brocels try and answer this
JFL [scooby doo mystery] Why do regular men seem so much uglier than regular women?
brocels try and answer this
Massive cope.
2 words, fake up
Bunch of dumbasses fumbling around trying to answer something that there is already an answer to but they are just too stupid or too lazy to find it.
“I don’t buy this explanation” jfl. No data, no reasoning. Just statements that are completely false. Just “i dont buy this”
“I don’t buy this explanation” jfl. No data, no reasoning. Just statements that are completely false. Just “i dont buy this”
not reading all that
P
This is the main reason.
Also to be fair most men aren't focused on looksmaxxing, so that is a slight factor as well.
D
Truly over for brainlets.
Loled at the WARNING INCEL CONTENT tbh.
What a retard.
What a retard.
Social "science" 
Its not because of fakeup, women are just more attractive than men on a biological scale.
P
fakeup is definitely a factor
Makeup, and the fact that all women no matter how ugly they are have infinite smv. Foids literally have infinite options and can date other foids
Last edited:
@MENSA_IQcel @BlkPillPres i'd like to hear your input on this reddit thread
P
ugly as fuck tbh
good old sub8 law
I'm not going to get in an argument with LowIQPress
this isn't bait you don't have to argue with blk
I just want your thoughts
same
so dramatic
He's typing up his essay right now.
I don't agree with it. I think the average man looks a lot better then the average women. This is well documented in hypergamus species. Since every female can reproduce but only the attractive males can reproduce men tend to evolve prettier while women evolve more dull.
It's hard to compare men and women in terms of looks because they are different categories. It's like asking what is more beautiful, paradise falls or the majestic arctic wolf. However, ceteris paribus, men should on average look better than women. And tbh I see it. Most normies have some Chad features built into them. A perfect example is David Hogg.
He was mocked as being a "beta", "simp", "cuck" and "normie". I remember when r/braincels mocked him for his reddit posts complaining about not receiving any female attention at school. While David Hogg certainly isn't a "Chad", he has a very harmonious face, high cheekbones, symmetry, and hunter eyes at some angles (although this picture you can't really see them). None of these features were good enough for the women he attended school because he wasn't complete with Chad-like masculinity.
If a women had all the features Hogg had, but lacked that spark of femininity that separates a Stacy from a Becky, she would be considered much more valuable in the dating market than Hogg. Men on average look better than women, and they have to for survival; it doesn't stop the dating market from valuing them significantly less than their female counterparts.
This is high IQ I wanted to say something similar, but I was unsure how to phrase it without it sounding gay.
Naturally especially when controlling for effort (many men don't try: glasses, short haircut, pale skin, not lean, etc etc) men look better.
But there is also balding to consider and that men look a lot worse fat/overweight than women.
I guess I'm too young to consider balding a factor but I agree with that. I think even with balding, men age better than women (from a purely objective aesthetic standpoint)
"N-no, it can't be because the vast majority of men are sexually unattractive to women, it has to be something else."
Normgroid "men" are pussies.
Normgroid "men" are pussies.
M
There's the answer
Well at 22 I'm already solid NW2 unfortunately. Men's skin ages better, but their hair ages worse so it depends I guess.
Damn that's rough. I see balding as like a 50cel thing.
Hypergamy is not even a "theory" anymore it's a proven social concept that was documented for centuries. If you think it's a "theory" or has little weight you should die on the spot.
Women are not more atractive than men but their egos are so high that they believe they are. Infact men are more beautiful than women because women tend to have worse posture and suffer way more from TMJ (jaw problems). Also women don't gymmax as much as men do.
Last edited:
Its makeup, take away makeup and watch how all women start looking plain as hell
This only counts for animals where WOMEN select, but women have only JUST BEGAN to select in our species, humans are (were) too smart of a species to let their females select, men raped, fathers offered up their daughters, etc, for a long time we had patriarchal structures in place to keep women from choosing, that's why men don't all have flashy eye colours and its just women that look plain.
If what you were saying about the human species were true, men would be a lot more distinctly attractive than females, and we really aren't, only men should have coloured eyes, or even coloured hair (like mandrills)
Variation 2: The female with the flamboyant and massive male
Continuing my investigation into stages of individual development, I’ve stumbled upon a study of the maturation of semi-wild mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Mandrills are one of the most visua…
lawnchairanthropology.com
Also you are comparing birds and mammals, birds tend to let women select, and this is why the males looks so flamboyant and colourful, now look at monkeys and gorillas (animals which we resemble more closely and are genetically closer to), do the males look colourful and flamboyant?
Not really, I mean there are Mandrills, but for the most part, the males don't "look better" than the females as you'd see with birds, were completely different animals, we don't really let women select (well we do today, but that wasn't the norm for our species)
Last edited:
H
pure white beauty right there
Yeah makeup
Makeup and possibly pussy halo idk
Its makeup, take away makeup and watch how all women start looking plain as hell
This only counts for animals where WOMEN select, but women have only JUST BEGAN to select in our species, humans are (were) too smart of a species to let their females select, men raped, fathers offered up their daughters, etc, for a long time we had patriarchal structures in place to keep women from choosing, that's why men don't all have flashy eye colours and its just women that look plain.
If what you were saying about the human species were true, men would be a lot more distinctly attractive than females, and we really aren't, only men should have coloured eyes, or even coloured hair (like mandrills)
Variation 2: The female with the flamboyant and massive male
Continuing my investigation into stages of individual development, I’ve stumbled upon a study of the maturation of semi-wild mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Mandrills are one of the most visua…
Also you are comparing birds and mammals, birds tend to let women select, and this is why the males looks so flamboyant and colourful, now look at monkeys and gorillas (animals which we resemble more closely and are genetically closer to), do the males look colourful and flamboyant?
Not really, I mean there are Mandrills, but for the most part, the males don't "look better" than the females as you'd see with birds, were completely different animals, we don't really let women select (well we do today, but that wasn't the norm for our species)
You argue women have not been the main choosers of mates until fairly recently which is technically true; but, were women not the primary choosers of mates before civilization? Civilization has only existed for about 10000 years and before then we lived in a tribal hunter-gatherer type society. Of all the readings I've done on this time period, especially through the works of H.G Wells, I never had an utterance to me about the mating patterns in these societies.
Because if women were the primary choosers before civilization (and thus monogamy) my point would still stand; since the time period of which were civilized represents a small percent of humanities total evolutionary history. Obviously the vise versa is true if males were the mate choosers.
I get conflicting sources when I research the matter. Some argue it was a male dominated sexual market (or perhaps warzone would be a better term) but some say it was a more """"civilized"""" sexual market with females being the deciders. If you can show hyper-gamy was not the primary natural state before civilization I will concede you are in fact correct and have bested me on this issue.
I hate foids so mcuh
Great response and it’s good what you pointed out. The answer is yes, it was women who were the choosers for thousands of years during the hunter-gatherer times. Shit, there are studies that say evidence shows back in those times each alpha male (chads) were being SELECTED by like 14 women, and was having children with all of them (1 chad had 14 women and impregnated them all). Most beta men (ugly men, low genetic quality) didn’t reproduce.
Makeup automatically makes all girls have 10/10 skin genetics and 10/10 eye area, so unless her maxilla and mandible is fucked, which is rare and most people have good forward growth in one of these bones, so it's almost impossible not to be average looking plus with makeup.
No that's your interpretation of the data
The data shows that most beta males simply didn't reproduce and very few men did, that doesn't automatically mean women did the selecting, and how the fuck did women do any selecting when you could just rape a bitch, just common sense alone shows you this doesn't make any sense, we never functioned like other animals that just "let women" refuse their advances, we make our females submit
WHAT'S MORE LIKELY (AND OBVIOUS)
Is that most beta men didn't reproduce because most of them would be killed or died off, stronger males, with stronger constitutions and better immune systems were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and they also killed off the competition
So the end result is the same, more Chads reproduce, because they were better fighters, had stronger bodies, were more immune to diseases, etc, it wasn't women "selecting" them, AS IF WOMEN HAD A CHOICE, do you think any woman could refuse the Chad leader of a tribe? or even an Ugly Beta leader?, he'd just force himself on her, but the beta COULD BE KILLED BY CHAD
Many men likely had their women taken from them by force
@BITG
Do you know what the "fisherian Runaway" theory is?
Google it, MENSA_IQcel actually put an example of it in his post:
WHERE IS THE HUMAN EXAMPLE OF THIS IF IT WAS WOMEN WHO SELECTED TRAITS?
In species where women are the selectors you end up with flamboyant males, these traits become COMMON, in other words:
WHY AREN'T MORE MEN CHAD, IF WOMEN WERE SELECTING CHADS?
CHAD TRAITS SHOULD BE COMMON BY NOW
All peacocks have that ridiculously large feather arrangement, some are larger, but not by much, why isn't there the same commonalities with humans if women were selecting?
Shouldn't we all have big dicks, shouldn't 7 inches be a minimum by now?
Being 6fft tall should be the norm, yet the average height for most of the planet isn't 6ft
If women were the selectors, the males of the human species WOULD BE FLAMBOYANT LIKE MANDRILLS
Or we'd ALL have some extreme commonality that separates us from women (other than basic things like strength and size)
WHERE ARE THE EXTREME (YET COMMON) CHARACTERISTICS THAT YOU SEE IN OTHER SPECIES WHERE FEMALES SELECT?
Last edited:
H
You have a thing for glasses?i see 3 in there i would like to fuck
I
Seriously women are average are far fucking uglier than men on average. At least most men don't have shit like horrible acne while every woman pretty much does on top of being ugly
H
the 3 dont have glasses. one to left and 2 behind the front middle foid
It's funny cuz the author is a legit fucking chad.
read up on literally every Hollywood female actress without makeup and you'll realize the truth, most of them aren't even a cut close to average without their precious hax.
I
Seriously once you see how women look without makeup thats it, the curtain comes up and you can never go back to being so fucking retarded you actually think men look worse than women
The average woman is way fucking uglier than the average man for whatever that's worth , it just speaks volumes about the culture and social norms that people just account makeup as natural foid beauty
No that's your interpretation of the data
The data shows that most beta males simply didn't reproduce and very few men did, that doesn't automatically mean women did the selecting, and how the fuck did women do any selecting when you could just rape a bitch, just common sense alone shows you this doesn't make any sense, we never functioned like other animals that just "let women" refuse their advances, we make our females submit
WHAT'S MORE LIKELY (AND OBVIOUS)
Is that most beta men didn't reproduce because most of them would be killed or died off, stronger males, with stronger constitutions and better immune systems were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and they also killed off the competition
So the end result is the same, more Chads reproduce, because they were better fighters, had stronger bodies, were more immune to diseases, etc, it wasn't women "selecting" them, AS IF WOMEN HAD A CHOICE, do you think any woman could refuse the Chad leader of a tribe? or even an Ugly Beta leader?, he'd just force himself on her, but the beta COULD BE KILLED BY CHAD
Many men likely had their women taken from them by force
@BITG
Do you know what the "fisherian Runaway" theory is?
Google it, MENSA_IQcel actually put an example of it in his post:
WHERE IS THE HUMAN EXAMPLE OF THIS IF IT WAS WOMEN WHO SELECTED TRAITS?
In species where women are the selectors you end up with flamboyant males, these traits become COMMON, in other words:
WHY AREN'T MORE MEN CHAD, IF WOMEN WERE SELECTING CHADS?
CHAD TRAITS SHOULD BE COMMON BY NOW
All peacocks have that ridiculously large feather arrangement, some are larger, but not by much, why isn't there the same commonalities with humans if women were selecting?
Shouldn't we all have big dicks, shouldn't 7 inches be a minimum by now?
Being 6fft tall should be the norm, yet the average height for most of the planet isn't 6ft
If women were the selectors, the males of the human species WOULD BE FLAMBOYANT LIKE MANDRILLS
Or we'd ALL have some extreme commonality that separates us from women (other than basic things like strength and size)
WHERE ARE THE EXTREME (YET COMMON) CHARACTERISTICS THAT YOU SEE IN OTHER SPECIES WHERE FEMALES SELECT?
That was what my post with David Hogg as trying to poke at. Men DO look better than women in general, maybe not in the same way as a flamboyant peacock or mandrill; but men, like all mammal species with at least SOME female input in mate selection, will produce generally more attractive males. Since human females had significantly less input in the mating choices than their mandrill or peacock counterparts, this effect-was less exaggerated in humans, but can still be shown nonetheless.
David Hogg is an example of a fairly aesthetic specimen who was (and maybe still is) incel because of hypergamus female nature. Had there been a women with the equivalent attractiveness as David Hogg, she would be considered one of the higher status females. Men in general look better than women because of female selection, but of course since females had less input than mandrils of the same species, humans males didn't evolve colorful noses.
That was what I was trying to get at. I was in a rush so I couldn't get the source but in the far-past the ratio of male reproduction to female reproduction was insanely high.
You say "significantly less", I say "none at all until recently", also what do you mean by "significantly" less?, that doesn't even make sense, either males allowed women to choose, or men chose, just like with all other species, the women are either the selectors or they aren't, there was no inbetween
I can't see what you're talking about, there is nothing about men that is "better looking" or "more noticeable" about men when compared to their females
The simplest way by which nature chooses to distinguish males from females, when females are the selectors of the species, IS COLOUR
Why is it that having different hair and eye colours isn't restricted to males, and women only have brown/black hair and brown/black eyes, if that was the case, I'd completely agree with you, it would not even be debatable
But what you are telling me is that females selected, and for some reason, the simplest and most obvious indicator of "more attractive"/"more noticeable" just did not happen for this species
There is literally nothing, not one example you can give me, of an extreme difference between male and female humans, that truly makes men stand out, AND ITS OBVIOUS (like with colour). The differences are too slight to have anything to do with selection
In what way?
We don't even have anything obvious like "brighter colours" so what are you even talking about?
Give some examples, and dude please don't say any BS like "muh canthal tilt", that's not an example, nature chooses simple and easily noticeable traits to distinguish males from females, when the female selects, if women were select men, there'd be something blatantly obvious that makes men stand out
Similar threads
Toxic Femininity
"Men seem to use their newfound resources to build families, while women use them to exit families"
- Misogynist Vegeta
- Inceldom Discussion
Nagger
Users who are viewing this thread
