A Quantifiable, Objective Standard Of Beauty

A Daily Mail article (usually I’d say take the Mail with a flat of salt, but they did helpfully include sources so you could dig up the original study if you were so inclined) presents new research that female beauty has the same effect on male brains as cocaine.

The study, conducted by Harvard University researchers, found the face of an attractive woman triggers the same reward centres in a man’s brain as [cocaine].

Test subjects were shown images of attractive females, and brain imaging scans revealed that reward circuitry fired off when they looked at comely faces.

A prominent curved forehead, eyes, nose and mouth located relatively low, large eyes, round cheeks and a small chin were among the features men found most attractive.

A reader writes in response to the article :

So, seeing this young lady’s face and body causes a cocaine-like effect on male viewers.

We could show a large sample of men a large sample of images, and determine quantitatively how intense the response was.  This would allow us to prove that beauty is not a social construct but is hardwired, and even to show which females have the goods, objectively.

We could even show that fat females cause no brain squirt of coke-like nice-nice.

There is a lot of science to be done here that will make a lot of pretty lies wither.

Veeery interesting. Yes, the results of such a study would, I’ve no doubt, drive another nail into the ideological coffin of the “cultural conditioning” crowd. You want to gleefully watch covens of feminists cry to the hells below and lash out in spittle-flecked fury? Show them studies that beauty is objective and measurable, and that men pretty much share an attraction for the same slender, beautiful women.

A study that showed the same SPECIFIC reward regions of the brain LIGHTING UP on MRI scans of, say, one hundred brains of men hailing from various globe points when they looked at photos of beautiful women, and then DEACTIVATING when the men were shown pics of ugly or fat girls, would be the sort of inarguable hard science that should, in a rational, sane world, utterly discredit the beliefs of those who say beauty is a subjective, cultural construct. Brain scans would, humorously and in one fell swoop, put the lie not only to platitudinal feminist gum-flapping insisting there are no standards of measurable beauty, but to the feeble entreaties of all those cloying betaboys who suck up to flabby fembots by telling them what they want to hear.

“ew, i don’t want an anorexic. i like a girl with curves, like you dear”

brain scan image formulating… *beep boop beep*… “anorexic” girl pic asplodes brain

“no no, that’s not me, dear. that’s just my culturally conditioned brain talking.”

😆

There are lies, and there are cosmic overlies. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “beauty is subjective” are those cosmic overlies that fuel the core reactor which energizes so many lesser lies. Destroying them would cause dominoes of lies to fall in their fiery wake.

ps a little question i like to pose to people who don’t believe universal beauty standards exist is the following: how could photoshop professionals, who spend their days retouching photographs of women to make them more attractive, know which parts of the face to alter if beauty did not have an objective, measurable basis? think about it.

pps i told you i would give you three evolutionary psychology related studies this week sure to fibrillate the hearts of feminists and their apologists, and i came through. now go, my disciples, and spread the game word.





Comments


  1. The long raging war on North American fatties blazes on.

    Like


  2. Undoubtedly true, and of course very upsetting for those women who either waste their beauty, by wrecking themselves through drink or drugs, or sluting; or overeating; or having lost their beauty are outraged at you for no longer being attracted to them. Beauty can indeed be like a drug and that drug I suspect is the cause of oneitis.

    Having said that, however, people do fancy different women, which suggests that there must be other factors involved (e.g. voice, posture, linguistic skills) – I know a 9 who to her infuriation does absolutely nothing for me so I diss her – I am not trying to game her – just genuinely not my type – smokes too much to start with.

    Like


  3. Practical question: does this mean that when chicks do coke, they get the gina tingles?

    Like


    • Try weed, it’s more oestrogenic.

      Like


      • The problem with weed is that if I smoke it with them- and they usually do insist I smoke with them – I immediately get silly and otherwise betatized, and my cock gets smaller. I still have a bit of PTSD with respect to weed from the first time I went to a swinger’s club with two chicks. I can still hear the other chick tell the one who was my girl, “I thought you said he has a huge cock.”

        Like


      • You have to be careful with weed and women. If I smoke it with a woman I am definitely unattractive. Think Jim Brewer with Chinese eyes. My cock doesn’t shrink, though.

        Like


      • lol wtf, weed makes your erections bigger and harder.

        but it is harder to get going for a smalltime smoker

        Like


  4. Oh, yes, give me attractive slender girls any day. And cocaine. Then I’ll do a scientific study to compare their effects on my pleasure centers. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the results. Good science takes time.

    Like


  5. ps i told you i would give you three evolutionary psychology related studies this week sure to fibrillate the hearts of feminists and their apologists, and i came through. now go, my disciples, and spread the game word.

    And what of this, from a few posts ago:

    Source: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/women-are-less-principled-than-men/#comment-286873

    [Heartiste: Jesus krist on a cracker, here we go again. I didn’t say there was NO slave boffing. I said it wasn’t as widespread as believed by a lot of blacks and liberal whites. And has there been no interracial lovin’ since slave times? Come on, people, this lame strawman bs is getting tiresome.]

    [I didn’t say there was a lot; only that there has been enough to create a minority population of light-skinned blacks within the total black population. Btw, the DNA evidence that American blacks have 30% euro ancestry is mistaken. The latest data show somewhere in the range of 10-20% euro dna. Again, when I have time I’ll look up the source.]

    Surely a little time for that, no?

    Like


    • Surely, Watteck, you understand that it is at least equally upon you to, you know, support your own position with non-anecdotal evidence.

      Like


    • Our host is too busy saving our lives, why are you trying to waste his time?
      And he cannot risk making shit up, he has too many stubborn detractors from your ilk.

      There you go, the truth is only a google search away:

      http://www.blackdemographics.com/geography.html

      “What they discovered contradicts some of the previous studies on the subject where it was thought that Blacks were about 30% white. They conclude that the average Black American is 17-18% white.”

      [Heartiste: SPANKED!
      nicely done.]

      Like


    • American blacks have about 20% white ancestry, on average, though it’s lumpy. About 10% of one drop rule blacks have more than half white ancestry. Haley Barry is an example of that since her black father probably had about 20% white ancestry. He was a hospital orderly in Cleveland, and blacks in the northern states tend to have somewhat more white ancestry than those down south.

      When black ancestry is less than 10% it’s often hard to tell there is black ancestry.

      Like


  6. I’m looking at the Daily Mail article and cannot find the source material, especially with the quotes you reference.

    Can you link to the source material for this?

    I have found an older study here which documents the strong brain effects of looking at pretty women, but it makes no mention of of specific features such as “prominent curved forehead” and “small chin” – the searches I do on those terms all link back to the Daily mail.

    The older study used just 8 subjects, presumably Harvard undergrads. If you want to eliminate cultural bias, that is not the way to do it.

    (BTW, I agree that some concepts of beauty probably are ingrained. Crossing the Rubinesqueicon is a sign of bad health and most men won’t be interested. Ditto bad skin.)

    I’ve been lurking for a while. I like a lot of your stuff. Especially the “Chicks Dig Jerks” series. Hilarious!

    Like


  7. on November 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm Rant Casey - BR

    I have seen the face of God.

    Like


  8. So cocaine feels like sex? coooool, gonna try it

    Like


  9. The Church of Equality won’t be swayed by science. Heresy is heresy.

    As James Watson found out, the truth is no defense.

    Like


  10. an appreciation for beauty is most certainly hardwired. a minute’s thought will convince anyone if, _if_ they let it. i don’t believe it’s even gender specific.

    there’ve been times you see a face in the crowd, going to work, on the train, and it’s all you can do to force yourself to look away, his/her beauty is so striking. it can be either male or female. you may wonder what encoded mental algorithm elicited your response, and that’s when you intuit that such a mental construct exists.

    i wonder if we’re born with i guess what you’d call the knowledge of the platonic ideal of beauty, like the platonic ideal of a circle, all real life circles being a flawed version. did we get this knowledge during our existence prior to birth, when we dwelt in the realm of pure forms….

    nah.

    Like


  11. The only subjective part of beauty is in regards to the blonde vs brunette family of preferences. A guy who likes red heads will still choose the hot chick with black hair over a fat red head who hasn’t figured out that ding dongs are a sometimes food.
    I recall it being said here (paraphrasing) a b cup with a tight body beats double d’s on a county fair winning hog.

    Like


  12. Yeah but when it comes to picking a mate/gf/wife…..men do make some bizarre choices

    I’ve noticed that Really Big Tits (even floppy,fat ones), override any facial ugliness.

    I’ve seen this a lot. I don’t get it.

    A man will go down in the looks range to satisfy some other need…personally I think those relationships are weird and creepy.

    What I consider fat is not what many men consider fat.

    Like


  13. I genuinely prefer curvy girls to really thing girls. There is a VERY fine line between curvy and chubby though.

    Like


  14. Barring any TD Wannabe
    Trolls trying to objectify my
    subjective opinion
    *cue Krusty the Klown voice*
    for “supa qwik internet hucksta chedda!

    The Truth is, each male preference is a fine tuning of BASIC attractants.
    thus, Whatever gets a rise is
    what works
    Totally pre-existing the sick, warped world of fetish

    (generalities that need explaining, now in the “enlightened” 21st century are THE indicator of social collapes – not the List of 22)

    Time to Drink

    Like


  15. on November 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm AnotherCommenter

    You can’t really say that the results of an experiment that *hasn’t actually been done* support your worldview. That’s not evidence; that’s simply repeating your belief that you’re right.

    That said, there would probably be some consistency, but it’s unlikely it’d be universal. There are men who are turned on by slightly heavier women, much heavier women, and (gasp) even *other men.* This would indeed be an interesting experiment, and all we can do is speculate as to its outcome, but it seems obvious from, well, porn, that there would be a pretty significant distribution of what men prefer. When men can choose to look at naked pictures of skinny or fat chicks, a not-insubstantial number of them choose the fat chicks. Many likely choose a mix of both.

    There’s a more common preference, but that doesn’t make that type of beauty “objective;” it makes it the more common preference. I’d be curious as to how the actual numbers worked out. That doesn’t mean you can just make up how the numbers would work out and use your own mental masturbation as evidence to support itself.

    [Heartiste: Harvard did a study — albeit not as extensively sampled as it could have been — that proves beauty is objective by measuring brain activity in reward centers. I wrote that a fuller study would most likely buttress the Harvard study’s results. Of course, I could be way off the mark, but that’s not the way to bet.
    My prediction: any brain activity study that measured male response to female looks would probably differ a little along racial group lines as to what type of face and body were preferred, but not differ so much that fatties and uglies could go somewhere else in the world to find their fuglitopia. The preferred BMI will still be in the 17-23 range, and the preferred facial beauty will still adhere to the golden ratio, be symmetrical, and possess other markers of conventional female beauty. For example, broad racial differences might break down like this:
    Most attractive BMI
    asian: 16-20
    white: 17-22
    black: 18-24

    Best looking facial structure
    asian: somewhat flatter, broader
    white: somewhat longer, with more pronounced chin
    black: somewhat broader, wider, with fuller lips

    You get the idea. So, as Firepower wrote above, there are universal basic attractants, and then there are racially-based fine tunings, and finally individually-based finer tunings. Which means, in practice, that the top 10 women out of 100 will be attractive to 9 out of 10 men, but among those 9 men there will be trivial disagreement about which of those top 10 women are 9s and which women are 10s.]

    Like


    • [Heartiste: Harvard did a study — albeit not as extensively sampled as it could have been — that proves beauty is objective by measuring brain activity in reward centers. I wrote that a fuller study would most likely buttress the Harvard study’s results. Of course, I could be way off the mark, but that’s not the way to bet.]

      I guess the counter by feminists would be that those pleasure centers could be the product of socialization. For example, Pavlov’s dog experiments: http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/pavlov/readmore.html

      How can we be certain that the pleasure centers are not just a product of socialization?

      [Heartiste: See my comment above. Re: pavlov’s dog… remember the dog is not anticipating the rewards of a bell being rung. The dog’s mental reward centers activate because the bell alerts him that delicious food is about to come. The dog is “socialized” by the bell, but its reward pleasure centers are still geared to respond, ultimately, to the objective goodness and tastiness of food.]

      Like


      • [Heartiste: See my comment above. Re: pavlov’s dog… remember the dog is not anticipating the rewards of a bell being rung. The dog’s mental reward centers activate because the bell alerts him that delicious food is about to come. The dog is “socialized” by the bell, but its reward pleasure centers are still geared to respond, ultimately, to the objective goodness and tastiness of food.]

        So essentially Pavlog’s dog experiments confirms your advertisment statements a la you can’t make desire come from nothing.

        Like


    • ‘another commenter’

      9 out of 10 = objective.

      you can subjectively argue how fat chicks are attractive, but objectively we all know you are wrong.

      Like


      • If he says, “Fat chicks are attractive to me”, how could you argue against him? (I am not agreeing with him, but a boner is a boner.)

        Like


  16. I have no doubt that there are objective standards for female beauty — especially facial beauty. But I’m not sure that fMRI is the best way to establish that fact. Who says your brain is “objective”? It’s been shaped by millions of years of evolution, then by all the experiences you’ve had since birth. Hell, the brain is putty.

    Like


    • FMRI says that cognition occurs in the brain. Big fucking deal.

      Like


    • The brain is not blank slate putty. It’s very structured. That’s a very real professional contribution which far lefty loon Noam Chomsky has incontrovertibly established.

      All human languages have things in common. The ability to rapidly learn language is something all human infants have in common, even the retarded ones. If more than one language is learned in early childhood, the ability to learn additional ones later on is facilitated, is another human universal.

      Like


  17. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a 7 in my book. Seen here without pro lighting and Photoshopping.

    She has neither an outstanding face, tits, nor ass. Like most models she is only B cup with a firm but not meaty enough bottom. I also don’t like her boxer’s nose.

    Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 6:25 pm Library Desk Graffiti

      kinda looks like my ex in that picture.

      and yeah i pretty much agree with your last paragraph but i’d still rather have that on my arm than most of what you see outside these days.

      Like


    • Oh come on, she’s a 7.5

      Nevertheless, big up to Jason Statham, he knows how to pull young hotties. He used to hammer Kelly Brook since she was 18 for 7 years.

      And now, he’s tapping Rosie’s ass who is a 24 year old. Not bad for a 44 year old guy.

      Like


    • The first paragraph made me LOL.

      Like


    • Whoa! nerve.com is still around? I quit reading that website about the time I found fastseduction101.com, etc.
      Nerve was edgy at the time, but is a way-beta blue-pill hipster site, still. It hasn’t changed much, it seems, since I quit reading over there years ago.

      Like


    • This is just too funny. Male band musicians get alpha cred and start banging desirables females. Female band musicians will only be able to attract the males that they would be attracting anyway.

      Not a single soul in the comments section seems to have the beginning of a clue as to why this chick doesn’t like her situation. Playing in a band won’t make the super alphas of her dreams suddenly attracted to her. She gets the same old boring betas and blames it on logistics.

      It sucks to be a plain jane with high expectations. But I’m sure she would find peace if she gets to know the truth.

      Like


  18. No matter what physical reactions in the brain you show, you will likely get just a shrugging response of “No, the brain was simply culturally conditioned to react this way. Much like a dog would slobber in response to the dinner bell for Pavlov, so too do American males react at the sight of what they are conditioned to see as beautiful.”

    I don’t agree with that tosh, of course, but that is what the response to the evidence would be, I believe.

    [Heartiste: Of course that will be feminists’ response. But then they will have to explain why men’s brains almost universally, the world over, light up in those specific regions related to pleasurable rewards when they gaze at the same conventionally beautiful women. They will have to explain how it is that specific facial ratios and characteristics happen to cause the same brain regions to activate across cultures. And then they will have to explain how, if culture is the driving force, it just so happens that most cultures somehow cause men to appreciate the same standard of beauty.
    This post was a call to scientists to explore these issues. The ball is rolling in the direction of objective beauty thanks to the study referenced in the Mail article. Now let’s see them really take it and run with it.]

    Like


  19. “Pretty Sure my wife is cheating on me”
    http://www.qfora.com/ot/thread.php?threadId=21839

    You guys need to read this.

    Like


  20. > Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a 7 in my book. Seen here without pro lighting and Photoshopping.

    Wow, that looks like a different person

    [Heartiste: In general, makeup and lighting won’t do much for women beyond an extra half point to one point boost in attractiveness. But there are some fashion supermodels who, for whatever reason, break that rule such that they will look weird au naturel and smoking hot in full get-up. I suspect this is because fashionistas are chosen by gay men for their striking countenance and ability to grab the attention of the camera. I doubt you’d see such radical differences in looks between made-up and natural Playboy centerfolds, for instance. (PB centerfolds are chosen specifically for their attractiveness to straight men.)]

    Like


    • This is my wife’s favorite hobby – comparing made up super models to their photos without make up. I think make up can make a huge difference, depending on the woman. Check out Kim Kardashian with and without make up. She goes from glamorous to looking like a Turkish a green grocer sales girl at the market. Scarlett Johansen as well. Many fashion photos are heavily photoshopped. They remove all blemishes, stretch legs, torsos, faces, color eyes, even replace entire body parts, etc. I get this lesson every time I mention I think some model, singer, or actress is hot. She has convinced me its often true. I’ve heard it said in the fashion industry that often times, the woman in the photo and the woman in real life seem to be two different people. I used to watch Germany’s next top model when I lived there, its more serious than the US version and you can learn a lot about the fashion industry from that particular show.

      Like


    • You guys need to stop judging chicks with make-up and flattering lights. Only her looks in the morning count.

      Like


  21. on November 18, 2011 at 6:05 pm More MSM propaganda trying to spin what are universal truths

    The subject matter of the link below should be of interest to the readership of this blog:

    http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/strong-women-dump-misbehaving-men-demi-moores-powerful-193400767.html

    Note that the writer is female and probably a hagged out spinster herself. . .

    Like


  22. Yup. Opposite me in a four-seater train car sits a gorgeous young raven-haired beauty. Eyes downcast, reading her book, complexion flawless. Strokes her lips. Long slim legs in dark pantyhose crossed, her foot almost touching mine.

    Cocaine about describes it.

    Like


  23. So how do you deaden this cocaine like reaction to a beautiful women if your trying to hook up with her? Put a bag over her head?

    [Heartiste: Build up a tolerance. With women, that means sleeping with a lot of good looking chicks. Eventually, you’ll need threesomes and public sex to get the same high you once did with one girl in the missionary position. I can’t think of a better downside!]

    Like


    • [Eventually, you’ll need threesomes and public sex to get the same high you once did with one girl in the missionary position.]

      Now that you put it out there a young inquiring mind has to know. Approximately how many threesomes you had?

      [Heartiste: Well, lemme tell ya…… *~**~*~* bzzzzt bzzt bzzzzzzttt ***~*~*~**** ….. wordpress can you read me?… we’re breaking up….]

      Like


  24. Completely off topic but this just arrived in my head.

    http://www.seductionbase.com/seduction/cat/Before_PU/basic/198_2.html

    Read about the qualities of low value people and think about today’s progressives.

    “Unable to validate themselves, they seek approval and acceptance from other people.” <— People who spout PC crap for approval and beta-male feminists.

    "People with low social status disdain what they can't have. Helpless to attain what they desire, they reject it pre-emptively instead." <—- They hate the 1%, the alpha male, and the successful entrepreneur.

    "They are volatile and anxious" <—- Do I even need to explain that one? Ever seen a progressive around a gun or in a risky envrioment? OWS?

    Is modern progressiveness a manifestation of lower value? I'm beginning to think so.

    Like


    • This is not just progressiveness, feminists, shrewds, etc. etc.

      They all have this.

      Like


    • There are also plenty of high-value people who promote leftism because of this too.

      Resigned, self-styled ‘victims’ with a sour grapes mentality are harmless to TPTB. Just look at how ineffectual the OWS protesters are….or any protesters, for that matter.

      Like


      • High-value people promote leftism because at the Hollyweird branch of TPTB, YKW Inc., leftism is costume de rigueur. Leo DiCaprio for example went bounds further by dating that Israeli broad and making aliyah to Ariel Sharon’s own office.

        They’ve also been shamed by popular “awareness” into supporting all the usual causes” — philanthropy (feeding Africans so they breed more), environmentalism (buying up tropical lands for private use), etc.

        Like


    • on November 20, 2011 at 8:20 pm Too Smart To Fail

      “People with low social status disdain what they can’t have. Helpless to attain what they desire, they reject it pre-emptively instead.” <—- They hate the 1%, the alpha male, and the successful entrepreneur.

      A woman preemptively is attracted to a man that has it going on, he teases her, busts her chops relentlessly and mercifully, then rejects her.

      Woman responds, 'I wasn't really attracted to him anyway. He's too classy, suave, rich, and good-looking for me.'

      Then she goes and bangs a guy because he was all of the above!

      Like


    • Left/libtardism is a mental illness and demonstration of lower value.

      Like


  25. Heartiste,

    This is pretty old and I am sure you have seen it. How do the feminists explain away this? There can be no conditioning involved.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html

    “Attractiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it’s innate to a newborn infant,” says Slater.

    [Heartiste: Oh yeah, I forgot about that study. That’s even stronger proof that beauty has almost zero cultural component.
    Listen, I don’t post these studies to convince feminists of anything. They are a stupid tard circle with shit for brains who are beyond the reach of reason. No, my goal with these types of posts is to inflict as much emotional pain as possible on the enemies of truth who happen to stumble through this happy kill zone. The sounds of their torments are music to my ears.]

    Like


    • Listen, I don’t post these studies to convince feminists of anything.

      Of course. I mean if one can’t convince a feminist that men are, in fact, physically stronger than women (what could be more obvious that this?) how could you convince them of objective beauty, especially when it is most likely quite a painful topic.

      I was really just curious about how they would rationalize there way through that study. Their *logic* makes me smile.

      Like


  26. Infants have been shown photographs of faces that are symmetrical and faces that are not symmetrical. Their attentiveness to the photographs has been measured. Infants are more attentive to photographs of symmetrical faces. Some measure of perception of beauty is in our genes from conception onward, and that’s that.

    Like


  27. My bad, meant to post this here…

    Game question for CH and others… What’s a good response to “What’s your type?” My go to answer is always “hot and rich.” That normally that gets a good laugh, but lately I’ve had a few girls press the issue after they already tell me theirs. I gave general responses like fun, open-minded, feminine, but I’m wondering if there’s a better one. Thanks.

    [Heartiste: If a girl presses the issue on a particular question, it usually means she’s interested and wants to find a commonality or a connection between you two. She needs signs of attainability. After a couple of cocky answers, I would switch to answering seriously.
    Good fun answers: sugar momma, milf, easy, ditzy blonde (this one is a great neg to use on a blonde)
    Good cocky/mysterious answers: i don’t go for the typical, couldn’t tell you
    Serious answers should revolve around getting her to qualify herself. Anything that she can perceive as a challenge is a good answer: loyal, funny but not in a girl way, a challenge (i have used this line before, it works great on attention whores), someone who asks interesting questions (this is a solidly ambiguous neg), someone who is sure of herself (also could be construed as a neg).]

    Like


  28. Not a big fan of Rosie. I watched Transformers the other day and the first thing I noticed about her was her thick neck and chiselled looks. There’s something not right about her.

    [Heartiste: She does have that lantern jaw thing going on. It seems to be an epidemic among today’s supermodels. Too much testosterone in the womb?]

    Like


  29. [Heartiste: She does have that lantern jaw thing going on….]

    As do Reese Witherspoon and Mariska Hargitay.

    And Megan Fox is way hotter, IMO.

    Like


  30. Heariste: You need to address this Demi Moore sham joke of a marriage that finally ended. This went one longer than I EVER imagined it would. In reality, men NEVER last with older women. It’s the most unnatural thing in the world, beyond a few fucks.

    http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/17/demi-moore-divorce-ashton-kutcher/#.TsceHMNCo9o

    [Heartiste: Their marriage ended in practice a lot longer ago, so I wouldn’t draw any lessons from it. Trust me, kutcher was banging hot young mistresses from day one of their marriage. He used demi as a stepping stone for his career, and she used him to forget about the pain of aging into invisibility.]

    Like


  31. I would take anorexic over fat ANY day. However, being a man with options, I would pick neither. I don’t get this whole “anorexics are hot” BS.

    [Heartiste: The “anorexic” was in quotes because it is often a word used by fat chicks or omega males sucking up to fat chicks to disparage healthy weight slender babes that they either can’t be or can’t get. True anorexics with bones sticking out are of course not attractive to men, but true anorexics are extremely rare in society. Unlike their blubbery sistren.]

    Like


    • Heartiste: The “anorexic” was in quotes because it is often a word used by fat chicks or omega males sucking up to fat chicks to disparage healthy weight slender babes that they either can’t be or can’t get.

      I think this phenomenon is getting worse. I don’t know if it is because there are many more fat people now that normal weight now looks skinnier, or what. I’ve been asked before “Do you ever eat?” and I am by no means *skinny*. I find it interesting that a (today’s) size 6 is now considered too thin for people to be comfortable with. Actually I find it sad. The funny thing is, these same women would probably be pissed to find out how much I actually eat.

      Like


      • i was recently at a luncheon with 2 middle-aged sisters who had the skinny gene in a big way. real wiry types that glommed down huge amounts of chow, cake, etc. while i abstemiously picked at the low carb offerings.

        yeah, there’s no justice.

        Like


      • Here’ the thing though, I eat so much because I lift weights, hard (I love it). If I don’t eat as much as I do I get very tired and weak. When I can’t make it to the gym, yeah, no dice. I can’t eat that much at all. The weight piles on fast, especially if I don’t stick to the low carb fair.

        However, the day I was asked if I eat, I think I had two over easy eggs cooked in bacon grease, and two slices of bacon for breakfast. No carbs (this is a typical breakfast for me). I am sure these women assumed I had a bowl of steam with a slice of lemon.

        Like


      • “low-carb fare”

        Like


    • [Heartiste: The “anorexic” was in quotes because it is often a word used by fat chicks

      I am not the most observant person ever, but 20 years ago I noticed that the expression “she’s too thin” was always used by women nowhwere near their ideal weight. As in lightyears away.

      Like


  32. “pps i told you i would give you three evolutionary psychology related studies this week sure to fibrillate the hearts of feminists and their apologists, and i came through.”

    So I wonder where I fit in. The bad news is that our sciences disagree. But surely the good news is that both sciences are bad news for feminism. Feminists have really not thought through the nurture side of the debate. If they did, they would realize that nurturism damages their cause, not supports it. There is NO science that supports feminism. ALL sciences, properly thought through, make a mockery of feminism.

    Like


  33. I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, looking at Rosie Whitely’s face does not quite give me the same rush as railing a nice fat line.

    Like


  34. the face of an attractive woman triggers the same reward centres in a man’s brain as [cocaine].

    But that also shows that there IS porn addiction.

    Like


  35. The name of the game isn’t just “spreading seed” and maximizing one’s baby-count. It’s about maximizing one’s great-great-great-great-great-grandbaby-count, who of course live their lives without us.

    This is where things get interesting for me. It helps me find and verify all of the ways in which I’m not just an ape on Gmail. If I just don’t feel like spending my Friday nights seducing, sexually exploiting and abandoning young girls, it’s not because I’m a “chump”.

    It’s because I’m a person.

    LOLZOZLZOZOZOZZ

    http://betamanifesto.com/2011/04/28/the-wrinkles-evolutionary-psychology-is-not-simple/

    Like


  36. Watch how a Heartiste reader steps in and cleans up shop while betas wonder if the wife is cheating. Start here for the 2 main posts by AlphaChamp. http://www.qfora.com/ot/thread.php?threadId=21839#post311419

    Like


  37. The opposite of cultural is genetic, not objective.

    That study shows the genetic responses, so the sole objective thing is the structure of our DNA. Of course since you are a pratical man, you do not care of this distinction.

    It is true a lot of things are genetic, like IQ or attraction to what we perceive as beautiful. This explains the statistical results or the newborns responses.

    You made perfectly your point and I obviously agree, but “objective” for beauty is a wrong word.

    I see it is difficult realize this, but this is true for every perception. Make the newborns listen any music and decide what is objectively better music? Ridiculous. Decide Lady Gaga is better than Beethoven because she sells more disks? Sure.

    Like


  38. The point you guys are missing is that the study only shows the capacity for the human mind to find certain geometrical patterns rewarding. What those specific geometrical patterns are, is likely a combination of genetic “hardwiring” and social conditioning.

    [Heartiste: Infants pay more attention to attractive faces than ugly ones. The evidence, and the common sense, point to a predominantly genetic hardwiring for beauty.]

    I remember seeing pics of women that this tribe of Africans thought was the most beautiful. These women had asses the size of a sedan.

    [Current EP theory does account for broad racial group differences.]

    I wasn’t turned on, but these women were the height of beauty to these guys. The researchers couldn’t tell whether evolution made the guys get turned on by women who could store all that energy in their bodies or whether their tribal social conditioning did it.

    [The way to bet is that it is a limbic system response ingrained from conception.]

    You just can’t tell from a data set such as the one in the blogger’s post.

    [You can tell something. Plus, your case gets weaker when you realize that there is more than one data set pointing to the same conclusion.]

    Like


  39. BBC did an excellent series on this called The Human Face, narrated by John Cleese:

    … in this episode, jump to 7:00 for material that has relevance to this discussion

    Like


    • … and jump to 30:45 to learn about the Golden Ratio as it applies to the specific proportions of the human face, and Steven Marquardt’s Mask.

      Fascinating stuff The whole series is very good

      Like


    • Kate Moss can look good with makeup on but mostly she looks like a skank.

      Like


  40. The problem is not that feminists don’t believe in universal beauty; it is so obvious a fact that they all realize it inside.

    The problem is that feminists don’t care what pleases men, and will leverage all political and social power they have to suppress male pleasure in order to benefit ugly and aged women.

    Like


  41. for heartiste, a discovery of the objective truths of the real world would seem to be a self-evident good. Many posts are dedicated to revealing the ways in which principles of game meet rigorous standards of truth. And yet, a principle of game itself that I have often read on this blog is the art of deception, the art of the lie, the art of speaking in half-truths and inducing the woman to pick up on a generalized atmosphere of seduction, an atmosphere which, empirically speaking, cannot actually be said to “exist.” This is my interpretation: the more rigorously we define the nature of truth, and the nature of principles which can be said to be true, the more effective an art of deception becomes, insofar as that deception can be very clearly defined as such, and can be immediately understood by the woman as such, and appreciated, if an objective standard of truth, of that which deception masks, is upheld all the while in the background. The function of deception as seductively masking truth can be made increasingly effective the more clearly one lays out what is true.

    And so my conclusion: it doesn’t matter that attractiveness has truth. It matters that truth itself is established *through* a gesture towards biology or empirical psychological studies or whatever, and that that gesture be made convincing enough to throw the deception of seduction into an immediately recognizable relief. This is where the effectiveness of game lies.

    Like


  42. Next: Woman frogmarches a man into the scanning room, and when his pleasure centers don’t light up when he sees her picture, divorces him. Liberal judge agrees it’s abuse, awards her man’s house, kids, self-respect, etc.

    Like


  43. I have noticed that children- both boys and girls- are more likely to stare at women who are classically beautiful with the ideal facial symetry and proportions and are less likely to be stare at women who are average in facial looks but have great bodies, haircuts, makeup, clothing.

    Like


  44. I really cannot stand the delusional, kumbaya, feel-good, “everyone is beautiful in their own way” rubbish diatribe. It’s actually quite infuriating to see so many memes like this in existence along with similar nonsense like “every body is beautiful.” This just further enables unattractive and large people to have tremendous superiority complexes.

    When anyone even dares spew such a thing within earshot of me, I counter that with “no, not everyone is fucking beautiful, just like not everyone is tall.”

    Beauty isn’t a bloody virtue, it’s a physical description like height. I don’t know why society deems it so that everyone must be somehow innately classified by this physical trait by virtue of existing for the sake of making errybody feel good. Spare me.

    Like


  45. Rosie Huntington Whitley is certainly no superior beauty. She’s more odd looking/, striking, and sum-of-her-parts hot than anything else. I can imagine that being affiliated with VS helps quite a bit.

    Candice Swanepoel, I reckon, is the hottest among the main VS girls right now.

    (CH, I believe you’ve stated in the past that a woman’s status doesn’t matter to men with regards to attractiveness, correct me if I am wrong. I def agree that it doesn’t to the extent it matters to women and how we perceive men with status as more attractive.
    But I do think status does affect a woman’s desirability, granted if the woman is already adequately attractive (HB 7+) in that men will deem high status women like celebrities as more desirable, as a result of more exposure/viability, than she’d normally be perceived if she were a nobody.)

    Like


    • Look at it this way.

      Tori Spelling is famous for being ugly. No one wants her.

      Random Hot Chick Celebrity is famous for being hot. Everyone wants her.

      Like


  46. on November 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm Long John Silver

    Propensity to identify attractive faces has to be largely hardwired into the brain. From personal experience I know that even as a very young child I found certain people to be beautiful, some plain, and some unpleasant to look at even though at the time there was no sexual context to those observations. Long before the onset of puberty I had an excellent idea as to which women I found attractive. What’s even more striking is that when the first hormone storms began to rummage in the bodies of my junior high school classmates – I grew up in a small town where there were only a dozen boys in the class and about the same number of girls – all of the boys, without exception, were attracted to the same girl, the one who was most classically attractive and an early bloomer.

    Like


  47. Everything old is new again…

    Some get a kick from cocaine
    I’m sure that if
    I took even one sniff
    That would bore me terrifically, too
    Yet, I get a kick out of you

    “I Get a Kick Out of You”
    Cole Porter
    1934

    Like


  48. Humm, I am not sure that the study proves that we are hardwired for a particular look. It seems to say that we get pleasure from looking at things we like.

    [Heartiste: Yes, but the things men like all happen to be pretty much the same types of things; for example, beautiful women.]

    You might get a similar reaction by having guys look at corvettes.

    [But you’ll almost never get that reaction by having men look at camrys.]

    However they did not exist a hundred years ago so how could it be hardwired?

    [The corvette didn’t exist but the mental template to appreciate the lines, geometries and ratios of the corvette did exist.]

    If you go back to the middle ages, many women died in childbirth. So women with wide hips were preferred.

    [Women with wide hips were likely preferred long before the middle ages; like when humans started developing bigger brains than those found in chimps.]

    I suspect the wide hoop skirts were their version of the stuffed bra.

    [Has there ever been a time in history when a thick waist on women was preferred by men? No.]

    Like