is proven once again

 

[reveries]

Man I love your posts, even though the topics are obviously depressing (who are surprised by any of this at this point) your delivery still brightens up my day every time.

 

[IncelCrocker]

Yes, it all makes sense and confirms what I've known. Life is complicated, even if you manage to have it all, things might go wrong.

 

[based_meme]

Another day, another black pill. Yet another example of how much normies and women lie and bullshit. Why can't people just be honest? Well, we all know why.

 

[Adolf Kitler]

Man I love your posts, even though the topics are obviously depressing (who are surprised by any of this at this point) your delivery still brightens up my day every time.

real

 

[Epedaphic]

I kind of wish I never read this post

I knew that the personality traits I gained from my childhood were long ago deemed undesirable by women (patience, listening, “calm,” if I didn’t exhibit these traits I had very dire and painful consequences), but here it is now scientifically proven that I’m just undesirable shit that’s worth less than trash in the eyes of women and hence in the eyes of society

 

[Antorian]

I would have killed the whore if I was in his place
Fucking other men, falling "in love" with other men while I'm fighting in a war?
Screw that, she wouldn't be allowed to live after betraying me like that.

If she was my mother I also would have killed her in honor of my father
Also would try to castrate her "lover"

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

"Good lover" = 8 inch dick

 

[reveries]

I would have killed the whore if I was in his place
Fucking other men, falling "in love" with other men while I'm fighting in a war?
Screw that, she wouldn't be allowed to live after betraying me like that.

If she was my mother I also would have killed her in honor of my father
Also would try to castrate her "lover"

I'm amazed by these things to this day. Honour, justice, love and commitment are just empty words to foids, they mean a lot to us but absolutely NOTHING to them, and that's why they don't see a problem doing shit like that, unless maybe if they get caught and get socially shamed for it (which is not even a thing anymore in the west).
They're essentially just overgrown narcissistic children.

 

[erenyeager]

I've worked so hard on my social skills. And for what?

For nothing well for women

 

[erenyeager]

I'm amazed by these things to this day. Honour, justice, love and commitment are just empty words to foids, they mean a lot to us but absolutely NOTHING to them, and that's why they don't see a problem doing shit like that, unless maybe if they get caught and get socially shamed for it (which is not even a thing anymore in the west).
They're essentially just overgrown narcissistic children.

Overgrown narcissistic children need punishment like my father. He’d slap me punch me and do literally anything to get me to obey everything. It worked. Now we must share these lessons across the globe

 

[erenyeager]

Fucking other men, falling "in love" with other men while I'm fighting in a war?

Normies why do you think this ok. It’s obvious it’s ain’t and anything you do to try and defend this is fake news. You’ve been indoctrinated into the evil gynocracy

 

[reveries]

Overgrown narcissistic children need punishment like my father. He’d slap me punch me and do literally anything to get me to obey everything. It worked. Now we must share these lessons across the globe

One of the reasons we, men, develop morals, responsibility and honour is because we get beaten (in video game), starting as early as in our childhood, for doing narcissistic shit. If we betray or lie to our friends or our fathers we're taught a lesson, that's a step towards growing up into a moral person. Foids are never taught any of these, they are taught how to apply make up and how to manipulate men since young age. Honestly absolutely no wonder most of them are shitty people.

 

[erenyeager]

One of the reasons we, men, develop morals, responsibility and honour is because we get beaten, starting as early as in our childhood, for doing narcissistic shit. If we betray or lie to our friends or our fathers we're taught a lesson, that's a step towards growing up into a moral person. Foids are never taught any of these, they are taught how to apply make up and how to manipulate men since young age. Honestly absolutely no wonder most of them are shitty people.

Yes except he’d do it for petty reasons. Men also abuse power. I’d say we share these gifts with those who haven’t suffered in life. We must share it across the world

 

[AsiaCel]

Clown world.

ACCELERATE
GENDER
CONFLICT

 

[GeckoBus]

So, I just noticed this chart on Twitter, showing the differences between how much people SAY they want in a partner, and what they ACTUALLY want:


View: https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1814349987276538030#m


Obviously, this intrigued me, since I'm always looking for more stuff that confirms the bullshit about "confidence", "personality", "good sense of humor" being what women want, instead of looks like us male pigs do, and that's why we inkwell, cause we are just bad people and bad people don't get laid.

So, I went to the Twitter account that apparently first posted it and found the original study:

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

Well, let's just say that I liked what I saw.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but inkwell, those studies you show don't mean anything, they are just about Americans or Westerners and they have tiny samples!"

We often hear copes like that, so I hope that our detractors will like this study then:



The study's even as recent as can be, from July 2024. So, let's stop yapping and wasting our time and go straight to the important parts, shall we?

View attachment 1202641


So those traits, headlined by our beloved "confidence", are what people say they want, but not what they actually want. Also, jfl at "emotionally stable" also being there.

Then:


THOSE are the things people actually want in a partner, and as is pointed out, both single and already partnered people have those same preferences.

"B-b-b-b-but, that's what men want, women are different, they aren't so visual."

That is what some of our friends might tell us, so let's look further:

View attachment 1202645View attachment 1202646


Once again, this is only about people saying they want something other than they actually wanted. When asked what they wanted, men and women chose different traits. When actually choosing a partner however, there were no differences and both men and women went straight for looks and so on.



Men care about money more than they admit, while women care about money less than they claim, and ultimately, neither gender cares about money anywhere near as much as they care about looks.


Now, I literally just discovered this, I guess there's a lot more to say about this and more blackpills to find there, but I think those two pages, if even that, nicely encapsulate everything we need to take away from this.

Spoiler: Boyos

@DarkStar @based_meme @reveries @GeckoBus @Pancakecel @Incline @Mecoja @Copexodius Maximus @EpedaBIGDICKENERGY @ItsovERfucks @Ron.Belgrade @K1ng N0th1ng @Incedel @Gendocel @weaselbomber @LeFrenchCel @Uggo Mongo @Jason Voorhees @anandkonda @Defetivecuckachu @CircumcisedClown @RealSchizo @To koniec @VideoGameCoper @lonelysince2006 @lennox

Awesome thread!

just fucking lol at this shit
it reminds me of this passage from a book I recently read. The guy has like autism and talked about how what normies say and do is completely different. Normies will talk shit all day and then do the opposite.

One example of this that I always use for both genders, is how men larp all day how they have preferences. But the juggernaut law studies show that female attractiveness has no impact on them having kids or getting married. You can be as fat as a fucking tow truck, someone will creampie you. Men larping about preferences = social hierarchy game with other men.

[MULTIPLE STUDIES] Juggernaut law confirmed. Ugly women are more likely to be married and have more sex partners.

A study here shows that very unattractive women are more likely to be married by age 29 than unattractive or average women. Also, another study shows unattractive men were less likely to find a marriage partner than other men whereas this wasn't the case for unattractive women. In the study...

incels.is

Unattractive women more likely to be married

The existence of femcels once again debunked (water wet) The analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) shows that very unattractive women were significantly more likely to be married at Age 29 than unattractive or average-looking women, and their spouses or...

incels.is

• For men, the results show that being unattractive decreases the likelihood of finding a partner, of finding a partner with a university degree, and of finding a partner with a higher educational level.
• For women, physical attractiveness does not affect the likelihood of any of those events occurring.
• Among women, physical attractiveness did not matter when it came to mating.
• The results for women indicate that attractiveness did not matter.

Of course this will taint self-reported data tremendously. My guess is that both men and women are far more similar in terms of violence, sex-drive and pretty much any other measure than people like to think. It is hilarious that people talk about gender equality, but refuse to acknowledge areas where genders are already equal (rape, violence, child abuse).

It shows you, they don't want equality, they want female supremacy. All the equality measures usually just come down to attacking men.

Always look at actions, not words.

It all began to dawn on me when I came across the website of an independent member of parliament, who had made the effort to list, for every vote that was passed, which party had voted in favor and which had voted against. I never thanked the man for it, which I now find a pity, because as humble and simple as his website was, the fact that he published and maintained it, definitely changed my life.

After clicking through the pages of his website, I was shocked and shocked again. The environmentalist party, publicly shouting from the rooftops how evil nuclear technology was, voted against a proposition to dismantle a nuclear weapons depot. The socialist party voted squarely against socialist measures, and the list of inconsistencies went on and on. (The independent member of parliament who hosted the website soon thereafter quit politics entirely by the way, outraged and disgusted, which is what anyone in their right mind probably does. Which in turn explains why so few people in their right minds stay in politics, and why politics is such a cesspool.)

After the first, and second, and n following shocks had somewhat subsided, I got over my initial anger and sadness, and a great feeling of clarity came over me.

"Okay, all right," I thought, "I can do something with this". At least it was real, and it started making sense. (I seem to be one of those rare creatures that prefer a difficult to swallow realization over a sugary lie or rosy hallucination any time).

Looking at actions and totally ignoring words is not a trick, it’s a paradigm shift. Crudely put, it’s seeing humans as mute monkeys who have a babbling lizard living in their mouths. The monkey is silently going about its day for all the valid, biological reasons of its own, while the lizard, like a hybrid between a sports commentator and a spin doctor, is giving live the best sounding explanation to everything its monkey host does, so that the latter comes off as intelligent, morally acceptable, ethical, empathic, strong, reasonable, etcetera.

753.9 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

This also extends to every other part of life.
When researchers shit on incels while ignoring all the data we provide, that's a deliberate action. They are acting biased against men on purpose, thus proving us right. We have to realize, they are not retarded. It is very much intentional. Just like the people in the study pretended to be all virtuous in seeking partners, incel researchers pretend to be virtuous while studying incels, by supporting the status quo. Calling incels violent ideologically driven terrorists is a form of academic virtue signalling.

A good example is when they say incels need therapy.
But the majority of resources for victims of violence and abuse go to women. So their actions say, "fuck men, hail women." But their words say "gender equality bla bla bla."


Anway, great thread

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

I kind of wish I never read this post

I knew that the personality traits I gained from my childhood were long ago deemed undesirable by women (patience, listening, “calm,” if I didn’t exhibit these traits I had very dire and painful consequences), but here it is now scientifically proven that I’m just undesirable shit that’s worth less than trash in the eyes of women and hence in the eyes of society

It truly is demotivating to see the truth laid out in front of you like this.

"Good lover" = 8 inch dick

Of course this will taint self-reported data tremendously. My guess is that both men and women are far more similar in terms of violence, sex-drive and pretty much any other measure than people like to think. It is hilarious that people talk about gender equality, but refuse to acknowledge areas where genders are already equal (rape, violence, child abuse).

It shows you, they don't want equality, they want female supremacy. All the equality measures usually just come down to attacking men.

Always look at actions, not words.

This also extends to every other part of life.
When researchers shit on incels while ignoring all the data we provide, that's a deliberate action. They are acting biased against men on purpose, thus proving us right. We have to realize, they are not retarded. It is very much intentional. Just like the people in the study pretended to be all virtuous in seeking partners, incel researchers pretend to be virtuous while studying incels, by supporting the status quo. Calling incels violent ideologically driven terrorists is a form of academic virtue signalling.

A good example is when they say incels need therapy.
But the majority of resources for victims of violence and abuse go to women. So their actions say, "fuck men, hail women." But their words say "gender equality bla bla bla."


Anway, great thread

Thanks for the substantial and informative reply as always, brocel. You've nailed it as usual.

 

[DarkStar]

Excellent thread, very well researched.

It's funny how bluepillers & the likes love to shift, alter, and twist the interpretations of many things. And as I always say, they often say the "quiet part" out loud, whilst guys such as us merely read in-between the lines.

Yes, it may seem that males do have preferences that are somewhat hypocritical: However, these are normie males who are "in the game"

In a way, it proves that the blackpill is universal & that lookism applies to both males & females: However, males are the only ones who pay the "tax" for it so to speak.

The fact both select looks primarily proves this, and just how much looks matter.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

So, I just noticed this chart on Twitter, showing the differences between how much people SAY they want in a partner, and what they ACTUALLY want:


View: https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1814349987276538030#m


Obviously, this intrigued me, since I'm always looking for more stuff that confirms the bullshit about "confidence", "personality", "good sense of humor" being what women want, instead of looks like us male pigs do, and that's why we inkwell, cause we are just bad people and bad people don't get laid.

So, I went to the Twitter account that apparently first posted it and found the original study:

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

Well, let's just say that I liked what I saw.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but inkwell, those studies you show don't mean anything, they are just about Americans or Westerners and they have tiny samples!"

We often hear copes like that, so I hope that our detractors will like this study then:



The study's even as recent as can be, from July 2024. So, let's stop yapping and wasting our time and go straight to the important parts, shall we?

View attachment 1202641


So those traits, headlined by our beloved "confidence", are what people say they want, but not what they actually want. Also, jfl at "emotionally stable" also being there.

Then:


THOSE are the things people actually want in a partner, and as is pointed out, both single and already partnered people have those same preferences.

"B-b-b-b-but, that's what men want, women are different, they aren't so visual."

That is what some of our friends might tell us, so let's look further:

View attachment 1202645View attachment 1202646


Once again, this is only about people saying they want something other than they actually wanted. When asked what they wanted, men and women chose different traits. When actually choosing a partner however, there were no differences and both men and women went straight for looks and so on.



Men care about money more than they admit, while women care about money less than they claim, and ultimately, neither gender cares about money anywhere near as much as they care about looks.


Now, I literally just discovered this, I guess there's a lot more to say about this and more blackpills to find there, but I think those two pages, if even that, nicely encapsulate everything we need to take away from this.

Spoiler: Boyos

@DarkStar @based_meme @reveries @GeckoBus @Pancakecel @Incline @Mecoja @Copexodius Maximus @EpedaBIGDICKENERGY @ItsovERfucks @Ron.Belgrade @K1ng N0th1ng @Incedel @Gendocel @weaselbomber @LeFrenchCel @Uggo Mongo @Jason Voorhees @anandkonda @Defetivecuckachu @CircumcisedClown @RealSchizo @To koniec @VideoGameCoper @lonelysince2006 @lennox

Probably one of the funniest studies in a while. Mental stability, patience, confidence all got btfo. Honestly pointing out how this stuff doesn’t even matter is funner than to point out than how much looks do matter. Everyone secretly knows looks matter, but these things are things we all do think actually matters but doesn’t.

 

[NoNiggerNovember]

The blackpill is proven once again

 

[Defetivecuckachu]

Thanks for the tag man.

It sounds like the incels were onto something all along? Who would have thought it?

 

[turbosperg]

women went straight for looks

over.

If they did include "be NT" in the study it would rank #1

 

[Zedmund]

JFL at confidence's revealed rank. Color me not shocked at it not being that desirable.

 

[EngelCallDell19]

high iq thread, achived.

 

[dead.ahead]

So, I just noticed this chart on Twitter, showing the differences between how much people SAY they want in a partner, and what they ACTUALLY want:


View: https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1814349987276538030#m


Obviously, this intrigued me, since I'm always looking for more stuff that confirms the bullshit about "confidence", "personality", "good sense of humor" being what women want, instead of looks like us male pigs do, and that's why we inkwell, cause we are just bad people and bad people don't get laid.

So, I went to the Twitter account that apparently first posted it and found the original study:

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

Well, let's just say that I liked what I saw.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but inkwell, those studies you show don't mean anything, they are just about Americans or Westerners and they have tiny samples!"

We often hear copes like that, so I hope that our detractors will like this study then:



The study's even as recent as can be, from July 2024. So, let's stop yapping and wasting our time and go straight to the important parts, shall we?

View attachment 1202641


So those traits, headlined by our beloved "confidence", are what people say they want, but not what they actually want. Also, jfl at "emotionally stable" also being there.

Then:


THOSE are the things people actually want in a partner, and as is pointed out, both single and already partnered people have those same preferences.

"B-b-b-b-but, that's what men want, women are different, they aren't so visual."

That is what some of our friends might tell us, so let's look further:

View attachment 1202645View attachment 1202646


Once again, this is only about people saying they want something other than they actually wanted. When asked what they wanted, men and women chose different traits. When actually choosing a partner however, there were no differences and both men and women went straight for looks and so on.



Men care about money more than they admit, while women care about money less than they claim, and ultimately, neither gender cares about money anywhere near as much as they care about looks.


Now, I literally just discovered this, I guess there's a lot more to say about this and more blackpills to find there, but I think those two pages, if even that, nicely encapsulate everything we need to take away from this.

Beyond brutal . Something about having digestible data that proves your point is just so brutal. Bluepill cucks scattered like chimps when they started reading this post, kek.

 

[dead.ahead]

Yes, it all makes sense and confirms what I've known. Life is complicated, even if you manage to have it all, things might go wrong.
View attachment 1202766

Brutal image Mr Crocker… the fact that she wrote the letter means she thought he was still alive somewhere out there… but she still did it.

 

[James_Rustle]

To no triple-digit IQ's surprise, the entire graph trends to overstate mutable attributes and understate immutable attributes. Women want good genes and genuinely believe from the YidPipe they deserve them from Chad.

 

[Awake]

tldr because i already know what they want from a man

 

[manletcel1488]

I'm surprised how high "smells good" ranked.
Maybe foids are right and we should be taking 20 showers a day. (obviously no amount of showers for the way you naturally smell)

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

I'm surprised how high "smells good" ranked.
Maybe foids are right and we should be taking 20 showers a day. (obviously no amount of showers for the way you naturally smell)

Smell is actually quite important for attractiveness, but most people are completely clueless about it. The dude whose tweet I linked there talked about it right after, and I’ve also shared some studies about this here. It’s mostly about its link to facial symmetry and parental imprinting. The Wikipedia article on physical attractiveness has it as one of the general attractiveness factors with both men and women preferring the body odour of people with symmetrical and attractive faces, and even mentioned that women’s preference for the smell of symmetrically-faced men is, predictably, strongest when they are at peak fertility.

Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Also, because of parental imprinting, women prefer men whose body odour resembles that of their fathers, which is probably also true about men and their mothers, and men’s bodies can also distinguish between the smells of symmetrically and asymmetrically-faced men, and when they smell the latter, they lower their production of testosterone since just by their odour they can tell that their faces make them a sexual non-threat, while the opposite happens when they smell men with symmetrical faces.

Just smell like her father bro.

Women choose romantic partners resembling their father in body odour Women tend to choose partners who resemble their father in certain characteristics. In non-human mammals, similar parental imprinting-like effects are often odour-mediated1,2, which requires not only learning of parental odour...

incels.is

[JFL] Bodies of attractive men lower their production of testosterone if they smell less-attractive men who aren't a sexual threat.

Found this study when searching for stuff to put into my thread on attractive men naturally smelling better and thus being perceived better, but this is so brutal it deserves its own thread. Testosterone level changes after perceiving the body odour of a possible rival in human males: the role...

incels.is

 

[Man]

So how did they decide their ‘actual preferences’ if I don’t want to read the whole thing

 

[Rabbi Schneerson]

Just shows once again that men are more rational and honest

More women will be in hell than men

 

[VideoGameCoper]

More women will be in hell than men

Yep, of course. They are naturally more psychopathic and evil overall