all research done by women should be dismissed and not taken seriously

[Total Imbecile]

If anything it should be verified that their data is not false and then a male should analyze it. Look at what a woman has to say about masculinity:

The appeal of masculine traits is less clear. An early study using
schematic faces indicated that masculinized male faces (thick brows, thin lips,
square chins, and small eyes) were preferred to feminized ones (Keating 1985), but
more recent studies using photographic sex continua generally show a preference
for feminized male faces (Penton-Voak et al. 2004, Perrett et al. 1998, Rhodes et al.
2000; but see Johnston et al. 2001). The meta-analysis confirmed that masculinity
is unattractive when these manipulated faces are used (−0.47 ± 0.51, N = 12).
Perrett and colleagues (1998) suggest that this preference may reflect the perception
of more positive personality traits (less dominant, warmer, more honest and
cooperative, and more likely to be a good parent) in less masculine faces.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318594

So to break it down she finds that masculinity is attractive in male faces, but you should not be too masculine.

What does she conclude? That women are attracted to "positive" beta personality traits such as being less dominant, warmer, more honest and cooperative, and more likely to be a good parent, AKA PERSONALITY THEORY. THIS IS HORSESHIT.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "POSITIVE" PERSONALITY TRAITS.
If you are good looking, being a serial killer is a good trait:

What shouldve been concluded is that a pretty boy is going to outslay a masc beast any time of the year, AKA PRETTY BOY THEORY. Women dont really develop past their teen years so they are attracted to the same pretty boy type forever.

This guy whoever fem is going to outslay this guy

all day every day for the rest of this universe

 

[lostcel]

this is true, in light of your post im gonna spend the rest of the day not using any invention made solely by a female, in other words business as usual

 

[nausea]

the problem with certain kind of researches is that the perpetrators actually think\suppose that what females say is actually what they do, that's the basic tragedy behind all the crap about such deranged way to conduct studies

all the results are falsificated, people believe it because they make it to mainstream journals and media

tl dr : cucks stay cucks and nothing changes

 

[subsaharan]

it's a review homie, didn't sound like she was opining there, but rather, citing the speculation of another group. also, in that part you quoted, she says the more recent research indicates masculine faces are unattractive -- and is thus inconsistent with the initial studies. But she showed the literature is kinda all over the place. She ended that Masculinity section of her review by saying 

Both average and masculine traits contribute (independently) to male attractiveness (Little & Hancock 2002, O’Toole et al. 1998). There may also be curvilinear components to the relationship between masculinity and attractiveness, indicating a preference for moderate rather than extreme levels of masculinity (Cunningham et al. 1990). There are insufficient data to determine whether masculinity is attractive to both males and females, and in non-Western faces.

I agree with this -- which is why most of the Lookism morphs are not only comically unrealistic, but largely do not reflect women's actual prefs on avg. 

As you noted tho, PRETTY BOY theory is most likely the IDEAL to women, on avg. 








 --- warning: a lengthy tl;dr elaborating on pretty boy theory below --- 






This paper ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691166/pdf/12495494.pdf ) did something very similar to the LOOKISM morphs. They took 21 pics of diff 18-21 yo white dudes, MORPHED each of them along testosterone dimensions to a HIGH T and a LOW T 'shopped pic. Then they made 9 intermediate morphs between the low and high in each direction = 20 morphs in total with Frame 11 being the real pic, Frame 1 being the LOW T morph and Frame 21 being the HIGH T morph, like below:

THEN they showed All 21 frames to 30 different 18-21 girls and asked them 2 questions:

1. Which frame # (pic) looks the most SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE?
2. Which frame # (pic) looks the most PHYSICALLY DOMINANT?

These were the results -- OPEN bars are what they selected for most attractive; filled BLACK bars are what they selected for most DOMINANT

(top is for front view, bottom is for side view)

tl;dr they all chose the REAL pic (frame 11) and BELOW (i.e., LOWER T) for MOST ATTRACTIVE (esp @ front view pic) and they all chose the HIGH T  morphs for DOMINANCE

basically what I was sayin yesterday.... Men probably routinely overestimate the attractiveness of HIGH T/Dominance to the opposite sex because evolution has programmed us to be more sensitive to hierarchies and where we fall on it

 

who is that dude? I remember he was a lookism poster and had some ridiculously cringe videos of his "day game" where he basically creep the fuck out of unsuspecting girls, but can't remember his name
that morph is absurd. i'm skeptical of a lot lookism's prototypical "slayer" phenotype, a lot of girls simply say it looks more scary than attractive. like this shit:

a lot of girls say they prefer the middle than the morphed lachowski. there seems to be some evidence that the "slayer" hypermasculine high-dominance-look phenotype may not ideal -- or at least not consistently so:

"Here, we used geometric morphometric techniques to assess facial masculinity, generating a morphological masculinity measure based on a discriminant function that correctly classified >96% faces as male or female. When assessed using this measure, there was no relationship between morphological masculinity and rated attractiveness."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013585

[font=arial, sans-serif]"[/font]the negative relationship between the FWHR and judgements of attractiveness was stronger when the sample had a greater proportion of women than men, suggesting that faces with larger FWHRs may be especially unattractive to female observers. "
[size=small][font=arial, sans-serif]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726 [/font][/size]

the literature is all over the place.
the high-dominance look has been shown in some studies to be preferred for short-term sexual relationships under certain conditions (woman from the West & is around the ovulation window, etc) but this finding hasn't been consistent in all the studies. has anyone done any Tinder experiments to test the high-dominance Slayer Lachowski morph vs Regular Lachowski? That would be the best test of the lookism Slayer phenotype theory

---

Also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691166/pdf/12495494.pdf titled, "Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males"
in full disclosure: my own lay pet theory regarding the matter is that MEN, and NOT WOMEN, are more finely-tuned to dominance features of the face for evolutionary reasons (see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818656 ), and as a consequence, we tend to OVERESTIMATE the attractiveness of dominance/threat cues
This would explain the following (likely not entirely accurate) theories in the lookism community:

1. "low upper eyelid exposure with Hunter eyes" (i.e., prominent and low-set supraorbital ridge) theory
2. High fWHR theory
3. BBC theory (darkly pigmented skin = masculine/threat cue, seemingly cross-culturally but particularly in the West) 

etc

---

 

[FeminismsCancer]

So women prefer JB boys but if we prefer JB girls it's creepy/pedo. Hmmm typical.