its impossible to get in the united states unless you are a trauma patient or at the very least very unlikely, im telling u that as someone who works in surgery but nonetheless i wish u good luck.
How much you are likely to get bullied is 80% inheritable (just as much as height). But muh looks and height aren't the factors bro
How was @Caesercel even made a mod
Incel Trait: Despite bullying being strongly hereditary, you were bullied while your father was a bully
Title:feelsbadman:. Is there any better proof that your personal genetics are utter trash than not only failing to take the school bully position you were primed to inherit from your father, but actually finding yourself on the other end of the bullying spectrum:fuk::feelsrope:? Both bullying...
incels.is
Last edited:
I don't live in the US. I live in curryland.
One more cope. Humans always preferred taller, better eye area, more robust chin/jawed, long haired people.
What makes you beautiful might be social conditioning, but what makes you ugly ISN'T. It's genetically hardwired into all humans. We have data showing this
The research says nothing about looks or height. And primary school students getting bullied somewhere is not an excuse or justification for an adult cutting up their face.How much you are likely to get bullied is 80% inheritable (just as much as height). But muh looks and height aren't the factors bro
How was @Caesercel even made a mod
Incel Trait: Despite bullying being strongly hereditary, you were bullied while your father was a bully
Title:feelsbadman:. Is there any better proof that your personal genetics are utter trash than not only failing to take the school bully position you were primed to inherit from your father, but actually finding yourself on the other end of the bullying spectrum:fuk::feelsrope:? Both bullying...
Again call it what it is
knifing up your face to appeal to standards of ever changing soyciety inorder to please other people, who care less about it than you think
You are not wrong. But sadly, such manipulation works because validation is important for a gratifying life.
They can get infected. Also, I want foreign bodies. I want something natural that came from me (in this case, bone growth).
There is barely any genetic justification for any of that. Just because it's hardwired into you doesn't mean it came pre installed. Maybe a tendency at best
water.
If looks didn't matter our brains wouldn't possess the ability to tell bad looks from good looks
There are no accidents in nature and it is because if our brain has evolved to be a certain way it is because of the evolutionary advantage it confers upon us. For instance the color green and its shades are most discernible to humans. There would be a clear advantage in distinguishing unripe...
incels.is
We have many other studies showing that
Bullying in school: are short pupils at risk? Questionnaire study in a cohort - PMC
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Unattractive people more likely to be bullied at work, new study shows
p(image-right). !/assets/106124/judge_timothy_200dpi.jpg(Timothy Judge)! It’s common knowledge that high school can be a cruel environment where attr...
news.nd.edu
The point is you were denying that getting bullied isn't related to looks or height. If that isn't the case then why is it inheritable?
You getting bullied is because you have shit genetics, to mask those bad genetics you need to get surgeries and implants
If you are ugly you are ugly everywhere, in Europe, in Africa, in India. Ugly everywhere
It's not muh beauty standards, it's your genetics
Last edited:
I need this to lengthen my midface with downgraft implants
Water if you are blackpilled, not if you are a bluepilled SJW
i genuinely have no idea how you can have 20000 posts on an incel forum and not accept that looks are objective and that bad looks=bad social AND romantic lifeWater of you are blackpilled, not if you are a bluepilled SJW
He was a mod for 5 years too
I didn't deny that. It was just not claimed in the research you posted, which was a behavioural analysis. Anyway you brought bullying up in the first place as if it proves anything.
Looks aren't the only inheritable traits. And the inheritability of looks is questionable itself when the lookism standards that you worship like a cuck are so arbitrary that they cannot be predicted at all beyond a certain broad degree from parentage alone
There is no such thing as shit genetics. But that's too high iq a point to make here. You are a part of society and as a person so you want to appeal to the games of society that's all there is to it. Nothing wrong with that. Of course some people use that tendency to their advantage, filling their own coffers. It's a personal choice in the end and it's upto the person to see how far they are willing to satiate their own vanity, and which surgeon, beauty product seller, clothing brand house owner they wish to enrich. Even Jeff Bezos can afford a hair transplant but decided to stay bald.
Statement 2 does not conclude from statement 1
Last edited:
Not arbitrary.
So what about genetics that predispose people with certain diseases? Those aren't shit genetics in your opinion?
It's very inheritableEstimating the Sex-Specific Effects of Genes on Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism - PMC
Human facial attractiveness and facial sexual dimorphism (masculinity–femininity) are important facets of mate choice and are hypothesized to honestly advertise genetic quality. However, it is unclear whether genes influencing facial attractiveness ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Then why are more attractive people also more intelligent and better in every respect?
Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia
I don't think he could have gotten a transplant even if he wanted to at that point. What about Elon Musk? He got a hair transplant
How exactly? Your genes make you ugly.
More than you think. Only thing common are certain tendencies towards symmetry and markers for good health. Everything else is just blemish
Claiming anything as shit or not is a state of mindSo what about genetics that predispose people with certain diseases? Those aren't shit genetics in your opinion?
To a certain broad degree yes. These degrees would show themselves in general research. But the differences are better judged when you look at individual instances instead of number, that you do not yourself understand how they came to be. People with good heights and strong chins regularly have children with lesser heights and weaker chins.
Estimating the Sex-Specific Effects of Genes on Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism - PMC
Human facial attractiveness and facial sexual dimorphism (masculinity–femininity) are important facets of mate choice and are hypothesized to honestly advertise genetic quality. However, it is unclear whether genes influencing facial attractiveness ...
As I said, that point was too high iq. Not the right place to make it.
He could get a transplant anytime. He can find many hair donors
As I said. It's a matter of what personal vanity suits you. But if your perspective were the objective truth then Bezos too would've gotten a transplant
Genes do make you look like the way you do. But ascribing the value of ugly to it and deciding what even is ugly is what we were talking about
Last edited:
No it isn't.
Being tall indicates you and your ancestors had better nutrition and you will have higher T
Having a more robust jaw means you chewed a lot ie., ate a lot of food. Meanwhile recessed jaw and chin means you mouth breathed, which is undesirable.
If your eye area is shit then it indicates you aren't getting enough sleep or that you have aged
Being bald is also undesirable because it is an indication of aging and other hormonal issues
8 Reasons Behind Premature Baldness & How To Treat It
Don’t let your hair thinning turn into premature baldness. Losing 100 hair strands a day is normal, but more than that is a warning sign. Don’t ignore it and get treatment for your hair thinning early to reverse the condition.
skinkraft.com
A state of desirability cannot be an objective law. It's relative
It can be objective when quality of life is concerned. Anything that only degrades quality of life is objectively undesirable.
That would mean that desirability towards tall height genetics is indeed arbitrary because it confuses a genetic predisposition to signs of nutritional health.
Which would mean that short height genes are not "shit" at all outside the perception of other people, born from completely different reasons. Same applies for jaw eye area and balding. The genes are actually fine in and of themselves
Yeah, because it's inheritable doesn't mean it's always inherited.
Height is 80%, facial attractiveness is 50-70%, meaning 20% and 30-50% of the cases would be exceptions respectively. It's about seeing a trend
I'm pretty sure that's not how hair transplant works, you can't get others hair put on your head
Except attraction is objective and we have tons of research and studies on attraction and evolutionary reasons behind it
@WorthlessSlavicShit take a look at this
Last edited:
No it means there's a evolutionarily sane reason for finding that trait attractive
Yeah exactly, that's why you need to get surgeries to mask them because it makes people assume you faced those health problems intuitively in their head and perceive you to be unattractive
Maybe but then short height would not be objectively a shit gene on its own
So the purpose of plastic surgery is to indicate to other people that you chew a lot, sleep well and don't mouth breathe. As I said before, madness
Nah I'm sure it's something that is possible. And more expensive than using your own.I'm pretty sure that's not how hair transplant works, you can't get others hair put on your head
Most of those "evolutionary reasons" sound bullshit to me. Geneticism is teleological nonsense that's why I don't put much weight in it. You can justify just about any trend or fad restrospectively in genetics. It's a kind of determinism which teeters on the edges of pseudoscience.
And this discounts for just how much people are trainable animals. How much of what people think and how they think is a product of their conditioning. The only truth here is that you've filled your head with made up nonsense about what actually drives attraction. And this will lead to false expectations towards what can plastic surgery actually fix
Last edited:
Geneticism is nonsense and pseudoscience even though your genes predict and determine 70-99% of your life, traits, behaviour and experiences - @Caesercel
This is also someone who believes race is useless and meaningless construct but believes Muh JBW to be true btw.
@DarkStar @Chudpreet @wereq @Regenerator @Fevet @light @WorthlessSlavicShit @Diddy
Stop coping. Like I said what is attractive might be conditioning, but ugly is UNIVERSAL and ingrained
You can't "trick" or "train" someone into thinking the first guy is more attractive than the second. It's ingrained into your very brain to find out who is ugly
He's being ridiculous
Even disease causing genes aren't shitty genes as per him. This is Marxist talk
Oh really? Then you should open up a company and tell people their fortunes from a dna blood analysis. Leave the funding to me.
Well it's there in the heads of people and it's certainly not useful.
You can actually trick and train someone to see a lot of things. I don't deny the existence of very general disposition towards markers of good health and symmetry, but the rest is as I said blemish.
Of course someone who actually has been tricked and doesn't logically consider his own perceptions would not see it. But you can't rationally tell me why the guy in the second pic would be less healthy than the guy in first.
Are you trying to tell me that South Korean models who do surgery to make their face a certain way (closer to caucasian) have a genetic predisposition to such faces despite their actual faces being different for all of their history and those same genes being passed down for thousands of years? This is retarded
Already exists
Your face and height also predicts how most of your human interactions would be like how much money you make. It's all genetic
Social status is genetic, lifelong, heritable and can be guessed from both photos of your face and your brain scans
So, I just used the Scientific Blackpill page on Incels.wiki to reply to another thread on here, and as I did so, I discovered the study below the one I used as a reply and decided to give it a read: A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status - Incels.wiki...
incels.is
It's useful to you to claim muh JBW though
You can clearly tell the second one is taller, can breath way better (very essential when performing physical activities), has higher T, he and his ancestors got better nutrition and he would be less injured if hit on the eye
It's even crazy I have to explain this
Yes they should be having a genetic predisposition for finding caucasian faces more attractive. And chinks have always been BWC cucks btw. This isn't even Muh conditioning
Cheen and Machin are North China and South China here. Has been happening since 100s of years
Last edited:
Less inductive coping, more deductive fortune tellingAlready exists
Social status is genetic, lifelong, heritable and can be guessed from both photos of your face and your brain scans
So, I just used the Scientific Blackpill page on Incels.wiki to reply to another thread on here, and as I did so, I discovered the study below the one I used as a reply and decided to give it a read: A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status - Incels.wiki...
Jbw is an admittance of its presence in people's heads and behaviour. Not an admittance of its value as a utility , which it doesn't have. It's indeed a simplistic meaningless categorisation
None of these are necessarily true. Even if we take your hypothesis at face value, that attraction towards certain traits comes from mind automatically recognising traits for health, you cannot actually prove that your particular standards are genetically determined at all. And don't pretend with me using extreme examples where markers of health or lack thereof are that distinguished. We've seen your face, people have told you it's not that bad. You are trying to rationalise what basically is nothing more than your personal discontent at some minor facial trait of yours. A trait whose genes somehow managed to pass down across millennia.
Your logic is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. If every specific beauty standard were genetically hardwired (which they aren't) then wouldn't it make sense for everyone to evolve into white people, since they are considered the hottest NOW. Or wouldn't it make sense for people to select for and evolve similar facial traits across cultures. As it turns out people with weak jaws were chewing food just fine and people with bad eye areas weren't going blind and dropping out.
I can understand the argument for traits originating from genes which directly cause health problems. But how can genes for traits which signify environmental problems like nutrition be blamed for anything? They are certainly not "shit genetics" as some claim here and they do not cause health problems for sure. Only that their results are not fashionable.
A very good part of all this is 100% learned behaviour. You may want to cope about it but it won't change these facts. Different fashions and standards of what could be considered hot across cultures and races proves that. The existence of fetishism proves that. And frankly all these claims about why certain things are considered attractive are hypothesis which may or may not be true.
The fact of the matter is that you want to look a certain way because the models and actors on tv that you watched looked a certain way. They were selected for general standards of beauty and their own presence reinforced those standards.
And if not so then basically you want to signify to people that you can chew food better and you won't go blind after an accident .....with plastic surgery, despite being able to do those things anyhow. Fine by me. It's not that different from buying a BMW on loan to signify wealth. It's a personal vanity.
You haven't answered a single thing I've said. Koreans were not trying to look like white people until they were occupied by the US. Everyone of them looked like a chinksect and they had their own standards for which type of chinksect looked better.
Last edited:
He's being ridiculous
How am I wrong? Your face and genes can predict your most of your life within certain probability.
My eye area is dog shit tier, people often ask me if I'm getting enough sleep
Yeah no shit. I'll be passing it down too if I reproduce. Rest of the traits must have compensated for eye area, that why this dysgenic trait passed down.
Even my children probably would have to get eye surgery
You are right they are shit genetics only because they look like shit. That's why I don't even propose eugenics but surgeries and HGH mostly.
Not really. I agree with you some part of attraction is conditioning, but some are innate too.
For example Tamils desired dark skin in the past when Marco Polo visited there, antithetical to today even dyed their skin black
But still considered being short to be undesirable 2500 years ago
Read this
2500 year old Indian poem records the plight of short men (shortcels suifuel)
A Tamil poet by the name of Maruthan Ilanākanār writes an very sad poem (Kalithogai poem 94) about a shortcel trying his luck with a literal deformed toilet with a bent spine, his looksmatch. And the poem is incredibly blackpilled for its time. I will select the highlights from the poem: 1)...
incels.is
I am 100% sure eye area and jaws/chin is also innate like heightism
Exactly. That surely would grab attention from everyone 'cause they perseive you to be rich. Just like how they would perseive you to be possessing good genes if you are attractive.
According to Made in Heaven chinks always considered Turks and Persian who were whiter than them to be more attractive. But idk if I can believe him
Forget about Koreans, why were Chinese being BWC cucks 500 years ago? They weren't under muh occupation muh conditioning like Korea.
This means the logic inside of the brains of chinks considers whiteness to be attractive, and this is innate. We don't know why that exactly is.
Last edited:
Did .org get you to consider this?
no
There is a massive general intercultural agreement on who is attractive and who isn't, almost irrelevant of the amount of contact with Europeans, and where there is something of that effect, it is still unknown whether it's the contact itself influencing the local beauty standards or just general development doing so. For example, multiple studies show that in richer areas and countries (Europe and so on), there seems to be a preference for facially feminine men, for pretty boys. Meanwhile, in poorer countries, more masculine men seem to dominate, because of the overall rougher environment. If, theoretically, countries like India, where we also see this pattern with no preference for pretty boys, got much richer and this preference started to appear, that would mean that their beauty standards would be moving closer to the West's, but that wouldn't be it copying the West, but simply convergent societal evolution.
The idea that what is beautiful or not is mostly socially determined is probably the least supported by empirical evidence theory explaining lookism, as this quick overview of the various theories in Langlois et al. 2000, a review of about 14 metastudies on the effect of looks, notes:
Speaking of that, Langlois 2000 is actually cited on the Scientific Blackpill page on the incels.wiki, where it's actually done a bit dirty, the wiki barely scratches the surface on that study
.People broadly agree on who is good looking or not, and it affects every aspect of life
+ Averageness for both sexes. In fact, I remember a pretty recent study, I can try finding it if you'd want, which found averageness to highly outrank symmetry when it came to facial attractiveness ratings.
Apart from that, there is a well-documented evidence for facial femininity being a bonus for women, while it's still questionable whether facial masculinity is a bonus for men.
The general traits you've mentioned account for about 80% of a person's facial attractiveness I'd say, with the culture-dependent rest not amounting to all that much.
The simple answer to this is that racial differences in attractiveness are strongly overstated by the people on this forum and that that doesn't discount the very real genetically-determined differences in facial attractiveness themselves.
I've already brought this study up a couple of times on this forum, it's exactly about this.
Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder but Ugliness Culturally Universal? Facial Preferences of Polish and Yali (Papua) People
This was done with a legit semi-isolated tribe in one of the very poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world. Those people do not consume Western media and have very little contact with Caucasians. As such, they have absolutely no reason to modify their beauty standards based on them, just like other such isolated populations, which routinely have about 0.13 agreement with Westerners on who is attractive and who isn't, while for example, even Subsaharan Africans have 0.50+ agreement:
And... it was basically meaningless.
The only thing that happened was that the guys rated 2 and 3 by the Polish girls were rated 1 and 2 by the Papuan ones and both of them chose the same guy to be the ugliest, because while socially-constructed beauty standards exist, they are built on genetically-derived ones, which are more important and are roughly universal, especially for ugliness.
The study even includes an interesting explanation for why attractiveness might be relatively fluid from place to place, but unattractiveness has the same standards everywhere:
Also, I'm honestly sceptical of how much Western media is shaping people's preferences.
Those guys' whiteness was a big plus in exactly one of the countries included in the study, which was Brazil. Brazil is a European-descended country where whiteness is explicitly put on a pedestal socially and is a big marker of socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, India, Cameroon and Namibia also consume a great number of Western media, but at the end of the day, they aren't Western countries where whites are a part of everyday reality for other people, so when they rated those guys, they simply tended to rate all of them as relative normies, rating the incels higher and the Chads lower than they were rated in Europe, similar to how people have problems telling apart faces of other races. If the beauty standards in those countries were significantly influenced by the West, I'm not sure whether this "normiefication" of European faces would be happening there.
Perceived attractiveness of Czech faces across 10 cultures: Associations with sexual shape dimorphism, averageness, fluctuating asymmetry, and eye color
Research on the perception of faces typically assumes that there are some universal values of attractiveness which are shared across individuals and cultures. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across cultures due to local differences in both facial morphology and standards of...journals.plos.org
The study itself even lightly touches this, because blue eyes were one of the traits whose effects on facial attractiveness were studied.
Eye color only mattered in places where blue eyes are uncommon but not absent. That is, in places like Brazil where European whiteness is explicitly valued, and where there are enough people with that trait to dominate the tv, magazines and other media. I'd guess the USA would also increasingly qualify as so. In northern Europe, blue eyes are common so they were irrelevant, while in India, Namibia and Cameroon, they basically don't exist, so they were likewise irrelevant, which very much wouldn't be the case if there were universal white-based beauty standards successfully pushed on the rest of the world by the Western media. Funnily enough, Namibia actually has a pretty powerful and rich minority of ethnic German colonial descendants living there, but still, because they are simply such small minority, then despite their presence and despite them being so much richer than black Namibians and having Western media propping them up further, blue eyes were still irrelevant when it came to facial attractiveness in that country.
My answer is the same . Become a dna analysis fortune teller. I'll get you the resources. Wait? Your hypothesis can only work in retrospect and actually has zero predictive power? That's too bad
Yeah that's definitely a disease that needs to be fixed with plastic surgery instead of a normal facial feature lmao.
So the genetic trait is not correlated with your sleep and it does pass down. So the plastic surgery was indeed pointless beyond a personal vanity project.
Never heard that one before. But I have considered why people consider light skin is attractive. On some level it seems innate, even genetic because of how deeply ingrained it is in the psyche. But the lack of evolutionary advantages have led me to conclude that it's still learned behaviour on a deep subconscious level.
Height is resource intensive and advantageous in fighting so I can see where that preference comes from. But may as well be a product of social conditioning as a result of these factors. One can't tell since there is no control group in these things.But still considered being short to be undesirable 2500 years ago
Read this
2500 year old Indian poem records the plight of short men (shortcels suifuel)
A Tamil poet by the name of Maruthan Ilanākanār writes an very sad poem (Kalithogai poem 94) about a shortcel trying his luck with a literal deformed toilet with a bent spine, his looksmatch. And the poem is incredibly blackpilled for its time. I will select the highlights from the poem: 1)...
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
They may percieve you to be attractive but it cannot be surely said that it's because they identify good genes in you post plastic surgery. I.e it cannot be proven that the genes you are trying to copy are "good" by any observer independent objective standard.
Frankly speaking I do not see how you come to that conclusion from the story you posted.
Thanks a lot @WorthlessSlavicShitThere is a massive general intercultural agreement on who is attractive and who isn't, almost irrelevant of the amount of contact with Europeans, and where there is something of that effect, it is still unknown whether it's the contact itself influencing the local beauty standards or just general development doing so. For example, multiple studies show that in richer areas and countries (Europe and so on), there seems to be a preference for facially feminine men, for pretty boys. Meanwhile, in poorer countries, more masculine men seem to dominate, because of the overall rougher environment. If, theoretically, countries like India, where we also see this pattern with no preference for pretty boys, got much richer and this preference started to appear, that would mean that their beauty standards would be moving closer to the West's, but that wouldn't be it copying the West, but simply convergent societal evolution.
The idea that what is beautiful or not is mostly socially determined is probably the least supported by empirical evidence theory explaining lookism, as this quick overview of the various theories in Langlois et al. 2000, a review of about 14 metastudies on the effect of looks, notes:
View attachment 1327636
Speaking of that, Langlois 2000 is actually cited on the Scientific Blackpill page on the incels.wiki, where it's actually done a bit dirty, the wiki barely scratches the surface on that study
People broadly agree on who is good looking or not, and it affects every aspect of life
+ Averageness for both sexes. In fact, I remember a pretty recent study, I can try finding it if you'd want, which found averageness to highly outrank symmetry when it came to facial attractiveness ratings.
Apart from that, there is a well-documented evidence for facial femininity being a bonus for women, while it's still questionable whether facial masculinity is a bonus for men.
The general traits you've mentioned account for about 80% of a person's facial attractiveness I'd say, with the culture-dependent rest not amounting to all that much.
The simple answer to this is that racial differences in attractiveness are strongly overstated by the people on this forum and that that doesn't discount the very real genetically-determined differences in facial attractiveness themselves.
I've already brought this study up a couple of times on this forum, it's exactly about this.
Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder but Ugliness Culturally Universal? Facial Preferences of Polish and Yali (Papua) People
This was done with a legit semi-isolated tribe in one of the very poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world. Those people do not consume Western media and have very little contact with Caucasians. As such, they have absolutely no reason to modify their beauty standards based on them, just like other such isolated populations, which routinely have about 0.13 agreement with Westerners on who is attractive and who isn't, while for example, even Subsaharan Africans have 0.50+ agreement:
And... it was basically meaningless.
The only thing that happened was that the guys rated 2 and 3 by the Polish girls were rated 1 and 2 by the Papuan ones and both of them chose the same guy to be the ugliest, because while socially-constructed beauty standards exist, they are built on genetically-derived ones, which are more important and are roughly universal, especially for ugliness.
The study even includes an interesting explanation for why attractiveness might be relatively fluid from place to place, but unattractiveness has the same standards everywhere:
Also, I'm honestly sceptical of how much Western media is shaping people's preferences.
Those guys' whiteness was a big plus in exactly one of the countries included in the study, which was Brazil. Brazil is a European-descended country where whiteness is explicitly put on a pedestal socially and is a big marker of socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, India, Cameroon and Namibia also consume a great number of Western media, but at the end of the day, they aren't Western countries where whites are a part of everyday reality for other people, so when they rated those guys, they simply tended to rate all of them as relative normies, rating the incels higher and the Chads lower than they were rated in Europe, similar to how people have problems telling apart faces of other races. If the beauty standards in those countries were significantly influenced by the West, I'm not sure whether this "normiefication" of European faces would be happening there.
The study itself even lightly touches this, because blue eyes were one of the traits whose effects on facial attractiveness were studied.
Eye color only mattered in places where blue eyes are uncommon but not absent. That is, in places like Brazil where European whiteness is explicitly valued, and where there are enough people with that trait to dominate the tv, magazines and other media. I'd guess the USA would also increasingly qualify as so. In northern Europe, blue eyes are common so they were irrelevant, while in India, Namibia and Cameroon, they basically don't exist, so they were likewise irrelevant, which very much wouldn't be the case if there were universal white-based beauty standards successfully pushed on the rest of the world by the Western media. Funnily enough, Namibia actually has a pretty powerful and rich minority of ethnic German colonial descendants living there, but still, because they are simply such small minority, then despite their presence and despite them being so much richer than black Namibians and having Western media propping them up further, blue eyes were still irrelevant when it came to facial attractiveness in that country.
I didn't know about the average and blue eyes part before.
Last edited:
It's a disability. I look like I'm a forever sleepless 70 year old junkie
Plastic surgery is required to make me look normal like everyone. What I have is a disability
From what I understood, males always prefer lighter skinned females because lighter skin can be helpful in production of more Vitamin D required for pregnancy and lactation
And females in general prefer darker skin and darker hair than them because that indicates higher T
But yeah obsession with white skin like it is today in Asia and Africa is definitely from artificial conditioning
So being taller has always been superior. I don't know a single large society that considered shortness to be attractive. It's almost as if as humans are innately attracted to it
Eye area definitely should be. It's a health indicator that people notice the first moment they see you
Same with chin, humans are the only animals with chins. Meaning it's a result of selection
Same with long hair on head and beard. Must be from 100000 years of selection
Those traits would show that I have good health from the indicators that evolved and people use to recognise health
I mean they definitely think that I have bad sleep from how shit my eye area is now.
Wdym? How can you not come to that conclusion?
Actually you are right. I see a lot of newer gen girls into kpop
So if countries get richer they prefer lesser masculine men? Why is that?
Basically what I've mentioned, the prevailing hypothesis is that the harder life seems somewhere the more the robust and masculine looking guys will look like an attractive choice to women because they can deal with the hard problems and violence better than prettyboys.
I see. So when living comfortable lives women wouldn't specifically have a preference for masculine men, they would prefer prettyboys more
Yeah jfl, you can't have your cake & eat it nowGeneticism is nonsense and pseudoscience even though your genes predict and determine 70-99% of your life, traits, behaviour and experiences - @Caesercel
This is also someone who believes race is useless and meaningless construct but believes Muh JBW to be true btw.
@DarkStar @Chudpreet @wereq @Regenerator @Fevet @light @WorthlessSlavicShit @Diddy
I don't know how @Caesercel can even deny the fact that race is real & that it does impact a lot of things
Not just looks, but IQ & behavior as well.
I'm sick of all of this coping here
Yeah this is correct, and you can still observe this somewhat in Western developed ones
In more rural areas, foids still go for that "masculine robust" kind of guy, whereas in the more urban areas(which also are more liberal & pro-fag, that's something to think on) we see them skew much more towards the prettyboys
It's also another reason as to why I still think society needs some element of "arduousness" to it, since it seems that it can gradually lead to an overall stagnation & decline in masculinity. which not to sound like a coper, is real to a degree & is necessary to sustain a civilization.
Exactly
Correlation does not equal causation.
Yes, it does not equal causation
But what it does mean, is you should look closer to see what is causing both tides to coincide
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
