Looksmaxxing, Male Models, Diet, And Optics
#21
(09-03-2022, 09:22 PM)GraphWalkWithMe Wrote: Interesting passage courtesy of the Nigerian academe:

Quote:Certain preconceptions about 'blacks' in predominantly 'white' societies have distorted modern visions of the ways in which Aethiopes were perceived in Roman society, resulting in much misinterpretation of the relevant texts. In Roman perceptions categories like black African, white, 'paleface' and swarthy were neither communities nor socially defined 'races' with ascribed group-statuses. Categorisation was determined by the physical appearance of the individual person, not by parentage or 'blood'.

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElA...mpson.html

[Image: 18766%20-%202soyjaks%20arm%20buff%20ear%...k_ears.jpg]
#22
(08-30-2022, 05:20 AM)a system is failing Wrote: Facial aesthetics are an interesting one and can go a number of different ways, not to take too much from the schizo-fags but everything even in material reality can be said to be symbolic. The face is a medium of communication just as any other visual thing, as is established by its use in communicating emotions and intent behind words. Whether a face is appealing or "appreciable" I think is a matter of consistency of features with personality and reflects the mind at least a little bit in the sense that one has choice over public presentation. Nobody faults Sam Hyde for not being handsome because his look is highly consistent with his presence. Above all I would say have an appearance that reflects some sense of actual awarness of yourself. 

With leftist faces and bodies, there is usually a specific kind of discord that really creates a deep, resonant ugliness. That screechy Dash Dobrofsky guy is pretty much the archetypical example, at least to me he is monstrously ugly yet what feature can specifically be said to be ugly about his face? He just seems to be totally unconstructed, like some clattering nightmarish animatronic. Leftists have no sense of moral or intellectual consistency and it seems to manifest in their face. Again I emphasize self awareness, which in their case is totally lacking and hinders their ability to present themselves well (see also: hideous troons calling themselves hot).

I think the Dash Dobrofsky guy has many attractive facial features, I think his eyes are the real problem. In his manic videos he has almost bulging psychopath eyes. He looks to have always had bad eye area but his videos where he looks to be on an amphetamine fueled rage about entry level politics makes him look even worse. I think he has some eugenic features and some dysgenic features to him. I would not say he manifested his ideas into his face as he has always looked how he looks. Perhaps his looks have brought him to where he is today.
#23
(09-04-2022, 11:33 AM)HIGHIQSTIMHEAD Wrote: I think the Dash Dobrofsky guy has many attractive facial features, I think his eyes are the real problem. In his manic videos he has almost bulging psychopath eyes. He looks to have always had bad eye area but his videos where he looks to be on an amphetamine fueled rage about entry level politics makes him look even worse. I think he has some eugenic features and some dysgenic features to him. I would not say he manifested his ideas into his face as he has always looked how he looks. Perhaps his looks have brought him to where he is today.
Eugenic is not a synonym for "good". Dysgenic is not a synonym for "bad".
#24
^i disagree
#25
(08-30-2022, 01:12 PM)Frank Wrote:
(08-27-2022, 12:54 AM)Chud Wrote: that isn't to say that incels are bereft of vision - in fact, they often abound with insights, because feeling detached from the normal flow of things allows you to view the lives of others from an outsider perspective. but most are unable to truly detach with intact psyche. most have a troonish dilation-drive, a need to let every wound rot and fester within them, to box themselves into this parochial solipsistic headspace where everything in life revolves around their perceived failures and nothing can be understood outside of that frame of reference.

Can't emphasize this point enough. So many brain-dead right wing poasters who just parrot "incel? BASED" without seeing the rotten mentality. "Dilation-drive" is the perfect comparison. This is not simply a group studying imbalanced gender relations or warning young men to the sisyphean struggle of dating, it is a group of people who take pride in being inferior. That video of an incel livestreamer "trolling" a Starbucks really stands out in my mind as a perfect example. When a guy confronts him, he immediately blurts out "this guy is a Chad, he could totally kick my ass!" He is not protesting the treatment of sub-8 men, he is reveling in it. Disgusting, masochistic, pathetic.

Even the "incel community" feels like tranny groomers on Discord. Young right wing kids enter because it's one of the only spaces left online to shit on women and they end up spiritually dead as a result. It used to be you got called fakecel if you didn't try (or pretend to try) hundreds or thousands of times to make a connection with a woman. One glance at incels.is and all you see is people 18 and under asking if they should rope because their crush doesn't like them and the old posters squeezing out any fight left in them before they even leave high school. They are only vaguely aware of the useful insights like lookism or Pareto distributions on Tinder. They just go there to dump teenage angst, even when they're far past their teenage years.

Very prescient discussion, the recent phenomenon of "transmaxxing" is the fulfillment of this Dilation-drive (https://www.piratewires.com/p/transmaxxing). The blackpill/incel community has metastasized into a bunch of people reveling in their own inferiority. I think this was what drove skorr to make the Incel 1/Incel 2 distinction, as he outlines in his (cucked if real) farewell (A Public Apology + Farewell – Skorr's World (wordpress.com)). However, even before this there was a lot of overlap between far-right-wingers and incels, as both are fringe and could readily agree on things like genetic determinism. See this Daily Stormer article for a defense of embracing the concept of the incel (https://dailystormer.in/we-are-all-incel...-a-volcel/).

Personally I am ambivalent towards the term, as it has become so broad that it is hard to pin down -- the "you're not incel, just hire a prostitute" rejoinder is a trite dismissal, but it highlights the ambiguity of the term. Is every sexually frustrated man an incel, or does it entail a specific ideology? And if so, what would be its tenets? Bringing this thread back to its original topic, I think the blackpill contains useful knowledge about attractiveness that is both measureable and implementable. The YouTube channel Tails has some excellent insights on this subject that are implementable in one's personal life (https://www.youtube.com/@beautyisontheinside), especially focused on getting lean (a.k.a. #StarvingForHitler) and revealed female preferences. I'd recommend checking it out if you get a chance; the approach he takes is quite clearpilled. Beyond this narrow scope, however, I don't think the wider "incel community" has much of value to offer.
#26
(03-07-2023, 03:25 PM)Rudolf von Goldenbaum Wrote: Very prescient discussion, the recent phenomenon of "transmaxxing" is the fulfillment of this Dilation-drive (https://www.piratewires.com/p/transmaxxing). The blackpill/incel community has metastasized into a bunch of people reveling in their own inferiority. I think this was what drove skorr to make the Incel 1/Incel 2 distinction, as he outlines in his (cucked if real) farewell (A Public Apology + Farewell – Skorr's World (wordpress.com)). However, even before this there was a lot of overlap between far-right-wingers and incels, as both are fringe and could readily agree on things like genetic determinism. See this Daily Stormer article for a defense of embracing the concept of the incel (https://dailystormer.in/we-are-all-incel...-a-volcel/).

Personally I am ambivalent towards the term, as it has become so broad that it is hard to pin down -- the "you're not incel, just hire a prostitute" rejoinder is a trite dismissal, but it highlights the ambiguity of the term. Is every sexually frustrated man an incel, or does it entail a specific ideology? And if so, what would be its tenets? Bringing this thread back to its original topic, I think the blackpill contains useful knowledge about attractiveness that is both measureable and implementable. The YouTube channel Tails has some excellent insights on this subject that are implementable in one's personal life (https://www.youtube.com/@beautyisontheinside), especially focused on getting lean (a.k.a. #StarvingForHitler) and revealed female preferences. I'd recommend checking it out if you get a chance; the approach he takes is quite clearpilled. Beyond this narrow scope, however, I don't think the wider "incel community" has much of value to offer.
I think this is the ultimate value of the incel/looksmaxxing sphere; realizing that looks and beauty are indeed pertinent to sexual and romantic success. Where they're mistaken is believing that it is the sole determinant to any and all social interactions, a way of coddling and justifying their failures. "This study finds that a woman requires a man to make $100,000 more if they are below 6 feet in height, thus proving why it's over for me." It's incredibly autistic behavior that has no resonance with the day-to-day experiences of sexually successful men. I realize this sounds like an admonishment to "touch grass" but there is a large component of spontaneity to sexual and romantic success that is not captured by the social studies they cite ad nauseam. Most of them would probably view the prior statement as 'cope' (as our dear admin has pointed out) but on what leg do they stand to make that critique? They've mostly resigned themselves to LDAR, a self-defeating and self-erasing understanding of the world.

More importantly I think there is a strong distinction between what is beautiful and what has sex appeal, and failure to recognize that distinction is maybe at the crux of what ails many of them. I think this distinction deserves a full examination in perhaps a separate thread.
#27
Returning to athony's discussion of sensitivity, I've had the displeasure of visiting many Arab countries, and even in the wealthier ones one thing that stands out is that almost nobody above 30 years old is beautiful. Not that they are remarkably ugly necessarily, but rather they universally look prematurely aged and bloated (just think, can you picture an Arabic woman who's aged gracefully? another example, Taleb the Arab at 26 years old). This is not an exclusively local phenomenon, you also find it in lower-class women in Med countries as well as in most Slavic men. But what I think makes it more prominent and interesting in the Arab world is that those countries are singularly exposed to all kinds of negative environmental factors: groundwater is polluted but the only available, building regulations consistently ignored, fast food adored by all. Visiting any of them, you'll see the devastating effects of industrialization firsthand, simply there's almost no youth.

As for why any of this happens, I can only guess. What it does seem is that it's all correlated with higher obesity rates (ranked it's some island states, the Kwan, followed by all of the Arabs) as well as balding in men. Anyway this is not unlike our (in my Med country) (lower)middle-class, the awkwardly overweight and wooded masses, as well as not unlike some kinds often here discussed, all stemming I think from fundamentally the same source, the need to brutally remove one's body from direct exposure to the world, from feeling and having to respond to it. Similar to a precocious puberty, a precocious middle-age would allow to bypass youth and the more intense and sensitive years that come with it, to avoid the psychologically unsparing 20s and directly solidify as someone who accepts life as it is. This is evinced by appearance already (being bloated and indistinct are the main signs, also all of these people look alike), but it's in the character too, not always joyous but also never melancholy, finding happiness in small things, the body soaking up all that the soul could never bear. I recall somebody relating Norwoodism to peasantry, maybe there's also something there.

Last, I enjoyed the discussion on essence, but have some reservations. There's something fundamentally wrong with plasticity, specifically when paired with a destructive, life-denying will to deform. Moreover, in less pathological cases, rather just people lifting or losing weight etc., I'd even say that it never grants the kind of beauty that's highest and most expressive in humans, as others have said and as language captures such can't be built but only blooms. Granting all of that thoughever, I still think plasticity can affect essence: smiling cheers you up, standing up makes you bolder, barbiturates work by relaxing every one of your muscles so that you feel relaxed. The body isn't just some matter controlled by a worm made of nerve cells, but rather the opposite is just as true. This is partly why appearance is so greatly reflective of character (and of all foremost one's face, where emotions are expressed), and why certain forms converge toward very similar characters. But it's also a way in which plasticity can, granted limitedly, access essence.

This is already a long post. There are a two more topics that I wanted to mention, first how uniform beauty has become (which supports the notion that it is primarily a form of robustness), and second my concern that Biology is chronically underdiscussed and underresearched, when it is, far more than any theoretical Math or Physics fields, what matters the most. That is all, very much enjoyed this thread and look forward to more like it.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)