I figure I will be talking today about a topic that might be seen as heresy within this community. Here I will treat the issue of l'Ookism - or looks reductionism - cherished as dogma by so many of the credulous and deceived.
To put the 'blackpill' in the simplest terms, we can summarize it effectively as: 'the average man will not receive the female he deserves'. Why such an uncontroversial statement should then be bounded up with the most ludicrous assertions about the nature of attraction is the matter at hand here and I am not sure of how such cumbersome falsehoods were fastened to it in the first place. We can state looks reductionism as the belief that 'only looks matter' for sexual success, a position so flatly incorrect that it would not even merit a refutation were it not for the fact that so many babbling stooges have become the soldiers of its cause, waving their fingerpainted banner as a grandiose 'theory of everything'.
To begin with the most salient fact, this is a fundamentally 'cucked' and gynocractic position. To say that women are attracted to the 'best-looking' men is to ascribe to them a superlatively refined aesthetic judgment that no other being possesses, to enthrone them in tribunals that would allow them to pass sentence on a man's physical worth. How they are able to arrive at these conclusions of course no one can say, except by appealing to an occult faculty that 'just is', that allow whores to 'sense' the 'best genes' (best in regard to what? Value judgments do not make sense without a goal as reference). That said, this does not prevent the partisans of l'Ookism from rallying behind it and defending it from all attacks. "Pee pee poo poo nigguh you're just 'coping' ook ook eek eek Chad has smexytime with my 'oneitis' and my mom and my sister all the time aw shit nigguh I wish I was Chad". Pathetic display all around, and that these people should be considered representatives of the 'blackpill' is a disgrace saddled on us all.
It does not take especially much work to tear this position to shreds either. Woman is, or should be, universally known as the sex totally without aesthetic judgment. Musically their tastes run exclusively to whorepop, visually they have no taste for majesty and busy themselves with bright and flowery trivialities, their culinary sense is generally dull. They have time and again proven themselves totally incapable of producing a single great work of art, or even appreciating one. But we are supposed to believe they have a supremely refined appreciation of masculine beuaty - why? This is in fact the same mistake that the forerunner of the modern blackpill, Arthur Schopenhauer, is guilty of making. His theory of heredity and sexual attraction is the main deficiency across his entire body of work, and nowhere is this more visible than in his short work 'On Women'. To begin with, we have him repeating points that were made earlier in this post:
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.
While later we are blindsided. as if formulated ex nihilo, by the l'Ookist cuckpill:
Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated.
This last excerpt is basically the blackpill as promulgated by a site like .co, in all of its 'depth'. I hope it will not be required of me to belabor exactly how fundamental a contradiction lies in these two thoughts - to think that they could issue from the same man - and moreover find inclusion in the same short work! This is not altogether distinct from looks reductionists who want to have their cake and eat it too however. We often see how looks reductionists are torn between inveighing against their 'oppression' while also trying to satisfy their barely repressed masochism. This leads them into the previously mentioned insoluble contradiction, whereby whores are supposed to be 'pee pee poo poo stupid and sheeeeeeit' while also merciless eugenicists with a razor-sharp eye for the differentiating qualities of men.
Before he was unceremoniously banned, the user [UWSL]@micropenis29[/UWSL] made one of the best points I've seen expressed on .co in several progressively degenerating years: l'Ookists, often times people who will in the same breath rave against 'Sub-8 Theory' (usually in order to indulge crybaby cuck fantasies like 'JBW' that are contingent upon it not being valid), do not seem to take their own histrionics seriously. People who make constant reference to OkCupid graphs w/ 5% response rates and testimonials from Reddit whores who only find 1% of men attractive, even go as far as to have the 'women only find 5% of men attractive' graph in their signature; these people will then throw a fit about 'Sub-8 Theory' ("'normies' bang my sister too!) while at the same time holding dogmatically to the l'Ookist 'only looks matter' position. These cannot both be true at the same time though. Which is it?
We also see incoherence crop up in the general refusal to recognize the concept of 'mentalcels'. Often times, they will lead us to believe that any cognitive or behavioral differences we observe between individuals is a result of 'discwimination' based on "lookism" (notice how this dovetails with soycuck BLMcel whining about "opwession" and refusal to acknowledge legitimate racial differences except for 'whypipo bad'). These people will make a big talk of being 'blackpilked' genetic determinists ("GENES are everything budy boyo xD girl can sense GOOD GENE"), but then will become radical blank-slate social constructivists whenever not playing with their hobby horse of "lookism". Evidently, only cosmetic differences are heritable and totally malleable souls without quality are deposited at birth into corporeal husks. Such dogmatic mind-body dualism hasn't been seen since Descartes!
Now on to the denouement: how exactly is the situation resolved? The only logical conclusion from the premises established ("women have bad judgment", "women do not rate many men as appealing based on visual stimulation") is indeed 'Sub-8 Theory' as certain people insist on calling it: women do not find the vast majority of men attractive. They have no sense for aesthetic distinctions except those of a very narrow nature amplified to the highest degree: for a woman to experience physical attraction, a man has to smack her over the head with beauty as it were; below the 99th percentile, a woman's aesthetic discernment rapidly fades to nothing until it experiences revulsion somewhere around the 10th percentile.
This is not to say that 'normies' don't have sex, which has always been a diversion or a childish misunderstanding: it does mean however that such attainments cannot be achieved on the merit of appearance. Where women's truly disordered, and even calculatedly grotesque, judgment shines through is in her social selection of men. Watch how the modern man flips his wrist, constantly clutching a cell phone, as he waxes feminine about 'losers'; watching how he neurotically poses in front of a mirror and calculates his sexual utility (it is no coincidence that l'Ooksmax is full of these whorish types); watch how he slurs his words and hops and bops all around the world to groid music. If a man could actually leverage his basal looks below the 99th percentile, such things would not be happening. Notice this also gives one ground to refute the cuck-cage big boy argument so often used by "traditionalists": "women are only bad now (if at all) because men 'let' them be". In fact it is the opposite. The new form of social competition among men on woman's terms ensures the rapid degeneration of masculine virtue as it forces men to debase themselves by acting gossippy, effeminate, and vacuous.
To open things up to a wider discussion: how did l'Ookism become a dogmatic tenet of the blackpill and what can be done about it?
*Credits to Stodge
To put the 'blackpill' in the simplest terms, we can summarize it effectively as: 'the average man will not receive the female he deserves'. Why such an uncontroversial statement should then be bounded up with the most ludicrous assertions about the nature of attraction is the matter at hand here and I am not sure of how such cumbersome falsehoods were fastened to it in the first place. We can state looks reductionism as the belief that 'only looks matter' for sexual success, a position so flatly incorrect that it would not even merit a refutation were it not for the fact that so many babbling stooges have become the soldiers of its cause, waving their fingerpainted banner as a grandiose 'theory of everything'.
To begin with the most salient fact, this is a fundamentally 'cucked' and gynocractic position. To say that women are attracted to the 'best-looking' men is to ascribe to them a superlatively refined aesthetic judgment that no other being possesses, to enthrone them in tribunals that would allow them to pass sentence on a man's physical worth. How they are able to arrive at these conclusions of course no one can say, except by appealing to an occult faculty that 'just is', that allow whores to 'sense' the 'best genes' (best in regard to what? Value judgments do not make sense without a goal as reference). That said, this does not prevent the partisans of l'Ookism from rallying behind it and defending it from all attacks. "Pee pee poo poo nigguh you're just 'coping' ook ook eek eek Chad has smexytime with my 'oneitis' and my mom and my sister all the time aw shit nigguh I wish I was Chad". Pathetic display all around, and that these people should be considered representatives of the 'blackpill' is a disgrace saddled on us all.
It does not take especially much work to tear this position to shreds either. Woman is, or should be, universally known as the sex totally without aesthetic judgment. Musically their tastes run exclusively to whorepop, visually they have no taste for majesty and busy themselves with bright and flowery trivialities, their culinary sense is generally dull. They have time and again proven themselves totally incapable of producing a single great work of art, or even appreciating one. But we are supposed to believe they have a supremely refined appreciation of masculine beuaty - why? This is in fact the same mistake that the forerunner of the modern blackpill, Arthur Schopenhauer, is guilty of making. His theory of heredity and sexual attraction is the main deficiency across his entire body of work, and nowhere is this more visible than in his short work 'On Women'. To begin with, we have him repeating points that were made earlier in this post:
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.
While later we are blindsided. as if formulated ex nihilo, by the l'Ookist cuckpill:
Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated.
This last excerpt is basically the blackpill as promulgated by a site like .co, in all of its 'depth'. I hope it will not be required of me to belabor exactly how fundamental a contradiction lies in these two thoughts - to think that they could issue from the same man - and moreover find inclusion in the same short work! This is not altogether distinct from looks reductionists who want to have their cake and eat it too however. We often see how looks reductionists are torn between inveighing against their 'oppression' while also trying to satisfy their barely repressed masochism. This leads them into the previously mentioned insoluble contradiction, whereby whores are supposed to be 'pee pee poo poo stupid and sheeeeeeit' while also merciless eugenicists with a razor-sharp eye for the differentiating qualities of men.
Before he was unceremoniously banned, the user [UWSL]@micropenis29[/UWSL] made one of the best points I've seen expressed on .co in several progressively degenerating years: l'Ookists, often times people who will in the same breath rave against 'Sub-8 Theory' (usually in order to indulge crybaby cuck fantasies like 'JBW' that are contingent upon it not being valid), do not seem to take their own histrionics seriously. People who make constant reference to OkCupid graphs w/ 5% response rates and testimonials from Reddit whores who only find 1% of men attractive, even go as far as to have the 'women only find 5% of men attractive' graph in their signature; these people will then throw a fit about 'Sub-8 Theory' ("'normies' bang my sister too!) while at the same time holding dogmatically to the l'Ookist 'only looks matter' position. These cannot both be true at the same time though. Which is it?
We also see incoherence crop up in the general refusal to recognize the concept of 'mentalcels'. Often times, they will lead us to believe that any cognitive or behavioral differences we observe between individuals is a result of 'discwimination' based on "lookism" (notice how this dovetails with soycuck BLMcel whining about "opwession" and refusal to acknowledge legitimate racial differences except for 'whypipo bad'). These people will make a big talk of being 'blackpilked' genetic determinists ("GENES are everything budy boyo xD girl can sense GOOD GENE"), but then will become radical blank-slate social constructivists whenever not playing with their hobby horse of "lookism". Evidently, only cosmetic differences are heritable and totally malleable souls without quality are deposited at birth into corporeal husks. Such dogmatic mind-body dualism hasn't been seen since Descartes!
Now on to the denouement: how exactly is the situation resolved? The only logical conclusion from the premises established ("women have bad judgment", "women do not rate many men as appealing based on visual stimulation") is indeed 'Sub-8 Theory' as certain people insist on calling it: women do not find the vast majority of men attractive. They have no sense for aesthetic distinctions except those of a very narrow nature amplified to the highest degree: for a woman to experience physical attraction, a man has to smack her over the head with beauty as it were; below the 99th percentile, a woman's aesthetic discernment rapidly fades to nothing until it experiences revulsion somewhere around the 10th percentile.
This is not to say that 'normies' don't have sex, which has always been a diversion or a childish misunderstanding: it does mean however that such attainments cannot be achieved on the merit of appearance. Where women's truly disordered, and even calculatedly grotesque, judgment shines through is in her social selection of men. Watch how the modern man flips his wrist, constantly clutching a cell phone, as he waxes feminine about 'losers'; watching how he neurotically poses in front of a mirror and calculates his sexual utility (it is no coincidence that l'Ooksmax is full of these whorish types); watch how he slurs his words and hops and bops all around the world to groid music. If a man could actually leverage his basal looks below the 99th percentile, such things would not be happening. Notice this also gives one ground to refute the cuck-cage big boy argument so often used by "traditionalists": "women are only bad now (if at all) because men 'let' them be". In fact it is the opposite. The new form of social competition among men on woman's terms ensures the rapid degeneration of masculine virtue as it forces men to debase themselves by acting gossippy, effeminate, and vacuous.
To open things up to a wider discussion: how did l'Ookism become a dogmatic tenet of the blackpill and what can be done about it?
*Credits to Stodge
