The Ugly Truth About Beauty

[Oreka Bailoak]

Any thoughts? I`d really appreciate the eugenicists` viewpoint on the matter.

Attractiveness is also correlated with intelligence; and certain physical looks are correlated with certain personality types. There's a good chance that some of the correlation that they see for people favoring more attractive people may be due to other variables that are correlated with higher attractiveness; intelligence, height, health, mood, personality- all of which have some sort of correlation.

Trying to adjust society into what you think is "social equilibrium" without understanding that things are already in the real natural equilibrium will really mess things up.

[GeistFaust]

Sounds a lot like NWO, one human race, etc.

It is Orwellian Double think its a method to subtly subdue a population into thinking they are thinking one thing when they are think the opposite actually. Its quite a malicious employ projected by the elites in the end its about winning them more power and money. They will get people to buy into their agenda not because they actually sell their agenda in a straightforward and direct way to people but because they act like cowards and cover their malicious behaviors up with fancies and niceties. The frivilous and unimportant things they concern most people will distract them from what is really going on behind the community as a whole. Again its all about converting people into property where everyone has a monetarial value if you do not conform and obey to their authority than they eliminate you but if you let them suck the power and money from you while they get pleasure at the expense of your well being everything is going just fine.

[Curtis24]

Actually, for males, the view of what constitutes attractive isn't as subjective there are a few studies on this I will dig up, but basically male's have close to the same views on attractiveness as other males. Females on the other hand have highly subjective views on what constitutes attractive in the opposite sex.

From what I remember, women also judge male physical attractiveness objectively; however, obviously women value personality more than looks.

[Agrippa]

From what I remember, women also judge male physical attractiveness objectively; however, obviously women value personality more than looks.

And they being much more influenced by status symbols, superficial things like clothing and what kind of job you have. Simple put, you need to be "better off" than the average.

They made a test run for males and females, males largely didn't care about what the females wore, but females on the other hand were much more influenced by cues about the social status.

F.e. males with a fast food employee uniform were rated much less attractive, than those in a good suit.

So males look for physical attractiveness primarily, traits which give cue about fertility, health, youth, generally good and advantageous traits etc.

Females look after that too, but if they get cues about the personality, social status and wealth, those being included in the calculation and can influence the end result much more, than in males.

Insofar, one could say both sexes are in the end superficial, but in a different way, with females being easier to get, buy or impress with wealth and status.

[antonio]

I used to look much on women clothes (not only but also trying to guess the inside matter). Unfortunatelly they dress up is worsening day by day so when I find one well dressed I almost fall in love just by her fucking clothes.

Being more serious: I would state that every private organization should have the right to contract on the basis it want even on the mere caprice of managers. Moreover, if they bring things too long, for example, by contracting no Blacks at all, which Id respect, sooner or later they would face a respectable too boicot from Black community, albeit, of course, I would not care a shit about that if products or services are right.

[Curtis24]

And they being much more influenced by status symbols, superficial things like clothing and what kind of job you have. Simple put, you need to be "better off" than the average.

They made a test run for males and females, males largely didn't care about what the females wore, but females on the other hand were much more influenced by cues about the social status.

F.e. males with a fast food employee uniform were rated much less attractive, than those in a good suit.

So males look for physical attractiveness primarily, traits which give cue about fertility, health, youth, generally good and advantageous traits etc.

Females look after that too, but if they get cues about the personality, social status and wealth, those being included in the calculation and can influence the end result much more, than in males.

Insofar, one could say both sexes are in the end superficial, but in a different way, with females being easier to get, buy or impress with wealth and status.

Nowadays I would say its less about wealth and clothes and more about how you socially interact with them. Feminism has made wealth and traditional male social status less important.

[Edelmann]

Insofar, one could say both sexes are in the end superficial, but in a different way, with females being easier to get, buy or impress with wealth and status.

This is hilarious. I notice that there's no equivalent movement to equalize successful men with scrubs, probably because most social "scientists" are women.

[Agrippa]

Nowadays I would say its less about wealth and clothes and more about how you socially interact with them. Feminism has made wealth and traditional male social status less important.

Look, we all know you can "balance things out" with "a lot of personality" and dominant appearance, otherwise, why should some bourgeois daughters and students fuck with Negrid refugees and drug dealers?

Well, they do, because you can "balance things out", but that are different aspects, which being not shown in the pictures.

In the pictures they tested, the men were just equally attractive, but differently clothed and the same was applied for the female test objects/male participants.

Fact is just: Being poor is virtually no part of the calculation for males, but a major part of the calculation for females.

If they can choose, they prefer a "better off" male, which is more than just income by the way, it can be education and general social status, intelligence etc. too, before a "lower end" one. Of course, most fast food employees might:
a) flirt not primarily at their job
b) if, often with lower level women, which have no better choice anyway
c) being such great individuals otherwise, that they can balance their deficit out

It is crucial to understand this, because this explains why the typical service jobs are "unmanly" and damage the male psychological balance.
Because for females it doesn't matter to a submissive service person as much, but for males it is a constant humiliation, whether they accept that fact consciously or not doesn't matter.

A male in such a job falls down for females, a female in such job not - probably even on the contrary.

That's an Dysgenic and demographic problem even, with too many females making it up the social ladder on their own, in positions above many males, but with many upper class males being ready to take socially less fortunate females, if they are attractive and otherwise good partners, regardless of their "job-wealth status".

The more women come up therefore, the more of them will have problem finding an adequate partner, even more so of being "difficult by behaviour" (or less attractive), having "high demands" even otherwise, if Cultural Marxists-Liberalists have shitten in their heads, so to say.

So they will stay quite often childless, since they plan their life and don't agree with being a single mother quite often neither.

The wealth of the male is, by the way, more than just "gaining paid status" by the female, it is "the living proof for the males success".

Males which made it so far, that is the calculation, might have better genes and traits too!

The problem is just, in the past that were often warriors, good politicians, idealists and real artists or hard working people at least, but nowadays, many are just hypocrites and liars, fraudsters and criminals, just look at many of the "Russian rich" and what kind of females they got - a lot of criminals, degenerates, among them a lot of criminals and/or corrupted-asocial Jews too.

That way, this is what breeds with beauty and that's not optimal neither, even though the numbers are so low, that they can't make up the general dysgenic trend (shorter, fatter, dumber, more primitive and infantile-reduced) anyway...

[Curtis24]

These types of threads always make me feel dirty inside

Anyway Agrippa, it seems more and more that "personality dominance" is more important than actually having a good job. You should take a look at the bar/club scene, and how easy it is to get laid just be demeanor even when the person knows minimal about you...

[Agrippa]

These types of threads always make me feel dirty inside

Anyway Agrippa, it seems more and more that "personality dominance" is more important than actually having a good job. You should take a look at the bar/club scene, and how easy it is to get laid just be demeanor even when the person knows minimal about you...

Well, there are also differences between short time affairs, especially with contraceptives, and longer term relationships.

But as I said, the evaluation of a male by a female can know many factors - more than in the opposite case, where it is much more about face, tits, ass, legs etc. to say it blunt.