We all know the studies stating that babies react better to more attractive faces. This heavily implies that the beauty standards are not culturally learned. They are, in fact, inborn, natural, biological. Because the babies haven't learned anything, yet they react to beauty according to the beauty standards. Water is wet. I'll just add two things to this:
1. If someone is noticeably deformed, little kids will point fingers to that person. If the kid is with his parents, the parents will scold him, saying that it's rude to point fingers. Yet, the child immediately notices and reacts without the filter of morality and societal standards. His noticing reveals the truth. Adults notice as well and it very much plays a role in their behavior. The only difference is that adults try to hide it.
2. I recently witnessed a couple of 10 year old girls playing a "matchmakers game". There was this event where both children and adults were present. The adults were listening to a lecture, the children were playing in the background. The little girl was like: "Let's match this stacylite with this chadlite!" Meaning, they effortlessly matched a looksmatch. Were autistic looksfags to evaluate the gonial angles and the canthal tilts, the stacylite would be like 6.5 and the chadlite would be like 6.75. A perfect looksmatch, if there is one. No autism required. And the normies then dare to lecture us about looksmatches not being a real thing. They are the realest thing. Little children can detect them, why can't you?
1. If someone is noticeably deformed, little kids will point fingers to that person. If the kid is with his parents, the parents will scold him, saying that it's rude to point fingers. Yet, the child immediately notices and reacts without the filter of morality and societal standards. His noticing reveals the truth. Adults notice as well and it very much plays a role in their behavior. The only difference is that adults try to hide it.
2. I recently witnessed a couple of 10 year old girls playing a "matchmakers game". There was this event where both children and adults were present. The adults were listening to a lecture, the children were playing in the background. The little girl was like: "Let's match this stacylite with this chadlite!" Meaning, they effortlessly matched a looksmatch. Were autistic looksfags to evaluate the gonial angles and the canthal tilts, the stacylite would be like 6.5 and the chadlite would be like 6.75. A perfect looksmatch, if there is one. No autism required. And the normies then dare to lecture us about looksmatches not being a real thing. They are the realest thing. Little children can detect them, why can't you?
Last edited:
