Descriptors of Beauty and Attractiveness

What kind of female beauty is your style?

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: This article is only a short list of various elements of beauty and attractiveness that I’ve collected over the years and is by no means exhaustive. All these points have some evidence of being true, although I do not have links for everything. Various contexts, nuances, and personal tastes may affect the items on the list.
Warning: NSFW! One image contains nudity.

Reasons why Aesthetic Beauty is an Important Consideration

A woman’s attractiveness is important because it is, by far, the number one trait that is desired by men.

However, aesthetic beauty is a devaluing asset. After the age of 22-25, women do not become more beautiful. Instead, they only decrease in beauty. As a consequence, a woman who is a 6 when she is 25, is going to be < 4 twenty year later, whereas, a woman who is a 9 at the age of 25, has the chance of being > 6 over the same time frame. In my experience, given a five-year span, women are more likely to change their religion and/or their basic value system, rather than to raise the overall quality of their physical appearance.

What a woman does in her prime years (18-25) often determines her level of inner, non-physical beauty in her later years.

Physical Elements of Aesthetic Beauty and Attractiveness*

In order of importance…

Youth contains its own glorious beauty.

A glowing face indicates youth, health, vitality, and purity of heart.

Height is always a trump card in SMV and MMV.

  • For men, a 6-foot-tall skinny nerd beats a 5’5” body builder, in the eyes of women.**
  • For women, the ideal height is between the chin and eye level of the man.

Weight

  • Body Mass Index is ideally 16-20% for men and 18-22% for women.
  • Being thin and fit
  • Muscle tone
  • Clear definition of figure
  • See Christianity and Masculinity’s post BMI, Overweight and attractiveness (2015 August 30)

Body and Facial Symmetry

A high degree of body and especially facial symmetry is a mark of genetic quality.

Good Body and Facial Proportions

The Golden Ratio (1:1.618…) is the standard for beauty. Individuals having a high number of Golden Ratio proportions distributed throughout their body are more beautiful by definition. (See previous image.)

Of note, the Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) is especially important in determining both the fertility and attractiveness of a woman.

  • 0.6 to 0.7 is ideal for women
  • 0.7-0.8 is ideal for men
  • Above 1 appears unattractive.

Long Hair is an indicator of youth and fertility.*** The Bible says it is the glory of a woman. (1st Corinthians 11:15)

Ideal hair length is between the shoulder and mid-waist. Personally, I find hair that is long and thick enough to cover the breasts is extremely thrilling.

Health and Energy

A clear complexion indicates good diet and self-care.

Athletic activities (e.g. sports, competitive games) and outdoor activities are associated with good health, energy, and a robust physical constitution.

Affect

A high Affect display that is congruent with subjective mood is extremely engaging. This is the female equivalent of charisma for men. A warm, natural smile, and eyes that convey hope and vitality are the key indicators of a good affect.

Non-Physical Elements of Beauty and Attractiveness

In order of importance…

Emotional Maturity

IOIs indicating trust, humility, and an open heart are always attractive.

Self-Confidence

Sexual Purity

Socially skilled

Well-developed Personality

Friendly and open

Positive Attitude

General Observations of the Impression of Attractiveness

SOME WOMEN ARE BETTER IN PUBLIC SOCIETY.
SOME WOMEN ARE BETTER STAYING AT HOME.

Extroverted women are smooth, suave, and very efficacious in a social setting, but can be overbearing in the home. Introverted women can be awkward in public, but these shy sex kittens make proud additions to the home and bedroom.

SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER CLOSE UP.
SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER FAR AWAY.

From a distance, a woman’s hair, figure, and physical habits of motion are more evident. Up close, her affect, energy, and personality come through.

SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER WEARING MAKE UP.
SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER WITHOUT MAKE UP.

In general, younger women and naturally beautiful women look better without makeup, while older women and naturally fugly women look better with makeup added.

SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER UP FRONT.
SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER FROM BEHIND.

Very VERY few women have the ideal figure — BOTH a nice pair of tits, AND a nice @ss, and a slender waist in between (as shown in the photo above).

There are tit men, and there are @ss men.

Tit men prefer nice tits over a nice @ss.
@ss men prefer a nice @ss over a nice rack.

Male confidence is associated with tit women.
Men prefer tit women for sex.

Male libido and virility is associated with @ss women.
Men prefer @ss women for marriage.

SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER WITH CLOTHES ON.
SOME WOMEN LOOK BETTER IN THE NUDE.

When wearing clothing, those women who look the best are those who are very thin, even skinny-bone chicks. This is because clothes accentuate their body lines and skeletal frame.
When in the nude, those women who look the best are those with sleek, very physically fit, hourglass bodies. Clothes only hide their natural beauty. For those women with an hourglass figure, who are most desirable to men, clothes usually make them appear stodgy, plump, or pudgy.

For women who are overweight, it’s a mixed bag. Some of them look better with clothes on, and others look better in the nude.

However, a woman possessing exemplary beauty will be attractive, no matter what she wears. For example, consider this Asian doll wearing a plastic 7-11 bag!

Other Physical Signs and Correllations

Masculinity attracts femininity.

Men attract the female version of themselves.

Women attract the male version of themselves.

Women with a jaw length longer than 2.5 inches (measured from the earlobe), look better with long hair.

Women with a strong, masculine jawline† are more likely to cheat.

Women with a large digit ratio† (ring finger is longer than index finger) have a higher libido (more horny).

Women with a higher libido† are more likely to have acne.

Vegetarians are more likely to enjoy oral sex.

Also see List of Slut Tells (2017 October 15)

Conclusions

Men, know what kind of woman is right for you!

Exit Question

What kind of female beauty is your style?

For me, it’s STAY AT HOME, UP FRONT, CLOSE UP, WITHOUT MAKEUP, and IN THE NUDE. However, I do have a healthy appreciation for the others (perhaps too healthy). I used to be an @ss man when I was younger, but I’ve slowly become a tit man as I’ve grown older.

Notes

Note 1: In the comments under Fantasy in Makeup and Photography (2021 April 16) there was some discussion of the “thick” physique for women (i.e., shapely in a pronounced way and not slender). A good example of “thick” might be Mikayla Saravia who was covered in Yet another variety of Internet Whoring (2019 October 9). It was concluded that this physique is very hard to maintain and is only achievable through genetics.

* Note 2: NovaSeeker’s post, Deciphering Concepts of Attraction (2021 April 19), and Deti’s comment make the point that when women use the word “attraction” (and its various cognates) it does NOT have a sexual connotation. It’s like a luxurious step above being “nice” (which we know is not a compliment to men at all). Whereas men use the word “attractive” as a polite way to say she passes the boner test. This is a world of a difference in verbal communication which we should be aware of.

** Note 3: Artisanal Toad once said

“Given that male dominance is pretty much criminalized in the western world, I think it’s reasonable to assume that height is being used as a proxy for the dominance they crave.”

*** Note 4: In women’s assessment of female SMV, they regularly confuse “fertility” with “attractiveness”. This error is showcased by Susan Walsh in her post at Hooking Up Smart, The Myth of Plummeting Female Sexual Market Value (October 15, 2013), in which she makes a major miscalculation in the value of the information found by OKCupid, and described by Rollo in Final Exam – Navigating the SMP (2012 June 4).

Note 5: Women have been led to believe that the Strong Independent Woman™ is the epitome of attractiveness, as Dalrock described in Kickass conservative gals. (2017 April 10). There is a bit of projection in this assessment, as this is actually what women are attracted to in men.

Note 6: These traits are associated with higher testosterone levels.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Asia, Attraction, Authenticity, Charisma, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Clothing, Confidence, Desire, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Glory, Health, IOI's, Personal Presentation, Psychology, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Taiwan, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to Descriptors of Beauty and Attractiveness

  1. cameron232 says:

    I don’t buy that tall skinny beats short bodybuilder. Ask Jason. Tall skinny looks gangly.

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Most bodybuilders have always been around 5’5” hence what the big deal was about men like Lou Ferrigno (6’5”) and Arnold Schwarznagger (6’2”). They towered over 90% of bodybuilders in the 1970’s! Lou lead a sheltered life, he didn’t know why ”men” at Fire Island in Shirley, New York (Most not know that slavery was legal in New York until 1827 do they, but a villain does? This is why you never listen to any news reporters or politicians from New York! ”Holy” New York still won’t repent of slavery to this day!) were so nice to him&wanted to shake his hand! Yes he actually said that in his first biography book from ’83!

      Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Deti,of course your right!Only about 12% of men in the world are 6 foot or taller so how are all these women going to get one without polygyny?You remember I’m 6’3” right?So I know this story very well as in”Mr.professor I did’nt know you were so tall!?”from a nearly 6 foot tall physical therapist manager woman at physical therapy rehab once I was walking again!Did I mention her husband was around 6’6”?

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Height is a pure genetic screen, so it’s more viscerally valued. Built smaller guys can do ok as well, but since that’s a self-made thing and not genetic like height is (i.e., “out-of-the-box”/unchangeable), it isn’t as valued.

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Still not convinced – from what I see Ichabod doesnt get the girl. But I don’t know of any studies. The 5-5 bodybuilder can surf for short chicks. I have an example from work – a short jacked Puerto Rican guy who draws more female interest than the beanpoles do. His height does seem to be a disadvantage though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        You don’t want to be a beanpole, no, but as between an in shape tall guy and in in shape short guy (ie, both not skinny and not fat, and toned), tall guy always wins because genetics.

        If you take a fat slob tall guy or a bean pole tall guy, sure.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        More then that, women don’t tend to value hard work etc required to build something. No matter what that something is most women want a finished product.

        You’re a natural at fill in the blank or you are nothing.

        Well built dude? All good. Seeing that guy grind etc for 15 years to create that build? Not good. Play the guitar well? Damp panties. Watch you practice for 15 years before you play well? Dry panties…. and chicks recoil at men learning game vs being a natural

        All of which is pretty logical sense it interefers with their hunt for quality baby batter

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Yeah. Height is a real dealbreaker with a lot of women. Women can deal with not wealthy, or busted face, or body types they aren’t particularly into. Some of them can deal with bald (and some like it).

        But they have a very, very hard time dealing with height. Women of short stature up to about 6 feet have a very, very difficult time accepting a man who’s shorter than they are. Women explain this by saying that men who are taller than they are make them feel safe and they like the feeling of “being small” next to a man. He doesn’t have to be muscular or proportional or with a good body. He just has to be taller.

        The only exception to this is very tall women – women over 6 feet. They accept shorter men because for the most part, they don’t have a choice. Taller men in the 6’2″ to 6’5″ are in that sweet spot for height and they have a lot of options. When they have those options they often go for women who are shorter than 6 feet. A lot of women who are 6 feet and up have a hard time appearing feminine. One of the best things a very tall woman can do for herself is make her appearance and demeanor as feminine as possible – consciously so. Otherwise, she comes off as masculine without even trying in many cases. The very tall woman has to work on appearing and acting feminine.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The 5-5 bodybuilder can surf for short chicks. I have an example from work – a short jacked Puerto Rican guy who draws more female interest than the beanpoles do.”

        Agree in general – the best bet for shorter than average men (probably 5’7″ and under) is to get in shape. If you’re a short guy, get a body. (Tom Cruise. Tom Holland.)

        This is true for prematurely bald men too – if you are losing your hair, get into shape. (Bruce Willis. Jason Statham. Sean Connery (he wore really really good toupees but never got fat.))

        If you’re short or bald, you need to do things to appear more masculine. Short? Get a body and dress well. Channel your inner Franco Columbu (5’5″.) Bald or going bald? Shave it off, experiment with facial hair, and get into shape. Channel your inner Walter White.

        You can’t have a double whammy against you. You can’t be short and chubby. You can’t be bald and obese. You especially can’t be these things if you’re under 40 years old. If you have two strikes against you right out of the gate, you’re going to have a very, very hard time.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Jack says:

        I knew a guy whose hair thinned out before he was 30, so he shaved his head. (I thought he looked much better.) This made his wife uneasy because she didn’t like the Mr. Clean look, and he started getting more attention from women. However, I do think it improved his marriage overall.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Of course his marriage improved when he started getting attention from other women. His wife perceived that he now had potential options and started treating him like he was more valuable than she was. I would bet she got more considerate, affectionate and submissive towards her husband. The track record of women with these qualities having content husbands, and healthy marriages as a result, is quite good. Happy king. Happy kingdom. Malcontents get banished.

        Liked by 6 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        There is also relative height. I’ve seen shorter men do well with shorter women. I was with one couple just last night, they’re in their mid thirties. I’m 5′-10″, so standing next to the husband, I’d make him about 5’6″. His wife is quite good looking and has a nice curvy figure. I’d put her around 5′-1.” So, a five inch difference there. They look good together. She hits him somewhere around his chin, face area (pointed out by someone on here), so they look really good side-by-side. My wife is 5′-3″ and goes well with me, seven inch difference. Point: Men don’t have to be 6′-2″ to get a nice looking woman, they just have to be roughly six inches taller, give or take an inch or two. On the other hand, I get what everyone is saying with the 6′-2″ dude. Yes, these guys, if good looking with at least a decent build on them, do seem to trigger the visceral reaction of the women. I sense this at the gym all the time. Chad and Tyrone get noticed by ‘all’ the females working out, and likewise Stacy gets checked out by ‘all’ the males. However, when I see a regular guy and girl working out together, the 6 inch height differential, give or take an inch or two, seems to be normative. Occasionally I see a Chad/Tyrone and Stacy working out together, but I sense that is a different kind of relationship from the relationship regular gym guy and gym girl thing going on. It occurs to me, and I know I’m stereotyping a bit here, as the Alpha F*cks relationship, a CC thing or STR until Chad or Stacy ‘next’s’ one or the other.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Most short girls are as spun up on height as tall girls.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        This is true. My girls are like me, tall, 5’8″-5’9″”. They have a 5’1″ friend who says she wants a 6′ guy.

        So I told her, “You can get by just fine with a guy who is 5’8″. Tall girls, not so much. Stop being greedy.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL

        I’ve heard tall girls complain about short girls stealing the tall guys.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        @Elspeth:

        “So I told her, “You can get by just fine with a guy who is 5’8″. Tall girls, not so much. Stop being greedy.”

        You will fail in trying to convince young women to compromise on looks or height. Compromise and settlement will happen only when these girls, around 90% of them, prove unable to get any man that is taller and/or more attractive.

        Your level of success is much, much rarer than you think. A day of reckoning is coming for all these women – including your girls. They will have to compromise, and compromise hard and deep, on sexual attraction. Sorry, but they will. There is just no way around this at all.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I realize my marriage was like a lightning strike. Trees were burnt and the ground was singed; believe me. There was compromise.
        I know and my girls know there will be compromise involved in their own mating choices.

        I’m not overly concerned about their inability to bond or connect physically with their husbands over the long haul. I truly believe that it is a matter of the will, that there are answers to problems that crop up for the truly motivated, and that there are some women who enjoy sex for sex sake. Husband’s of those women will have to put forth effort to have their wives turn on them that way.

        There’s information to get a wife to being the woman at point 3.

        But what do I know? I’m just a woman.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “She wants a 6′ guy.”

        That’s almost exactly 80th percentile. Evidence of the Pareto distribution as applied to Red Pill?

        I can appreciate you trying to encourage realism in the girls – not sure it’s a matter of greed but one of attraction.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        All women (very close to all strictly speaking) enjoy sex for sex sake – with men they find attractive. Shortage of women who like sex isn’t an issue really.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Deti seems to be of the mind that all the time, teaching, and truth I have poured into my daughters over the years will prove to be for naught. But we have some pretty… forward conversations. SAM and I have been pretty blunt with our older girls about a lot of stuff once they were of age.

        If my girls get married and muck it up or mistreat their husbands or allow things as fickle as their feelings to be their dictators, then that’s on them.

        To borrow from Jack, they have not seen me running on auto pilot with their dad. They haven’t seen me act as if I have no agency, even when one or both of us has been difficult to deal with.

        But…Lord willing, we’ll get the opportunity to see what kind of wives they turn out to be.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti is spot on with what he says about women and height. I’m about an inch taller than my wife and to mess with her I’d bend my knees a little when she made me take pictures so I’d appear shorter than she is. She would be overly self-conscious about appearing taller than me which is what made it so much fun to do. It took years for her to not be bothered by this and I had to find something else to do to amuse myself during pictures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Most short girls are as spun up on height as tall girls.”

        Yeah that’s been my experience as well. I have actually seen more guys in my height range (5’6″) with women within 1-2 inches of their own height (5’4″ to 5’6″) than with shorter women. Shorter women, IME, tend to prefer much taller men.

        I suppose this makes perfect sense genetically. Average height for a woman in the US is 5’4″, and it’s 5’10” for men. So a man who is my height is massively undersized — 4 inches below the average. If a woman who is similarly 4 inches below the female average (5’0″) is with a man who is 4 inches below the male average, the likelihood that she has under-height children seems likely to be significantly higher — and that’s genetic death, especially if you have short son(s). So it makes sense that if a woman is significantly shorter than average she would tend to prefer men who are at least average height for men, if not taller, because that “offsets” the potentially negative influence of her own height genes on any male offspring. Conversely a woman who is around 5’4 or 5’5 won’t have the same concern for her own genes — she will also prefer taller men (all women do), but she won’t be as concerned as the 5’0 woman is because at least her own height genes are likely not to be shorter than average in influence. Of course genetics isn’t that simple, and there are down generation and generation-skipping elements, but it does make sense that women who are significantly shorter than average will tend to have an even stronger preference for male height than women who are around the average.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        My hypothesis is that women’s selection AGAINST short men is even stronger than their selection FOR tall men. In other words their selection against perceived “defenciencies” is brutal.

        One of my grandfathers was 5-6 but was hyper masculine- got in knife fights, was stabbed and cut the guy up. My grandma was super pretty and super sweet- violent men do well with ladies as long as they don’t become abusive.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        But you did not compromise on looks. You did not compromise on sexiness.

        Looks and sexiness are where most women will have to compromise.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        I did NOT say your work with your daughters will be fruitless or for nothing. I did not say that or anything close to it.

        What I actually said was that they will have to compromise. They will have to settle. They will have to compromise hard and deep on sexual attraction.

        That means they will have to accept less than they want in that particular arena. You did not. You settled in other arenas, mostly because you had put yourself in that position.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        True facts, Deti. I did put myself in that position. A most precarious situation it was.

        But I still can’t imagine changing anything. Yes. I “hear” myself, and no. I would not have our children follow in my footsteps.

        Everybody ‘settles’ because none of us come free of some kind of baggage. The human condition and all that. If young women today are not prepared to ‘settle’, then they are not fit for the honor of having a man give her his name and access to all his current and future worldly possessions. And certainly not his heart.

        And that goes double if they don’t recognize that their human nature means he is signing on to put up with her as well in all her imperfection.

        Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Well built dude? All good. Seeing that guy grind etc. for 15 years to create that build? Not good. Play the guitar well? Damp panties. Watch you practice for 15 years before you play well? Dry panties…. and chicks recoil at men learning game vs being a natural.”

      I’ve heard it put this way, “Women wait at the finish line to f*ck the winner.” They don’t care HOW you got to be the ‘winner,’ just that you won.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    Whats attractive? I’m a face man. I suppose big boobs butt and ideal waist is bonus points. Pretty face is more important.

    A womans voice. A soft gentle voice is attractive. Relatively shy is attractive. Sweet.

    No idea why but pink not brown nipples do it for me. Especially light pink. Wife is convinced small nipples are better – I don’t agree with that one.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. cameron232 says:

    RE: boner test. I’m sure you’d prefer to reproduce with pretty face girl but literal boner test is the body. The face produces more non sexual romantic feelings. Body causes wood.

    I suspect face men like me are more K strategist/Dad. Guys more demanding body type wise are probably more r strategist.

    “When I look at Mary I get that old fashioned romantic feeling where I’d do any thing to bone her.” – Jim Carey, Dumb & Dumber.

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Cameron,your right!But if you pick the wrong woman.you will be like jeff daniels in the bathroom in dumb&dumber or if you’re hip(Like paul hipp!)”Dust to dust”(Working title of first version of script!) as in ashes to ashes&dust to dust like so many relationships&marriages, during the whole relationship or marriage!See how you always know its me cameron,anybody else think of this comment,or know originaly nickolas cage&gary oldman was the best ideal stars for the ”dust to dust” version of dumb&dumber ?
      Just todayP.S.I would perfer a shy,virgin,dedicated christian 27 year old lynda carter from mid-late ’78 as my ideal woman but their a dime a dozen,right cameron?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. SFC Ton says:

    Above all things women are ornaments, sex objects, and status symbols, and my choice in women reflect it. I wouldn’t consider anything under a 7. Defined as cute face, really nice body, amazing attitude.

    I’d put body, weight, diet, and exercise habits above all else in the hopes it would stave off weight gain. A woman putting on weight isn’t saying anything positive about her attitude toward her owner….. My ex wife put on 80-100 pounds in 12-15 months…. The thought of seeing that naked or being forced to turn to a land whale for sex still haunts my dreams and makes me physically ill.

    Next would be her age, 20+ years younger. With any luck you’ll be dead before the wall destroys her sex appeal.

    Some chick who is fit, cute, 20 years younger with a positive attitude always reflects high status man. Which is why betas and women dislike it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Alpha is a guy who creates tingles in most women. Beta is the next category below. I’m Beta because I don’t cause strong tingles in most women, but I prefer fit, cute, and a positive attitude, and if I became a widower and remarried at 46, I’d prefer a woman 20 years younger. Beta isn’t the same thing as a blue pill simp (Gamma?), which is what I think you mean by Beta.

      Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Naw most betas are pretty salty about other men doing well in the smp and I don’t do the gamma what not deal

        I’ll stand by beta

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure – if you’re an average guy then the guys that bang all the chicks are taking women from you, leaving you with their leftovers, etc. Of course, less successful men resent that. That’s not what you seemed to be describing.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ah I misunderstood you Ton. I think you’re saying women resent Alpha males for PREFERRING younger, cute, fit, sweet girls, and beta males resent Alpha males for GETTING the same. I’ll buy that.

        I don’t resent Alphas for getting quality women, but I can see the problem with them getting most/all of the women (polygyny).

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I should have been more clear.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. SFC Ton says:

    “For men, a 6-foot-tall skinny nerd beats a 5’5” body builder, in the eyes of women.**”

    …….
    I think including the word “nerd” makes that a false statement.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Corey Ashcraft says:

      I somewhat disagree. Ever watch the movie “Revenge of the Nerds”? The two leads in that movie are tall. It balances out the nerdy behavior and their height is a big bonus. It’s what makes it at least theoretically possible for the audience to buy the Nerds winning at the end of the movie.

      I hasten to add that this is a Hollywood movie, so it is not a reflection of real life. But the casting directors and writers do know how to use one’s height to bring about the audiences initial judgements about those characters.

      Like

  6. Elspeth says:

    The finger thing is stupid. I know it’s supposedly “science” but I’m not buying it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      LOL I don’t buy into most science but I misspelled my finger tips on my left hand a while back so I don’t have a dog in this particular fight

      Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      From memory 2d:4d finger ratio predicts prenatal testosterone exposure not adult t levels and is not a great predictor of anything

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      My fingers are like the upper left picture yet I’ve gotten my wife pregnant 12 times and always get her pregnant as soon as she stops breastfeeding (once we stopped using b/c a long time ago). And I have a carpet on my chest! LOL!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I once read this “science” described as a so-called “slut tell” in females. Really?

        I am incredulous because on both hands my index finger is shorter than my ring finger and I was:

        1) never promiscuous,
        2) had only 5 children because we not being Catholic, “controlled” the spacing of our kids.
        3) Maybe I was less fertile than a normal fingered woman, but we got pregnant on purpose at age 34 within one cycle of trying and again at 36.
        4) have never been tempted to engage in “relationships” with other women, and
        5) have never been anorexic or bulimic.

        If 13 is” late” puberty, then maybe I was late? However, I thought that girls who are raised in their homes with their natural dads were given to “later” puberty as opposed to girls raised around men with whom there is no blood relation.

        My point is that I have seen this bandied about more than once, and it seems to me to be yet another barrier to vetting for character, behavior, and other markers of attractiveness. So if a woman has longer right ring finger, you strike her as defective (no matter how virtuous).

        Additionally, I presume the idea of the finger test (given the above graphic) is that it’s a marker for testosterone levels? Assuming good character and a perfectly healthy and fertile reproductive system, might there be an up side? Might it also indicate less emotional volatility, ability to think a little more rationally, higher libido, etc.? Are these not good things to have in a wife?

        Again, that’s a statement based on an ostensible validity of the fingers test, in which I place zero validity, if I didn’t make that clear.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah I think we agree, hopefully that was clear. We had some Baptist friends years ago and someone tried to tell them their toddler boy was going to turn out gay because of his finger lengths. I’d have punched them probably.

        I think from what I’ve read most of these correlations with 2d:4d are weak correlations.

        My wife easily gets pregnant into her mid 40s -she had trouble carrying to term in some cases but is convinced she’s solved why (thyroid). Her mom didn’t go through menopause until well into her 50s. She’s a breeder.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Yes. I recognize that we agree. I replied to your comment but only to make my point.

        There is -all over the web- a tendency to exalt The Great and Powerful Science as a definitive predictor of human behavior. Technocracy among secularists, I accept as the norm. However, as people of faith we must always subordinate these theories (because that’s all they are!) to spiritual truth and judging trees by their fruit first and foremost.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I am incredulous because on both hands my index finger is shorter than my ring finger and I was…”

        I can’t believe how often this needs to be said.

        One exception does not disprove the rule. The fact that the rule doesn’t apply to you, personally, does not mean the rule doesn’t apply generally. Generalizations are necessary.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Elspeth

      The finger thing is stupid. I know it’s supposedly “science” but I’m not buying it.

      You’re misunderstanding it. It’s a statistical thing. Women with a larger or smaller digit ratio are more likely to do that particular thing but not all women or men do it if they have it.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio#Correlation_with_traits

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        When you read these things they often don’t state the magnitude of the effect. Eg what’s the r-squared value. The table on wikipedia indicates some of these relationships are “proposed.” I’m just saying sometimes you have to dig deeper. If it’s a small correlation, multiple contradictory studies have shown that the effects could be swamped by other effects.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. For individuals, BMI is garbage. Super-cut bodybuilders and fat slobs can have the same BMI.

    Non-Physical Elements of Beauty ??? Nope, no such things. Attractiveness yes, beauty no.

    I find that Hypatia image very interesting. Since a woman’s height, outside of extreme outliers is not a very significant beauty indicator, I’d say that any women with those proportions from 5′ to 6′ would be considered very attractive.

    “A glowing face indicates youth, health, vitality, and purity of heart.”

    A pretty face don’t mean a pretty heart.

    Now some dudes ‘ll say, “Well, you don’t eff the face.” Maybe they don’t, but I do.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Liz says:

    This reminds me a bit of the conversation on the other thread about women and power.
    Beauty is power.
    Yet women sabotage it all the time, don’t they?

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Liz, I think women destroy beauty through tattooing and piercing to outcompete prettier women by provoking raw male sexual desire. (She looks like a slut.) They destroy beauty by letting themselves go because a. They’re fed up with “men” (cads really). b. They’ve accepted they won’t get a top male. c. They’re in a comfortable, secure relationship with a beta male.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “Extroverted women are smooth, suave, and very efficacious in a social setting, but can be overbearing in the home.”

    Beauty and attractiveness both rapidly approach zero when a woman is like this. It’s a cruel bait and switch if you wait until marriage to live together. There is a chance this type of woman can be fixed if you have enough duct tape, but that sort of thing is frowned upon in today’s world.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      “Extroverted women are smooth, suave, and very efficacious in a social setting, but can be overbearing in the home.”

      The perfect fictional example of this is Claire Underwood from House of Cards. Extremely poised in public. Can be direct and blunt (not overbearing) with her husband, a powerful scheming politician. But Claire can absolutely steamroll everyone else.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Scott says:

    Sometimes I wonder, if I referred someone who had zero contact with the red pill to a site like this and this was the first post they read, what would they think?

    Liked by 3 people

    • anonymous_ng says:

      “What kind of female beauty is your style?”

      Kinda depends right?

      My ex was built like Ann Margaret; not fat, but not lean, bigger up top than down below. She wore a size 6 above, size 4 below, and still had great curves.

      However, I normally find myself drawn to woman who are more willowy, say Jennifer Aniston or Emma Watson (leaving aside their politics).

      Off the top of my head these days, ideal would be Mattie Rogers.

      Like

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Not sure how this ended up under your post Scott.

        Shrug. Maybe Jack will move it.

        To answer your question, I think it would depend on how much their life experience opened their eyes to Red Pill truths.
        [Jack: I can edit or delete comments, but I’m not sure it’s possible to relocate them.]

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Elspeth says:

    “Generalizations are necessary.”

    Yes, without generalizations, coherent communication is impossible. I agree, deti.

    But this thing is so far removed from anything a person can control, that I find it impossible to give credence to it as a reliable predictor of behavior. It smacks of another one of those attempts to remove agency, and it rankles me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “But this thing is so far removed from anything a person can control, that i find it impossible to give credence to it as a reliable predictor of behavior.”

      That’s not the purpose of looking at 2-4 digit ratio. Its purpose is as a general rule. It’s not being used as a behavior predictor, or a “reliable” anything. It’s used to state “people with these physical characteristics tend to, or might, exhibit these traits/behaviors.” It’s a proxy for those things. Something like “women who smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey, have mostly male friends, and are tatted up, tend to be sexually promiscuous”. It’s a general rule. It’s part of a constellation of signs.

      “It smacks of another one of those attempts to remove agency, and it rankles me.”

      It rankles you because you’re the exception to the rule. Men aren’t saying it removes agency. I’m one of the biggest proponents of female agency around here – I do not in any way subscribe to the “oldest teenager in the house” principle. Women are fully personally accountable and responsible for their choices. I hold their feet to the fire on that – no woman is going to get past me with “but I’m just a girl and I can’t help it”.

      Men are saying that 2-4 digit ratio can give rise to certain tendencies. Can women overcome those tendencies? Yes, they can. Do many of them? No, mostly because they choose not to and no one has ever required it of them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Elspeth wrote,

      “But this [digit ratio] thing is so far removed from anything a person can control, that I find it impossible to give credence to it as a reliable predictor of behavior. It smacks of another one of those attempts to remove agency, and it rankles me.”

      “Remove agency” is a diabolical phrase. Something that removes agency is evil, so it is right for you to be rankled. But is it a sin to remove agency from the data?

      St. Dalrock always assumed female agency as a given, and spun his posts out of that frame. His approach was intriguing and refreshingly comical because of the incongruency with reality.

      Elspeth also assumes that agency is a given, but I am less trusting than that.

      Agency is not a given. Why not?

      Agency is the willpower applied towards a specific goal for a specific purpose.

      Agency is what allows a person to act contrary to natural, biological inclinations.

      Agency requires faith, work, education, discipline, thoughtful planning, resources, and the help of the Holy Spirit.

      Agency seems to run in short supply these days. Most people run on autopilot.

      A statistical probability is not an attempt to “remove agency”. It’s a generalized characterization of the population — most of whom are lacking agency in the first place.

      Elspeth’s error is in taking an inductive conclusion and applying it deductively to a specific individual.

      If someone has a tentacle ring finger and doesn’t engage in debauchery, then it’s probably because the person has agency. However, further clinical research is needed to prove this hypothesis.

      Liked by 4 people

  12. Scott says:

    The relationship between left hand 2D;4D, LIN28B and things like fetal androgen/testosterone exposure, delayed menarche and height is so complex as to make it not a very good screening measure in real life.

    First date: “Hey there, let me take a look at that left hand. Yikes. Sorry, lets just call this off.”

    This is why meet cutes are better. They are for normal, healthy people.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      “First date: “Hey there, let me take a look at that left hand. Yikes. Sorry, lets just call this off.”

      No reasonable man is going to do that. He’s just going to quietly take note of it and consider it in conjunction with all the other evidence before him.

      “This is why meet cutes are better. They are for normal, healthy people.”

      Most men will never experience a meet cute. Even if they do experience one, they won’t recognize it when it happens. Some of the women who experience them can’t recognize them either.

      After being around here for quite a while, I’m getting to be of the opinion that most men and women just should not marry, because they can’t generate or experience the attraction necessary to sustain a marriage. That attraction is a necessary condition now, and most men can’t generate it and most women can’t experience it with men they could get commitment from. If you can’t have a meet cute, a marriage won’t work.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Well yeah I actually agree deti – women don’t need men anymore

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah. We keep coming back to the conclusion that most men are not suited for mating, because they don’t have meet cutes and aren’t naturals, and that can’t be “made up for” — you either have it, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re not suited.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Yeah. We keep coming back to the conclusion that most men are not suited for mating, because they don’t have meet cutes and aren’t naturals, and that can’t be “made up for” — you either have it, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re not suited.”

        This is the reality of modern marriage. This is not what marriage is supposed to be. But it is what marriage has become.

        I believe you yourself described it as (roughly paraphrasing) “semi permanent boyfriend/girlfriend status”. You have to be the hot, cute boyfriend, and you have to be that for at least 20 or so years. Whatever you brought to the marriage, be it looks, status, earning power, money, whatever – you have to be that or bring that for the entire duration of the marriage. If you fail to do so for any reason, the marriage is at risk.

        This is a totally unreasonable way to conduct a relationship that is supposed to last until one of you is dead. But it is what women expect now. And this is what happens when you bring women on par with men in terms of status, power, earning power, etc. They are in the power position, so they decide what the marriage looks like and how and whether it continues.

        If this is what marriage is now, then, yes, the only logical conclusion is that the majority of men are unsuited to marriage. Because most men are not SAM or Scott. Most men can’t have a Meet Cute and won’t ever have one. When you make hard sexual attraction the basis for marriage, then, yeah, most are going to fail.

        Dalrock was right: Romance has become the place where marriage and sex are to be experienced. Since that is now the standard, since most men “can’t do romance”, marriage and sex are nonstarters for them.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If I were to go with the impulsive reaction based on personal experience I would enthusiastically agree that most men should not marry. Then I was reading Ephesians 1 earlier today which is a not so subtle reminder of God’s sovereignty. We know from Matthew 10:29 that God knows the number of hairs on our head and they won’t fall out aside from Him allowing it and, apparently, after several decades, He’s getting tired of counting. We have the command to take wives and be fruitful and God tends to provide the means for His directives to be carried out. It doesn’t mean that what is posted about the state of modern marriage is in anyway wrong, or that men should suck it up and marry the ho regardless of the pain they’d be in for. But I do believe that God is working through the current state of affairs.

        Consider the amount of information and experience that is contained in Sigma Frame and other sources like Dalrock, Heartiste, The Rational Male etc. All are packed with observable truth about masculinity, femininity and how Paul might just have known what he was talking about when he laid out gender roles in marriage. My sons will have knowledge before they even get to dating age that took me 17 years of hellacious, blue pill thinking, churchian platitude, perfect social media pictures marriage to seek out and learn. I see this as God working to restore marriage as He created it; to be the imperfect earthly model for His relationship with us.

        Who knows where we go from here. Maybe the mess we’re in is the penalty the west gets for largely forsaking God since the Babylonians were busy. Maybe we are at the point where western men to look for wives in other cultures and in so doing spread the Gospel. We probably won’t know for generations, but I know that He’s working and those men that He wants to be married, will be.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        On the other hand such a situation would be very handy in population control in places like Asia. If one anticipates future famine.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Almost 30 years together I have no idea what her relative finger lengths are – never noticed

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I just asked my husband this morning, he didn’t know either. After almost 30 years and while being hyper attentive to most things about me.

        He did however, have a couple amusing rejoinders to the whole idea, which I won’t share here.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think you’re dealing with a lot of sciency guys here – these sorts of thing are interesting but I can’t see using it as screening criteria

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Hey Elspeth good morning to you ma’am. I checked – my wife’s hands are like yours!

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “This is why meet cutes are better. They are for normal, healthy people.”

      No. Meetcutes are for women and sexually attractive men.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Scott says:

    It’s just one of those things that takes it from “outside the Overton window” to “weird” (for me). Its in the same ballpark with SEXBOTS! and artificial wombs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      …and super kick ass testosterone that makes me have a gigantic penis and pretty much everything artisinal toad ever said.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Toad’s ninja supermodel wives

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Anyway Toad picked the wrong androgen. DHT not testosterone is what makes your junk (over) develop. It also makes you hairy, enlarges your prostate, influences hair loss. Everything’s a tradeoff ,- high DHT guys don’t brag about the negative effects they just like positive. Its testosterone that drives anabolism so high DHT doesnt even give you that benefit.

        5 alpha reductase deficiency (genetic I think) results in DHT deficiency which produces men who are sex ambiguous genital wise.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        If you’re once again mocking my comment how Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is the causative androgen in penis growth during childhood and puberty, and that you don’t believe some of us who had a lot of it consequently grew big sex organs, that’s OK. Your wife loves you as you are, so don’t let it continue to bother you. Plus, being highly endowed has some legitimate drawbacks too. You’ve got a lot of things going for you, a doctor’s degree, a nice house, a good job, a bunch of healthy kids, please don’t stay unsettled on account of something I said.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Well, I think we were referring to Toad. OK, well, regardless of claims about your junk, I share his skepticism about some anonymous Manosphere internet commenters. In addition to the “my pill’s redder than yours” guys, there’s a bunch of keyboard Alpha male LARPers who are, of course, surrounded by chicks hotter than the model pics Jack posts, or who are guys so alpha that young Meg Ryan is regarded as “ho-hum…”, or whatever.

        Notice Scott is the only one with big enough balls to post under his real name, a verifiable identity.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Yeah but you guys totally don’t even know that my real name is GigaChad AlphaMcBadboyRockBandDrummer, Thundercock edition, Ltd.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        I wouldn’t encourage anyone to post under their own name.
        Someone was just fired for simply making a 25 dollar anonymous donation to a Rittenhouse gofundme page. This isn’t going to get better. It will get worse as the marriage between government intrusion and social media platforms grows tighter.
        When I started posting online at a debate forum about 18 years ago I was very up front about everything about myself. I lived to regret that.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Posting on sites deemed racist or antisemitic is way more radioactive.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        “Posting on sites deemed racist or antisemitic is way more radioactive.”

        Yesterday’s version of radioactive is not today’s version, and tomorrow’s will also be different. Just take a look at what is happening. I’d have never guessed ten years ago what would happen this past year.
        Meanwhile, the internetz is foreva.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Liz, I don’t think sexism will be as radioactive because they hate white women who support the straight-white-Christian-men who are the primary target of their hatred/venom. And women hate each other so enough of them empathize with men sometimes for the sake of sticking it to their “sisters.” LMAO – my wife doesn’t like other women very much – well not the average woman anyway. She has a real sweet Christian woman friend – it is sweet to see how they sincerely love each other.

        Sure -it’s a good idea not to post under real ID.

        I’m not big fan of goofball pseudonyms though – I don’t feel weird having a conversation with “Liz” – I feel weird having a conversation with “thunderlipstheultimatemale” and “lordhumungous” for example.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Point taken cameron…
        But heh, those goofy names probably tell you more about the person than their actual name would though. 😆
        In the real world, I’ve known at least a couple of people who make a very good living making stuff up about themselves…and they use their real names.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. redpillboomer says:

    Interesting post. For me, it’s always been the hourglass figure with the pretty face that attracted me, especially when I was younger. What was most interesting for me was to think back when I was dating a voluptuous female and met my future wife. It was like a choice between what at first appeared to be two good options…29 Vs 21 (I’d just turned 30 and did NOT have the Manospherian Red Pill view of go for the younger woman Vs the Wall woman–remember, I was Blue Pill at the time), both busty & curvy, although the 29 year old showed it off better in her clothes. She passed the boner test in clothes and out of them. By that I mean, her clothes did not hide her curves while my future wife’s did, that threw me off just a bit until you got them nude and then it was like, “Oh, okay, we’re talking two nice bodies here.” But here’s what was the game changer, and it was the list in your post of the Non-Physical Elements of Beauty and Attractiveness:

    In order of importance…

    Emotional Maturity…21 year old beat out the 29 year old. I know, I know, but how? Trust me, she did.

    IOIs indicating trust, humility, and an open heart are always attractive…21 year old beat out the 29 year old out here too. 29 year old was a bit of a tease, and raised question marks in the three areas above. 21 year old passed all three with flying colors.

    Self-Confidence…Call this even.

    Sexual Purity…21 year old N=0 if you don’t count a blow job or two on a teenage bf, N=1 if you do…the 29 year old– former CC rider; so more than likely a double digit body count. How high? God only knows.

    Socially skilled…21 year old beats out the 29 year old in this department too.

    Well-developed Personality…21 year old wins again.

    Friendly and open…21 year old wins another round here. 29 year old was great when her mood was good, but pitiful when her mood was bad.

    Positive Attitude…21 year old, positive, upbeat, looking forward to the future, family, children, etc; 29 year old very moody. In a good mood, she was great–upbeat, positive, sensual and sexually alluring! In a bad mood, she was the proverbial ‘hell on earth;’ needed medication or something. It was like dating two different people, the 29 year old I mean. Which version of her was going to show up on any given day? That was ALWAYS in the back of my mind after dealing with a few of her Jekyll/Hyde moods.

    21 year old wins hands down in the Non-Physical Elements of Beauty and Attractiveness battle with the 29 year old. Something to consider gentlemen when vetting for an LTR. It could have been the reverse, nothing says the 29 year old couldn’t have done it, she just didn’t have it going on after ‘enjoying’ her twenties on the CC (my theory of what was bothering her). It wasn’t just an age difference, it was a Non-Physical Elements of Beauty and Attractiveness difference that made the ultimate difference.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Cameron, you would want to be responsible for one of your fave commenters opening up a fleet of tractor-trailors load of whupass on various SJW groups?
      P.S. Scott’s not a ”nice guy” like us who have been redpilled since childhood!
      Extra P.S. Professor is my relz name as in professor of advanced whupassology!
      Can you imagine the manosphere morning radio show we could put on if the PC p@ssies were’nt such chickens#its?
      This will be the last official comment until the next post!

      Liked by 1 person

  15. feeriker says:

    “After being around here for quite a while, I’m getting to be of the opinion that most men and women just should not marry, because they can’t generate or experience the attraction necessary to sustain a marriage. That attraction is a necessary condition now, and most men can’t generate it and most women can’t experience it with men they could get commitment from. If you can’t have a meet cute, a marriage won’t work.”

    Only a return to realistic expectations on the part of both sexes will ever change this (remember, the screechy chorus of “WHERE ARE ALL THE GOOD MEN?” serves to demonstrates that women are losing in this SMP/MMP, too, loath as they are to admit it). Is that going to happen? Dunno, but things are going to implode for both sexes in the not very distant future if the status quo continues.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Eventually, yes, I agree, but the trouble is that humans generally don’t reset their expectations downward unless they are “hard” forced to do so. In the sphere of mating, as long as society remains “comfortable” enough materially, people will continue the slide into “new ways of doing family” and the like rather than reset their expectations in an effort to restore traditional families. They will only change once it gets so materially painful that they must, and that will be a terrible time for everyone (women will not revert to traditional marriage en masse in the West unless they are really, really economically forced to do so, and any scenario that would entail that will be exceptionally painful for everyone, not just women.

      That may eventually happen. It also may be the case that the techno-wizards find a way to create a BNW scenario where they can keep everyone anaesthetized on pleasure and fake consumption, reduce population slowly, and so on, while avoiding a massive crisis of the type that would precipitate a true “reset”.

      Yes I know that conservative Christian natalists think that they will out-breed the issue, but that’s rather unlikely — the children will apostatize either wholly or partially, as we have largely already seen. Right now there is mass apostasy taking place in the ranks of the younger generations of people who were raised as traditional Christians but who have either left the faith or insist on changing it to a heterodox, apostate version of itself because they disagree with the faith about sex. You can’t solve cultural issues by outbreeding them from below — you have to control the elites, either by infiltrating them or by beheading and replacing them — because elites drive the culture, they control the means by which cultural transmission happens.

      So as long as the elites embrace feminism for elite women, we will have feminism, plain and simple.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If biblical history teaches us anything about human nature and idolatry, it is that hard times are the cure. In the case of feminism, I believe it will change when times are such that it is no longer a profitable grift for the elite. It will fade as a political movement for a time and then resurface with a new shiny package as something else. If you think of feminism for what it is, women being sold that God’s hierarchy of authority is oppressive and women fighting against it, this has been going on since Eve was convinced God was using His authority to keep her down and ate the fruit. Rinse, repeat. In 200 years it will have a new name, but the underlying sin will not be changed.

        Liked by 4 people

  16. cameron232 says:

    It’s funny – the warning on the post is for the nude girl pic but the girl in the gray dress pic is harder not to look at.

    I’m curious for the source of the t-men vs a-men claim – men prefer t-women for sex, a-women for marriage.

    Looking at gray dress girl, the eyes are more drawn to T than A. Guess I’m more Tman than Aman.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Liz says:

    Which hand are they referring to?
    My right is equal, left the index is longer.

    Like

  18. cameron232 says:

    We’ll see – we haven’t been out breeding them for long generationally speaking, birth rates continue to plummet among secularists -the population die off that’s coming won’t be from RNA vaccines. It will be from advanced feminism, homo/transsexuality, and the religious folks who are turning more and more insular as clown world becomes ubiquitous.

    I’ll stick with my plan of fighting them with my penis – it’s fun too, so no downside.

    Forget 1.8 children per womb — birthrates are going to go WAY down! We haven’t hit peak sterility, not even close.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Can’t out breed them. We are vastly out numbered, so they are still having more kinds in total numbers, they frquently make converts, we do not and they bring in more problems through immigration.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yup. There is much more flow from the ranks of conservative Christian family kids to the culture than there is from the culture to conservative Christianity. And the culture is happy to flip conservative Christian kids, because then they flip other ones, and it mushrooms and cascades across that part of the culture as well.

        Conservatives have been banging their heads against the wall as to how to “win” without shifting/replacing the elites, but they don’t work because the elites control the culture, and whoever controls the elite culture wins.

        Christianity “won” in terms of becoming the culture in the West only once elites began to be converted to the faith. It was the abandonment of paganism by the elite class of the Empire that led to the rise of Christianity — Constantine was a part of that, to be sure, but only a part. The reason why Julian the Apostate failed to reinstate paganism is because the elites had flipped to Christianity for the most part by then — Christianity flipped them.

        Today, Christianity is focused on trying to to an “end run” around the elites, because the elites have left Christianity largely for what people are calling “the successor ideology”. It’s like what happened to the pagans, but this time it’s happening to Christianity. It isn’t quite the same, because the new faith will not outlaw the old one, as Christianity did with the pagans, but the old faith (ours) will be thoroughly marginalized. The only way to flip that back will be to flip the elites (again), just like Christianity did when it rose in the time of the Empire.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Christians do it to themselves because they feed their kids into the cultural war meat grinder called college. Willy nilly and without training.

        Mostly because they value college above the Almighty and His ways

        It’s a war. Church dudes don’t have the balls to sacrifice and fight back effectively.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I would argue that “Christianity” as it evolved once embraced by the elites of the Roman Empire, was destined to bring us to exactly where are today.

        One of my soapboxes, which my RL friends are very familiar with at this point, is that True, Sincere, small ‘o’ orthodox Christians must find a way to sever our connections to and obsession with, dominant culture markers of success.

        Christ made it clear that the Kingdom road is a narrow one. We will not find life on the broad path. What does that look like?

        For one thing, re-examining our belief in university as a ticket to the good life, and being willing to sacrifice much of “the good life” for the sake of preserving the faith in our families.

        Less consumerism. More strategic entrepreneurship. Real education over schooling. Booker T. Washington’s approach to education was equal parts old school and futuristic.

        Networking in real life with like minded families along with way less entertainment can do a lot to calibrate the tastes of our own kids and produce realistic and measured expectations of a joyful life.

        But that’s work. We only do about half that stuff and people -fellow Christians!- think WE’RE extreme.

        That only leaves collapse as the force that swings the pendulum.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Always good to see someone mention Booker T Washington

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @Ton:

        Black leftists have been trying to erase BTW and marginalize his contributions since before he even died.

        They claimed he appeased segregationists, when his real sin was caring little about political power and agitating and more about black people achieving educational and economic independence through excellence. He thought we should earn any seat at the table than taking a handout.

        But we can’t have that in leftist land.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Ahhhhh… I should have figured out who disappeared him myself.

        Thanks for the schooling.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Conversion wasnt universal – I think in the western empire Christian fertility was much higher. Many were still pagans – late Rome women were empowered which meant abortion (not Christians). Patriarchal pagan Rome preferred infanticide.

        I think the Christians to a large extent did out breed in Rome.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        I’m under the impression Christianity spread from the top down. Though it was a struggle to get to the top spots

        I’m no expert on the subject though

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Should add….

        College seems much more damaging to daughters then sons.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        No such thing as capital letter True Sincere Christians or Christians would be “those who don’t sin” God desires that all men are saved.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I did that as a crude attempt to distinguish from cultural Christianity.

        Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        True but there are men and women who are brawling and men and women who roll over.

        The brawlers are imperfect at their jobs. The ones who roll over are damn near perfect at theirs.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok – understand

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        There will always be a small number of people who are able to be proper Christians regardless of the “external circumstances” — i.e., whether those make it easier or harder, on the margin, to follow moral orthodoxy from a Christian perspective. The issue is what situations make it marginally easier or marginally harder to do so, because in situations in which it is marginally easier, more people will manage it, while in situations where it is marginally more difficult, fewer people will. This is why the church has never been truly indifferent about what the social rules (and the legal rules which are based on them) are — because they can make it easier or harder, on the margins, to be an actual Christian, which in turn has an impact on how many will manage to do so.

        It’s true that in a situation where it is easier rather than harder that there will be more “false” Christians as well — but there will also be more actual ones who are able to manage it because the temptations to not do so are less in that context, precisely because the social rules reflect moral orthodoxy.

        You can never influence in a meaningful way what those social rules are unless you control the elites. That’s because they are the ones who make those rules, and they are the ones who change them. So if you take the view that this is a problem rather than a help, what you are doing is creating a world in which it is harder for people to be Christian, which means that there will be fewer actual Christians. Yes, there will also be fewer false ones, but there will be fewer people who can manage to be Christian because it is much harder where there are more temptations and fewer guardrails in place. One may think this is a good thing because the false Christians are purged, but overall what happens in this view is that many who could otherwise be Christian, in a real and not a fake way, aren’t, because the circumstances make it too difficult for them to become or to stay Christian.

        So, no, I don’t agree in the least that controlling the elite culture is a bad thing for Christianity. There will always be false Christians, and, yes, it is a situation that makes for more of them, but it also makes for more actual ones.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        I don’t want to make any claim to be a proper Christian but life is a 0 sum game.

        For one person or group of people to do well, another person or group of people have to do less well (in comparison).

        Our team controls the culture or we lose. Or economic policy favors us or we lose. etc. etc.

        That applies to every topic under the sun, world without end, amen.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        My argument isn’t quite as black and white as your interpretation of it. I agree that there is a cultural battle to fight, and even that Christians have a role in it. But when the faith is diluted throughout the culture, it necessarily becomes diluted and then compromised.

        https://terrysbookobsession.wordpress.com/2021/02/20/post-christian-america-a-reality-check/?preview=true

        Liked by 1 person

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      All successful religions are elite religions. Christianity provided obedient, virgin wives for the Roman elite. Then the Christian Romans were able to cooperate better than the pagan Romans, so the pagan Romans lost. Then Constantine came in and replaced the official state religion with Christianity and it was all over by then.

      First we need memetic sovereignty. Then back it up with the ability to defend ourselves. Then we wait for the left to burn itself out and offer the Caesar/Cromwell/Stalin a religion to replace leftism. That’s how Christianity survives.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Wulfgar,
        Is this what you mean by “memetic sovereignty”?
        http://www.andrejdrapal.com/memetic-sovereignty-individual-collective/
        Why is it foundational to the survival of Christianity?

        Like

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        What I mean by memetic sovereignty is that those in the Christian culture need to establish their own worldview/epistemic framework and enforce it among the culture. It’s the same thing as maintaining frame, but on a societal level.

        When arguing with the left about racism, most people accept that racism is bad and then argue from that perspective. “Democrats are the real racists”, they whine. Their sniveling about, “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. Ceding the wicked idea that different peoples of different races, cultures, and norms, should all be in one country. No. Nation is derived from the same word as natal. A nation is an extended family. We send them back, and learn to pick our own cotton and make our own tacos.

        Same thing with consent. A stupid girls wanders into an alleyway, drunk out of her mind. Her drunk date follows her in and they awkwardly start fucking, until they get caught and the man is dragged off of her and charged with rape. Then people argue whether or not she could have consented because of her inebriated condition. Having that argument cedes the idea that female consent matters. There was no rape because she wasn’t engaged, and her father was stupid enough to send her to college. She was trying to find someone bold enough to take her–which she did–then a bunch of sniveling white knights showed up and f*cked it up. Her consent doesn’t matter to the crime. There was no rape for the same reason that it isn’t theft to pick up a dollar bill off of the sidewalk. Her owner lost her, and so someone else picked her up. A shotgun marriage is the proper solution, not a rape charge.

        Memetic sovereignty means always arguing from your principles, not theirs. You aren’t a racist, they’re a traitor. You’re not a rapist, her father is an irresponsible fool. You aren’t a bigot, they’re a bunch of evil degenerates. I could go on. Never allow them to set the terms of the argument. That is memetic sovereignty.

        The reason Christianity needs that is because the Unitarians, the Puritans, are the modern standard of the Church. There are untold number of “Christian” churches directly opposing the plain reading of the Bible every day. That is because they allowed the Satanists to take the cultural high ground. Without enforcing our own culture and our own memes, Christianity will die on the vine. It will remain a memory until a barbarian with some vision finds a Bible and a preacher, and begins the Reconquest in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth; He who always was and will always be; the Logos; the Truth, the Way, and the Life; He who was born of Man and of God; He who died for our sins and returned to life. That is memetic sovereignty.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. redpillboomer says:

    “Christians do it to themselves because they feed their kids into the cultural war meat grinder called college. Willy nilly and without training.”

    Agreed; and even if you send them to a ‘Christian College’ like my wife and I did with my daughter, they can still come out liberal/progressive. Mine did. She wasn’t raised that way, and for the most part, her college professors and faculty staff seemed to tow the conservative line fairly well. It appeared to be her Millennial, Christian raised peer group, plus the surrounding cosmopolitan culture of a major, east coast city that did the trick. I got a smart, well-educated THOT out of the deal. The saving grace is of course God and prayer. She does have a handsome, intelligent, making-something-of-himself boyfriend, now her fiancé, and they’ve been together six years now, i.e. living together. They’re both 29 years of age. They live together in their own home and she’s supposed to lock him down in marriage next April, at least that’s the planned wedding date.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      And in many ways that’s actually a success. I mean there are worse things that could have happened, for certain, as I’m sure you know. But it isn’t “conservative Christian” in any meaningful sense. The culture really is that powerful.

      Again, to these folks, they are the good guys and we are the bad guys, or at least the ones who are out-of-date and need not be listened to.

      You can’t breed your way out of this mess we’re in.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah who knows. I don’t have a bunch of kids as a political strategy – we don’t contracept and don’t have enough self control for natural family planning.

        Liked by 5 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Typically Christians are conservative in sheep clothing. Their institutions, churches, colleges, etc. are progressive by default because they are fundamentally progressive.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I knew a guy in college whose father was a professor at a legalistic Christian university in the south. They lived in the town and according to him, if you wanted to get laid you found one of the girls from the university who was off campus on Friday or Saturday night. They were in chapel every weekday of course. Sheep’s clothing indeed.

        Like

  20. Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

    Drop that Kaylyn girl’s head on that top body, maybe throw in red hair, and thats pretty much the perfect woman. Especially after she puts out a couple of kids and gets the mother’s curves. My preference is for face, followed by breasts, then the hips and butt.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Top chick has a man face and looks like the type here in Florida that spends too much time in the sun – on her way to looking like leather.

      2nd chick has that thigh gap that I don’t prefer – too skinny.

      Gray dress milk jugs preferred. I think I keep knocking up my wife to keep her already generous knockers full.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I knew a Greek girl in HS who’s bod looked just like gray dress girl. In geography class she decided to describe t_t f-ing to me. It hadn’t occurred to 15 year old me you could have sex with that body part. I relate this x-rated tale on Sunday morning only to illustrate the level of temptation boys and men go through even when you don’t seek it out. Boys and girls should be educated separately if possible.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        “I relate this x-rated tale on Sunday morning only to illustrate the level of temptation boys and men go through even when you don’t seek it out. Boys and girls should be educated separately if possible.”

        Girls don’t dress that way when there are no boys around.

        Liked by 4 people

  21. Sharkly says:

    Although I’ve been pretty particular about women’s looks in the past, and am in no way needing more female attention. I think, considering what happened to me, that I would focus more on character and other things instead of looks primarily, if I were to ever consider remarriage. Trying to think more with my other head. I’m pretty certain I have the power to make women beautiful and sexy in my mind, and would thoroughly enjoy the body of whomever I married. It is like a “mind over matter” power where I can bend the laws of attraction to serve me. I can also make myself turned off to certain women I’d ordinarily view as sexy. I’ve got pretty good control of it, to the point where I could find almost any woman enticing if I tried hard. Obviously some would require more effort than others. But I do have the ability to choose to fall “blindly” head over heels for a woman’s body. And in fact I really prefer to appreciate what is mine, to being unsatisfied if at all possible.

    “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” ~ Ephesians 5:28

    If I understand those verses correctly, maybe my ability to cherish a wife’s body is tied to my ability to take care of and love myself, and what’s not to love about myself! If she’s with me, then that kind of makes her guilty of being HAWT by association. That might also give a natural explanation for why women would shun men who despise themselves, and be attracted to men who are in love with themselves. Does that make sense?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Women being natural defilers (Revelation 14:4) might also help explain why they would tend to reward pride and punish humility.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Next time I buy a bag of snacks at 7-11 I’ll have to remember to save the free outfit for potential Mrs. Sharklys. Some times the best things in life are free. Like a woman’s new wardrobe. LOL Darn it! No snacks for you, Honey, the bag is already a little tight on you.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. Sharkly says:

    Here, I fixed it for ya. I covered the shame of her nakedness. (Revelation 3:18)
    I used muh mad-skillz to give her a fashionable bandeau bikini.
    I ain’t hacked into NORAD yet, but muh limited skillz can solve your porn purveyor problem. LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: How to Change a Hostile Culture | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s