What is the one common denominator of all small fictional creatures: Gremlins, Smurfs, Goblins, Orcs, Gnomes, Grays, Oompa Loompas, etc., etc.?
They're all desexualized. They are basically stand-ins for children, or mischievous, unruly little jesters. They literally lack sexual organs, in most cases.
What is the one common denominator of all big fictional creatures: Vampires, Werewolves, Dragons, Zombies, Centaurs, Lizardmen, Giants, etc., etc.?
They're all sexual entities. They're big, therefore perceived as adults, therefore foids lust after "sexy vampires," "sexy werewolves," own dragon dildos, and so on.
When you are small, people have a hard time imagining you being a sexual entity. You are forever and fundamentally a child.
When you are large, you are allowed to be sexy and sexual. Foids want to bang vampires and werewolves and dragons and giants, not goblins and gremlins.
Why aren't there sexy (male) goblins? It's not because of muh facial features, as dragons don't have beautiful facial features either, yet literally serve as dildos.
It's because of height.
In fiction as in real life, "sexy creatures" are always those that are tall, or can potentially be tall. And the small (short) creatures are always fully desexualized.
The heightpill is so deeply ingrained into our psychology, that when we imagine "sexy monsters," they are always of the tall variety, and when we imagine "non-sexy monsters," they are always of the short variety. Big monsters get laid. Small monsters don't even have sexual organs. All the muh face copers can twist themselves into knots trying to rationalize it, but the fact is, it's not jawlines or chin sizes or any kind of facial features that make monsters sexy - it is height. Sexy monsters are sexy because they are tall, and that's that.
Smurfs have very elegant facial features, but foids don't fap to Smurfs, not even to Big Daddy Papa Smurf, because handsome manlets are still incels and truecels.
Werewolves have hideous facial features, but besides this being something of a dogpill, the key thing is that they're always portrayed as tall or "adult-sized."
Fictional dwarves are often handsome, or at least not ugly, yet they are usually portrayed in a desexualized manner.
Foids don't fap to 4'6" dwarves or to 3'6" hobbits. Foids aren't attracted to "Chadlets" such as Gimli and Frodo Baggins.
Whereas, literally monster-faced horrible creatures are presented as potentially sexual... because of their size (height).
Foids fap to sexy vampires despite their unappealing pale skin and dreadfully elongated canine teeth. Vampires and werewolves clearly didn't wear braces.
Height >>> Face
Ugly Tallfags >>> Handsome Manlets
If face were more important than height, you would expect dwarves to be portrayed as sexual entities, and werewolves to be extremely desexualized. After all, dwarves have normal-looking faces, while werewolves are literally monstrous. Yet the opposite is true: dwarves, despite being handsome or potentially handsome, are not sex objects, while werewolves, despite having horribly vile faces, are sex objects.
It is because tall ugly creature >>> short handsome creature.
Even fiction and fantasy tell you that Height >>> Face, but you refuse to read the signals, face-copers.
The SMV of tall beasts always mogs the SMV of short creatures. It has nothing to do with face. It's all about height.
You can keep denying that height is pretty much everything -- or at least, 60% of your SMV is height, and the rest is composed of everything else -- but denying the monsterpill won't change the reality of the situation. This monsterpill teaches you that even if you are literally a monster, as long as you are tall enough to look like an adult and not like a child, you can and will be perceived as sexy.
The little monster is a VIRGIN and the big monster is a CHAD.
The little monster has no sexual organs and the big monster is a ladies' man.
Hobbits are VIRGINS and vampires are CHADS, even though hobbits can definitely cuteboymaxx while lanky vampires look like teenage dorks and emos.
Gnomes are VIRGINS and dragons are CHADS, even though gnomes are very masculine and beardmaxxed while dragons are literally reptilian monsters.
What do facial features have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. It's all about the height.
Werewolves don't even have a chin and they are badly in need of a rhinoplasty, yet foids fantasize about them.
Dwarves have hyper-masculine faces with MASSIVE JAWS yet they don't feature in the sexual, masturbatory fantasies of foids.
Height is literally everything.
Height is more important than everything else combined and squared.
Ugly Tallfags >>> Handsome Manlets
They're all desexualized. They are basically stand-ins for children, or mischievous, unruly little jesters. They literally lack sexual organs, in most cases.
What is the one common denominator of all big fictional creatures: Vampires, Werewolves, Dragons, Zombies, Centaurs, Lizardmen, Giants, etc., etc.?
They're all sexual entities. They're big, therefore perceived as adults, therefore foids lust after "sexy vampires," "sexy werewolves," own dragon dildos, and so on.
When you are small, people have a hard time imagining you being a sexual entity. You are forever and fundamentally a child.
When you are large, you are allowed to be sexy and sexual. Foids want to bang vampires and werewolves and dragons and giants, not goblins and gremlins.
Why aren't there sexy (male) goblins? It's not because of muh facial features, as dragons don't have beautiful facial features either, yet literally serve as dildos.
It's because of height.
In fiction as in real life, "sexy creatures" are always those that are tall, or can potentially be tall. And the small (short) creatures are always fully desexualized.
The heightpill is so deeply ingrained into our psychology, that when we imagine "sexy monsters," they are always of the tall variety, and when we imagine "non-sexy monsters," they are always of the short variety. Big monsters get laid. Small monsters don't even have sexual organs. All the muh face copers can twist themselves into knots trying to rationalize it, but the fact is, it's not jawlines or chin sizes or any kind of facial features that make monsters sexy - it is height. Sexy monsters are sexy because they are tall, and that's that.
Smurfs have very elegant facial features, but foids don't fap to Smurfs, not even to Big Daddy Papa Smurf, because handsome manlets are still incels and truecels.
Werewolves have hideous facial features, but besides this being something of a dogpill, the key thing is that they're always portrayed as tall or "adult-sized."
Fictional dwarves are often handsome, or at least not ugly, yet they are usually portrayed in a desexualized manner.
Foids don't fap to 4'6" dwarves or to 3'6" hobbits. Foids aren't attracted to "Chadlets" such as Gimli and Frodo Baggins.
Whereas, literally monster-faced horrible creatures are presented as potentially sexual... because of their size (height).
Foids fap to sexy vampires despite their unappealing pale skin and dreadfully elongated canine teeth. Vampires and werewolves clearly didn't wear braces.
Height >>> Face
Ugly Tallfags >>> Handsome Manlets
If face were more important than height, you would expect dwarves to be portrayed as sexual entities, and werewolves to be extremely desexualized. After all, dwarves have normal-looking faces, while werewolves are literally monstrous. Yet the opposite is true: dwarves, despite being handsome or potentially handsome, are not sex objects, while werewolves, despite having horribly vile faces, are sex objects.
It is because tall ugly creature >>> short handsome creature.
Even fiction and fantasy tell you that Height >>> Face, but you refuse to read the signals, face-copers.
The SMV of tall beasts always mogs the SMV of short creatures. It has nothing to do with face. It's all about height.
You can keep denying that height is pretty much everything -- or at least, 60% of your SMV is height, and the rest is composed of everything else -- but denying the monsterpill won't change the reality of the situation. This monsterpill teaches you that even if you are literally a monster, as long as you are tall enough to look like an adult and not like a child, you can and will be perceived as sexy.
The little monster is a VIRGIN and the big monster is a CHAD.
The little monster has no sexual organs and the big monster is a ladies' man.
Hobbits are VIRGINS and vampires are CHADS, even though hobbits can definitely cuteboymaxx while lanky vampires look like teenage dorks and emos.
Gnomes are VIRGINS and dragons are CHADS, even though gnomes are very masculine and beardmaxxed while dragons are literally reptilian monsters.
What do facial features have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. It's all about the height.
Werewolves don't even have a chin and they are badly in need of a rhinoplasty, yet foids fantasize about them.
Dwarves have hyper-masculine faces with MASSIVE JAWS yet they don't feature in the sexual, masturbatory fantasies of foids.
Height is literally everything.
Height is more important than everything else combined and squared.
Ugly Tallfags >>> Handsome Manlets
