>The masses do not like attractive people anymore. The idea of someone being biologically or inherently superior doesn't fit with modern sensibilities. What they want is an average or below-average person made attractive by setting, attitude, and consumer choices. The attractiveness can then be achieved "equally" by anyone.
I’m only aware of Umberto Eco and Roger Scruton.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
midwit analysis
What’s your analysis?
Stfu Black person
midwit projection
What a delusional nasty boomer.
Go to Instagram, every mildly pretty foid is a mini-celeb there. And every pretty foid is literally a celeb.
There’s no place for all. Not all qts are celebs.
whats it like fricking a mother? do you feel guilt as your shoving your wiener down her throat?
No. I fricked a milf prostitute once. No regrets.
>Delusional moron; social media is a more accurate depiction of reality.
This is what autists actually believe
No, you have to be an uber autist or a midwit to deny the existence of pretty privilege in "real life", actually it is more apparent there.
No, social media is a more accurate view of the collective unconscious than reality. NASA did their little “hey guys we still exist and are important” tweet the other day warning that in the event of a severe solar flare the entire internet could shut down temporarily and the general reaction to it was “OH MY GOD NOOOOO!! HOW WILL I SURVIVE?” They didn’t even say that a solar flare was imminent, just that in the small chance that it does happen it could be disastrous. Twitter interpreted it as NASA warning about an internet apocalypse and in a reply to the tweet there was a woman claiming that now she didn’t need to have shame about her onlyfans because all of it would be obliterated with the flare. She urged others to follow her example and be “brave” enough to post their nudes for money. Her post was met with unabashed sympathy and I saw several profiles that replied positively to her with a fresh link in their bio. Of course, there is sample bias and all the other statistical control variables to take into account here, but from a purely descriptive sociological stance what does that tell you about the 90k likes that she got that day? I mean, the internet is literally a constant battle between “creators” for the tiniest sliver of attention that they can hold out over the others. With the speed of social media (and yes, there is a speed of absorbing content specific to each social media) this battle for attention obviously has to take the form of easy-to-digest shocking content which is most easily and quickly apprehended by the unconscious. Watch a 5 year old on tiktok and see just how fast they can decide a video is worth watching or not. Do you think they’re really consciously considering that?
> social media is a more accurate view of the collective unconscious than reality
People live in reality, not in social media.
Post proof you're not autistic, immediately
I'm a legit atelier student and something idk how to cope with is that 80% of the time I have no intellectual respect for the beautiful models I draw/paint in class. Like we all hype them up as smart empowered women, but tbh most are between total airheads and consumer-media-sponges. Occasionally there's one who is actually thoughtful and intelligent. But boy, they *are* gorgeous.
I think paintings of beautiful, often nude, women are inherently worth making and pull on the soul 'just so'. But I can't reconcile that with the thought that perhaps they are just extravagant lies. Maybe if I could find a model I respected; but those are so few that I wouldn't get to make very many paintings.
I like painting other stuff: men, old people animals. It's all exciting. But I can't escape that I feel female beauty is the best and most beautiful.
One might argue that I should find women I respect as people and 'find their beauty' regardless of whether I think they are visually beautiful. I can certainly flatter a subject. And when I have such a subject I may do so to an extent that I don't feel is dishonest. But this isn't really the same as painting a visually stunning woman.
I suppose it would feel more consistent if I were to admit the painting is not about the subject as a person. But then what is it? It becomes even more frivolous and superficial than it already was. Paintings do not heal or feed people. If not capturing something more than what's skin deep, their little contribution seems not to justify the decade of practice & training they require.
How do I get into painting? How long have you been painting? I’d like to paint naked women, too. I feel like it’s the only situation where I can stare at women and not be seen like a creep. I stared at a cute chick at a concert for like 10 seconds and she changed places with her friend. I just want to admire female beauty with impunity 🙁
I'll give you advice tomorrow if the thread is still up.
Tl;dr getting a girlfriend is easier and probably better. Painting is quite lonely.
just start drawing and painting
there are a lot of youtube channels that can teach you
most important is to start. don't be afraid to make mistakes.
Learn to prompt.
Artcels already got fully automated.
It never even began for you.
Prompt deez nuts
ok, buy a garden gnome and spraypaint it matte white. Set it on a stool near a window so it has directional light on it. Preferably a north-facing window (or south if you're below the equator).
Then get a pad of newsprint and some willow and compressed charcoal and a kneaded eraser. Copy what you see. google 'plumb line' and 'measuring' and 'triangulation'. Willow is for early marks and light values cuz it's easy to erase. Compressed is for finishing and darks. Spend 3-5 hours on each drawing, working from different angles and rotations of the gnome relative to the window. Set it on its side, etc. Focus on copying the shadows, but think about how they contribute to a 3D sense of form. After you've got the proportions measured and blocked in, it ought to feel almost like you're sculpting.
The most important part is to be as honest as possible with yourself if your drawing matches what you see. Never say "oh it's good enough" or you will not improve. Don't feel bad when it looks like shit, you don't have time for that. Just correct your mistakes or start over.
Do this until you have completed 1 or 2 pads of newsprint.
OH. I almost forgot. Get sheets that are around 18"x24". You can get a piece of 1/4 hardboard/mdf at home depot and have them cut it to that size. Tape about 6 pieces of newsprint to the board so your drawings don't pick up texture from the board. Then you can use bulldog clips to keep the sheet you're drawing on the board. Try to maximise your drawing on the page, leave only 2 inch margins on whichever axis of the drawing is largest.
Buy an H frame or use a chair, as long as the drawing surface is perpendicular to your gaze as you draw. If it's angled, it will warp your drawing.
>but anon charcoal sucks and it's messy, I want to paint!
If you can't deal with charcoal, you will have no hope with paint. Charcoal is much easier to control than paint, so you have less to think about while working. Painting is just drawing anyway and the first step will be to work in black and white and simply re-create what you were doing with charcoal.
My rational conclusion is that painting beautiful women is simply not a worthwhile pursuit.
But, simultaneously, I have this gut-feeling of truth, like I *know* paintings of beautiful women are a good and worthwhile thing. So I'm hoping this thread lasts long enough that someone has found some serious philosophy on the topic because I could really use some help here from a better thinker than I am.
*not my paintings, just ones I like and aspire to. Someday soon; I'm getting pretty good.
if these are your paintings you're really good I would hang in my house
You're blinded by sexual impulse to say that women are most beautiful. Men are objectively more aesthetic sex, this is why no painting of women can surpass the beauty of Greek sculpture of men. I hate the contemporary pussy oriented culture.
Read what Schopenhauer has to say about aesthetic differences between men and women
Actual homosexual. Just stay on your lgbtq spaces, homosexual.
This is predictable foid behavior, kek. Whenever men appreciate each other you blame them as homosexuals it is because you gender truly hate each other like vultures where men are indifferent to each other as Schopenhauer said. You short legged and broad hipped creatures are disgusting beyond a quick shag.
Seethe harder roastie.
>You're a woman if you find women more attractive than men
Splendid logic, numbnuts.
One can't expect from a layman to understand care a much about aesthetic matters of male of form when they're a blinded by sexual impulse. But an artist must go beyond the opinions of status quo. You're not an artist but a dog for pussy oriented culture.
In whole of nature the male bodily form is objectively superior than female. Take away the artificial arsenal of foid and you will see how much of a disgusting creature she is.
>The male figure here, as all the world over, is notably superior amongst the lower mammals, to that of the female. The latter is a system of soft, curved, and rounded lines, graceful, but meaningless and monotonous. The former far excels it in variety of form and in nobility of make, in strength of bone and in suppleness of muscle and sinew. In these lands, where all figures are semi-nude, the exeeding difference between the sexes strikes the eye at once. There will be a score of fine male figures to one female, and there she is, as everywhere else, as inferior as is the Venus de’ Medici to the Apollo Belvedere.
-Abeokuta and the Camaroons Mountains - Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton
> The former far excels it in variety of form
lol women have mode curves than men and a lot more variety of form. It’s okay you cite homosexual and bisexual authors but they are biased. Just say you like dick. No need to go all autistic.
Both of them were straight men. I am not a homosexual but for the record I would say that the form of penis is superior to that roasted beef sandwich. Even women themselves find their veganas disgusting or even traumatic.
Your penis envy is showing.
Burton was likely bisexual at least.
Genius men are eccentric.
>A woman I met said she wouldn’t like to have such an exposed protuberance of meat. I replied I couldn’t have a vegana, personally.
He is a troon, lmaoooooo
> He is a troon, lmaoooooo
It’s called heterosexuality. What so troons have to so with it?
Hating your own dick and preferring vegana is peak troonism, just take hrt already troony.
lmao apparently you can’t read. The woman preferred having a vegana and the guy (me) having a penis. The opposite of trannies.
>I replied I couldn’t have a vegana, personally.
There is troony subtext to it!
Of course sex feels good and you can bear the smell of this small legged creatures and million other threads of bullshit just for a shag. That's what these foids are getting buttblasted about that they can't discern between erotic and aesthetic.
> There is troony subtext to it!
You’re projecting. Stop being a homosexual, it’s embarrassing.
> Genius men are eccentric
Just call a gay a gay.
They influenced generations, a woman can only cope. If you combine the totality of the influence of woman's intellect you still can't surpass the amount of influence thee both men have.
You're a subhuman who can't understand the difference between erotic and aesthetic.
They're as disgusting as men if not more.
(cont)
>Even women themselves find their veganas disgusting or even traumatic.
Your mom, maybe. A woman I met said she wouldn’t like to have such an exposed protuberance of meat. I replied I couldn’t have a vegana, personally.
> Your penis envy is showing
I’m a heterosexual man, unlike you (a homosexual man). Gays find women disgusting.
>I am not a homo
You most certainly are.
(You)
Penis envy alert lmaoooo
>Women are disgusting! I am totally not a gay btw
lmao
>lol women have mode curves than men and a lot more variety of form.
Wrong.
Male form has greater functional variety, but female form has greater variety in terms of passive signals of genetic fitness for the purpose of mating and attracting males. The overwhelming majority fail to achieve the ideal female form and there's great variety within that failure.
The reason your image is biased is because it's biased toward function. Male olympians represent peak fitness for a variety of physical challenges, which are derived from useful activities in the world. Female olympians are just best-effort secondaries. Their physical abilities are less varied and pronounced in general and so body types representing peak ability is similarly less pronounced. Female variety is in their plumage, not their athletic potential.
Incidentally, of all athletes, pole vault seems to be the most likely to select for superior female form.
>functional variety
The """beauty""" of female form is way more functional. Its function is to attract the creature, who thinks with dick, for mating process so the beast can further reproduce.
>Apparently nature, in giving man an absolutely irradicable taste for women, must have foreseen that, without this precaution, the contempt inspired by the vices of their sex, vanity in particular, would be a great obstacle to the maintenance and propagation of the human species.
Chamfort, A Cynic's Breviary
>literal sophistic wordplay as argument
You're reaching levels of homosexuality that shouldn't even be possible.
>The """beauty""" of female form is way more functional. Its function is to attract the creature
Semantic homosexualry.
I obviously discounted that "function" as being "functional" to avoid pointless verbosity in what was already a long post. You are an idiot.
Cope harder.
No, this is cope:
How it is a cope? It is an objective truth.
>Take away the artificial arsenal of foid and you will see how much of a disgusting creature she is.
Any sort of point or edifying dialogue you could have produced is entierly ruined by your pathological effeminacy and resentment. The authors you quote are correct yet you are nonetheless a homosexual.
>im not gay
Just to confirm with the other anons, you are a homosexual
You are gay, Black person. Imagine saying that a man looks more aesthetic than this beauty right here .
There is difference between erotic and aesthetic. Sure women are more erotic but men are more aesthetic sex.
Stop jerking off to your grandpa, homosexual. This homosexual display is embarrassing. gaygiest thread in a while.
Nah, you are just gay. Even when controlling for eroticism, women are still more aesthetic than men.
Holy shit, I was with you until you pulled up that old gay. Lmao. Just admit that you're a homo.
Not only that, you're given the chance to prove your claim and you don't give an example of a man in his prime, just some effeminate old model gay.
That's Wolfgang Voigt or GAS, the pioneer of ambient techno you dumb pleb. No women in electronic music can compete with the level of his aesthetic. That photo proves that men look more aesthetic even after their erotic peak.
>old men are more aesthetic than old women
ok sure nobody ever disputed that
Same is true for youth but sexual impulse blind the judgement.
No, same is not true for youth. Female aesthetics bloom (and wilt) with fertility. Fruit aesthetics attract foragers. A flower's aesthetics attract pollinators. Note that these aesthetics can be observed by humans even for inedible fruits. And of course, humans do not drink nectar from flowers at all. The aesthetics are universal, even if they are deployed for a specific purpose.
Women are beautiful in the way a waterfall is beautiful, or the way something awful in nature is sublimely beautiful, like a predator killing its prey. There's something amoral and "unearned" about their natural beauty, it's like a force that is even dominating them. Paglia says that "woman's body is a chthonian machine, indifferent to the soul that inhabits it." There's beauty in that.
But you are right that the male of classical sculpture is a different and usually more interesting kind of beauty because idealized men represent types of response to and action against nature. Even maintaining physical fitness represents an act for a man, it represents constant activity. Woman's natural state is "languid," "just so" beauty and the paradox of that beauty is its ability to overwhelm even when the woman does nothing but stand there. But man's natural state is nothingness, and if a man is seen at all it's because he has somehow made himself seen. Even the grotesque musculature of Hercules sculptures, which was not applied to other statues and was not held up as an ideal by the Greeks, says something about Hercules, it instantly evokes images of his travels and his constant action, and thus the (male) ideal or archetype of life in constant motion.
>Women are beautiful
Wrong, prostitute. Women are only beautiful when think with your dick.
>something awful in nature is sublimely beautiful
Lmao, a waterfall doesn't need an arsenal of artifice to become "beautiful".
Pussy oriented society will do everything to hide that woman have anus that shits and she stinks and farts and sweats and is fricking disgusting not the ethereal fairy of instagram.
Ya but sex feels good
and if one finds the woman attractive her body
odor is more tolerable than if one finds her
unattractive.
And then there's pheromones.
Imagine the smell.
>Woman's natural state is "languid," "just so"
That's bullshit. Unkept, unfit women who don't shave are nasty. I'm not saying mantaining ideal beauty is as demanding for a woman as it is for a man, but they do have to put in a modicum of effort.
Ideal beauty for women is unnatural to women and also it is expected of them. Ideal besuty for men is not expected of them and is (at least if you're not doping) healthier.
In my personal opinion the most beautiful man is better than the most beautiful woman, but the average man is much worse than the average woman
That is only because the origin of the sports was built around men's advantages since those were the important ones. If women were to create their own sports they'd make ones where they'd have the advantage in, as happens in some specific olympic sports that are biased twoard women.
>That is only because the origin of the sports was built around men's advantages since those were the important ones
Well yeah, those are important (for men).
>If women were to create their own sports they'd make ones where they'd have the advantage in
Funny that you would say this, after admitting that the sports were derived from actual useful activities in the world. Look throughout history you will find cultures establish games to practice and glorify valued traits. Jousting for knights, archery tournaments for longbowmen, rodeos for ranchers and so on. You all know the story of The Marathon.
The idea of "creating sports" specifically to cater to qualities you have is backwards. Games derive from the real world. Reality shows Survivor and Big Brother are social intrigue games derived from real-life political dynamics designed to be played by men and women together. Even though women have good social instincts on average, men still win those games slightly more often than women (I think something like 55% for Survivor and 65% for Big Brother). Also, those competitions are also "cast" like any other reality TV show. There's nothing like the hierarchical filtering that you see with major athletic competitions.
You'll note that many female-oriented competitions involve judging. Women perform and display then are judged by experts. This is true even for athletics that are more popular with women than men, like gymnastics.
>Funny that you would say this, after admitting that the sports were derived from actual useful activities in the world.
there are useful activities women do that are not turned into games, this is because women's activities are not valued as highly and men are the one in power to create the games around their own activities. when i said those were the important ones i meant it in the sense that men are important in male-centric societies, so their activities are given more value than women's
>there are useful activities women do that are not turned into games
Like what? Give me an example. I already offered one idea (Big Brother, a social game).
> men are the one in power to create the games around their own activities.
You need to put down the feminism. Its warping your brain badly.
Men aren't in power.
Nature is in power.
Patriarchy doesn't decide what's important.
Reality decides.
Society adapts.
Games emerge from society which emerges from natural challenges (including rival tribes/etc).
Fool, none of the comparative points I made depends on makeup. Women have (proportionally) larger eyes even without makeup. They use makeup to enhance the existing disparity.
>Read what Schopenhauer has to say about aesthetic differences between men and women
In which of his books can I read about this?
Schopenhauer's essay On Women has many good passages.
>You're blinded by sexual impulse
No, I'm guided by it. Beauty is truth, and attraction to the opposite sex precedes all other kinds of beauty. Both aesthetically and evolutionary. There would be no beauty if attraction between sexes never existed. It is the foundational building block of all other aesthetic appreciation.
Beauty of what sort? With artifice or without artifice? What will happen when you see the love of your life in secret sniffing her own farts or taking a giant shite or smelling like a beast in summer or looking a flat hag without make up? Would be still attracted to her if she was born 20 years ago from her original age? If you're okay with artifice arsenal then that's a slippery slop.
>he got filtered by BO
You will never be a real aesthete
>Men are objectively more aesthetic sex
No. They are the more functional sex. Humans are anomaly among animals in that both sexes appear to demonstrate some aesthetic features driven by sexual selection rather than natural selection. But between the two, females show more. There are two likely reasons for this. First is just the sheer number of humans and the complexity of social structures, leading to complex mating dynamics with mutual selection.
You can identify features for sexual signaling because they have no survival value or may even be blatantly maladaptive. The Male Birds of Paradise are perfect examples. They are far more beautiful than females, and this beauty is driven entirely by female choice through mate selection. They have no predators, and males cannot compete for territory/dominance because females can just fly somewhere else to get food, which is plentiful. So males compete by signaling genetic fitness with form and plumage as well as song and dance rituals.
Human birth is also abnormally costly due to the relatively large size of the brain and skull. So males have some evolutionary pressure to select women with a good lumbar curve and good waist-hip ratio. And since men are being selective women have incentive to compete with each other to signal fitness of birthing apparatus and their fertility zone. As long as they were competing anyway, they started competing on secondary sex traits too like breasts-- signaling fitness with perky breasts, perfectly round areolas and suckable nipples.
Meanwhile, human men bore the brunt of natural selection. Females still exercise mate choice, so males show some evidence of aesthetic competition, but it's far less than women. Female mate choice tends to correlate strongly with survival utility and social dominance (it's not perfect-- "pickup arts" are based mostly around trying to trick heuristic female mate assessment).
>driven by sexual selection rather than natural selection.
Whats the difference, senpai
Natural selection is more like the idea of "survival of the fittest". A slow hare gets caught by the predator, is unable to reproduce, and is naturally selected out of the genepool. A squirrel that can forage a lot of food feeds himself and his family, which ensures the next generation of squirrels.
Sexual selection is not related to fitness in the literal sense of the word. It's about what the organism itself finds attractive. A female peahen is attracted to bight colors and large plumage in a peawiener, so it mates with the brightest and biggest peawiener, so it can have sexy sons with bright colors and large plumage, so those sons will succeed in mating. It's like a parallel metagame to natural selection.
Female breasts in humans are sexually selected. Most animals don't have engorged breasts all year round, usually breasts in mammals only become engorged when they're pregnant/nursing, humans are the only ones with permanent breasts. There's no reason for permanent breasts functionally speaking, and therefore "natural selection"ally speaking, but the men like them so that trait gets reinforced over each generation.
This is correct:
Here's a great video explaining how it works, with visuals:
If you weren't a homosexual you'd understand the difference in recognizing beauty in men vs women. When we recognize a man as aesthetic, it inspires admiration and respect and we want to possess those features ourselves. When we see a beautiful woman, it's the object of beauty we want to possess, not the traits that make her beautiful. Your porn addled brain has disordered your sexuality and understanding of beauty.
You're misinterpreting me
Follow the reply chain or just read this
quote by Chamfort
This is true. Tho both sexes beauty is overrated, Human physicality is like the bottom of the beauty hierarchy
A gay post.
I've noticed this really weird trend that has arisen with the cultural and social bifurcation of the sexes, fitness and gymbro culture, and BAP that has led to a lot of young men adopting this pseudo hellenic homo-romanticism. Like i have a gym bro friend who constantly sends me pictures of shirtless men and asks me to conment on their physiques
Your friend wants to have homosexual intercourse with you.
Ignore the coomers and cucks, you’re objectively correct
No one here is a coomer or a cuck. You and your buddy here are just homosexuals that don't understand basic biology in addition to using philosophy as a mask for your attraction to men.
You are a coomer and a cuck, you just don't realize it nor accept it.
Or maybe I am a normal adult male and you are a homosexual in denial. That seems more likely, especially considering all cultures and subcultures the male body the primary species of beauty and aesthetics have a strong gay undercurrent to them (e.g. Greece, Afghanistan, Turkey, Ancient Rome, bodybuilders, etc). It's objectively true that men are the more practical and action-orientex of the sexes, but women are called the fairer sex for a reason.
They are called the fairer sex because homosexuals some hundred of years ago thought of them as pure and fair creatures. Calling yourself a normal adult male on this mongol weaving forum is not something I would say. But alas, I love their body but their attitude, mind and even soul are really fricked up. Were it not for their body they would have been caged a long time ago.
Black person, having this much animosity towards women is a sign something's wrong with you, even if you aren't gay (which I doubt). I have met plenty of women in my life and while there are some rotten c**ts, most are affable enough and some are extremwly good-natured to the point of depriving themselves of something to help a friend. It's reallt just the same as most men, even if they act differently as you dive into particulars. No one has ever thought women were or are pure creatures, just like no man is pure. They are called the fairer sex for thwir aesthetic value and the fact they can't really handle the same sort of shit men do. Besides that, you need legit help. I get not liking ex gfs or women who have harmed you in the past, but this is literally America First levels of pathetic malding over women and it's just as gay too.
Also, IQfy has been mainstream for about a decade now ever since at least the Fappening, maybe a bit earlier with the Scientology stuff. Either way, normal people or people that can at least function in society use this site, especially on the boards dedicated to hobbies and things that aren' /LULZ/ adjacent.
Yeah, I guess you are right about everything.
I don't hate women. I just don't trust them.
You're a good man.
Not trusting women is fair. Frankly, I don't trust most people outside of my family and very close friends and really hate the superficial nature of most relationships. This honestly goes double for women in some sense due to the potential for romance and the possibility she might be using me as a means to make an old bf angry, for money/food,etc instead of being a future wife and mother of my children. The best I can say is to be very selective with the women and people you surround yourself with and look for a woman who has a good heart and mind in addition to good looks. They are rare, but they will be a massive boon in life compared to the majority of women (and even men in the sense of friendship). Just don't go around hating all women for the vicious actions of a few.
>Just don't go around hating all women for the vicious actions of a few.
Yeah pretty much, It really got the best of me.
>look for a woman who has a good heart
This should be enough anon eventually for the good looks and, God will it, mind.
Have a great day and thank you.
Have a good one mate. God bless.
You radiate newbie energy and naive "c'mon dude don't be extreme or weird, everyone's just tryin' to make their way in this crazy world!" gay millennial worldview so you are either a woman (most likely) or one of those Twitter pansexual "men." You aren't wrong that excessively hating women is bad, but they do have a very dark side to them and they are very worthy of disgust sometimes, and especially at the present time. Their worst traits are all cranked up to maximum and their nice traits are mostly suppressed. No one is suffering for this more than they themselves are, because, again, women are very naive and have "just world fallacy" built in to their brains because they're not meant to understand the big scary unfair world outside the safety of the camp. So they tend to believe whatever the TV and any authority figure tells them (again, women are naive: they believe whatever any existing authority says because they trust the status quo by default). Currently this means they think being childless until you're 45 is a good thing, that the world is one big welfare state that exists to pay for them to go to restaurants and "have fun" forever, that everybody's experience is just like theirs, that excellence doesn't come from suffering or sacrifice but from maximizing self-esteem and casual opulence, like they prioritize.
They are big dumb dopey children and spoiled princesses if you let them be this. That's part of their dark side. And the entire society is presently encouraging them do be this. That's not even all, it's also maximizing their prostitute side, which normally only activates in totally broken women and is basically a defensive mechanism of regressing to animal existence in exchange for a strongman protecting you. In the absence of a social system in which you can safely be a princess, you exchange your dignity and all the benefits of feeling like a princess for momentary protection and momentary validation from men who at least need your pussy. But women are so miserable and confused, so lacking in guidance, that they are activating this lizard-brain back-up instinct just for stimulation, in the same way adult men are jerking off 6 hours a day now. In both cases, something that naturally gets suppressed in a healthy society because it's just not a necessity or a priority is activating out of sheer boredom and confusion.
When not restrained, woman's combination of naive childish irresponsibility and goofy dipshit optimism, princess entitlement, lack of worldliness, lack of common sense, tendency to believe whatever they hear, lead them to become hedonistic bacchic psychotic prostitutes and nation-wreckers like they currently are. By despising this you are actually being more of a father to them than their own failure fathers were, the ones who let them prostitute around and advertise their pussy to strangers starting at puberty (or earlier these days) while having a family outing at IHOP.
nta but not a single sentence in that entire effortpost has anything to do with the simple fact that women are (biologically, on average) more aesthetic than men.
>on average
Why would this matter at all? Spiritual redditor.
TL;DR? I have better things to do than read some gay sperg's rant about how much he hates women because he secretly wishes he was one. It's pretty fricking obvious that women are the more aesthetic sex just based on how much advertising and marketing uses it to sell a product 99.99999999% of the tome, otherwise the Budweiser campaign with a troony wouldn't have backfired drastically. You need to stop coping and stop being mad at all women for what a handful of them at most did to you.
ironically your uninteresting post is much more tedious to read because of how empty it is even though much shorter
also your obsession with "women's aesthetics" and simp/coomposting is actual stereotype troon behavior
At least it isn't an unhinged diatribe about hating women due to obvious mental issues. Also, everyone finds women aesthetic, even other women. That's why they conpare themselves to one another. Hating women vicerally is an actual behavior troons and gays both partake in because they both want to be women. That's why there is a documented incel to troony pipeline, meanwhile all the artists that found their models aesthetic just had affairs with them.
Also, saying something is aesthetic is not simping (which means you are putting pussy on a pedestal) or coomposting (which means you are jerking off to it). This is a very basic biological fact that even children can understand. I don't know how reality eludes you so, but it really shows how out of touch you are to think I'm giving a blanket pass for the shit women can pull just because I know a simple truth of our world.
TL;DR: Stop fricking coping and seek help, queer.
>fairer sex
Top kek, read
>women are called the fairer sex for a reason
The reason is that they women lighter skin than men. People don't get the double entendre today thanks to tanning beds, makeup and lots of heterogeneous populations of multicolored shitskins.
reminder that you are being attacked by a bunch of fat men
I don't entirely agree with you, based on aesthetic considerations, the woman's dionysian beauty, in
. But this claim, which I don't find preposterous, always brings out those who have zero philosophical chops, who literally cannot conceive of the aesthetic or the sublime beyond the useful. The whole "blinded by sexual impulse" thing is lost on them, it is the basis of their reality. As such all they can do is freak out and call you a homosexual, not realising their essentially brutish and feminine way of looking at things. The pseudo-Darwinianism is purely ad hoc to justify their 'heterosexual' urge for moral panic.
Still, I would say this lack of appreciation for the female form is born out of an overly reductive view of beauty that's focused too much on physical domination. The female beauty lies in something much more ephemeral and changeable such as the soft and harmonic composition of the face or the languid mannerisms of women. I think unlike male beauty, female beauty does not lend itself so easily to words. It's much easier to exposit the superiority of the male form at length but that's only because the male form itself presents itself so readily to our senses whereas the beauty of the female, beyond the sexual impulse, hides itself and must be studied. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that man's mind is at its finest when it works to adduce this beauty, it serves as a whetstone for the latter, and several notable aesthetes have been aware of this. After all, what is the purpose of civilisation if not the beautification of women? It certainly doesn't make men more aesthetic. Compare the tribal primaeval man to the woman. The man has basically what can be called peak male form, whereas the women are usually androgynous repulsive creatures, just smaller men with mammary glands. On a spiritual level, everything worthwhile that humans do in some way takes its telos in beauty.
Funny how all of the cultures you listed had much more sex (with women), much more testosterone, and a much higher birth rate. I'm glad you can prize yourself on being Normal though.
The problem is the people you claim hav3 philosophy chops have not made any good arguments against female aesthetics. They just quote shop and expect capitulation, and when faced with argument can only sputter nonsense accusations about being blinded by lust (to which, calling you a closet gay is an appropriate response)
>Funny how all of the cultures you listed had much more sex (with women), much more testosterone, and a much higher birth rate.
Because women were married very youbg in pretty much all of these cultures, just like every single pre-modern culture before this that don't have the homosexual aesthetics of setting men as the standard of beauty, including that of medieval and Renaissance Era Europe/Rome and the Ancient Israelite culture. It's only recently in the modern age that this has gone away due to hyper industrialization and the dissolution of community and family. If you are to dumv to understand causal relationships , don't make connections that aren't there.
So when you say you don't respect beautiful women are you implying that you do respect ugly women? Personally, I simply see them all for what they are: women. A beautiful woman is more worthy of respect as a woman than an ugly woman simply by virtue of being beautiful. Just like a strong or intelligent man is more worthy of respect as a man. There is no such thing as "respect as a person" beyond neutral things like respecting someone's personal space, etc, that an abstraction such as 'person' warrants. I altogether do not respect women for their competence or manly attributes. I do not expect honesty from them. I don't feel guilty for this, I feel as if I'm lacking in an artificially implanted neurosis shared by virtually all moderns.
If you think the girl on the right is below average you need to pipe down, Melvin
moron. he meant that the left is lé beautiful mutt model, and the attractive superior girl is just a cashier
Pray tell, where did you see the word 'average' in the picture?
>shit reading comprehension
>IQfyposter
many such cases
>reading comprehension below sea level
>IQfy
par for the course really
I'm at the point where I'm convinced human beauty is an ontological conspiracy. the breasts, the buttocks, the legs and the arch of the feet, everything conspires to capture the eye.
It’s just evolutionary biology. Nature designs women to look voluptuous and frickable. This is also why sex is pleasant whereas for other species it lacks pleasure or it’s painful. We are meant to reproduce and even with attractive females and sex being pleasant some homosexual countries are on the demographic decline. What a homosexual world
Yes, and that pleasure is directly correlated with the objective beauty of your mate. Dolphins have sex for pleasure exactly as far as human beings are willing to fetishize dolphins. There is an objectively sexual body plan and it's concentrated in the feminine. Even homos admit it. The only "real" homos are those attracted to the masculine as such, and even then. They're still attracted to the negentropy of the body
Whomst is the one on the right?
joe sista
I like women with major flaw/unorthodox characteristic because I find it cute, like emma stone looking like a frog or natalie dormer having that weird nose.
Zendaya is just ugly though
Whats wrong with either of these women? Why do incels have to cry about women endlessly. You people are pathetic.
You’re too reddit to understand
One is more attractive than the other
based on symmetry ?
the one on the left seems to have features
that are less symmetric compared with the one
on the right
the one on the left is on a vogue magazine with
less symmetrical features, the hairline/ forehead, the one on the right has more symmetry with regard to facial features but is
a wagie at McDonald's
No, people still very much like attractive people. Whatever media is supposedly imparting isn't the real.
Manufactured consent is the MO of media and it doesn't always work as a reaction but can, and is, used to forge its underlying intent.
Models are not there to arouse the viewer sexually. They're meant to be a bit odd looking even, so that their eccentric aesthetic gives their aura to the clothes they wear. If they wanted to they couldnjust give all modeling roles to fat ass big breasted curvy women and make men salivate, but it is not considered elegant. If you look at male models you will see both the muscular chad men (with graceful, not bulky muscle) and then twinks like chalamet. Not greek sculpture bodies, but elegant ones.
>closeted homosexual shits up the thread about cute women
Why are gays so envious of women?
have a nice day coomer.
homosexual. YWNBAW.
>I must defend all women! I love women, they're so pretty! Everyone who doesn't worship women is gay! How dare you insult women!
You are an actual troony, only trannies have this complete lack of interaction with women as anything other than obsessive fetish objects.
Hahahaha you’re such a homosexual and now you’re strawmanning me and projecting your troony desires. Gross.
You write like a homosexual spaz too.
You sure showed me, gay. Aren’t you supposed to be exposing yourself to people while you parade around or something? Go back
FYI hollywood does not like generic beautiful people, because they are that, generic. Hollywood likes memorable faces. This is why people like Anya Taylor Joy get roles.
Have any books been recommended yet?
Some homosexual is shitting up the thread so nothing yet
Art threads NEVER have book recommendations.
An underage homosexual is defending pussy and sperging out so not until that point, no.
>>The masses do not like attractive people anymore.
instagram though
/thread
Celebrities and sports are modern slave trade. Follow the money. Zendaya has economy face because she represents market value.
This thread is an evidence that we live in a pussy oriented society. Whenever you try to humanize women the amount b***hing and moaning that you get from orbiters and foids themselves always amuses me. It is like I am trying to expose a primordial secret.
This is why pic related painting "Twilight, 1981 by Odd Nerdrum" is greatest humanist artwork of 20th century.
I find women's diets are usually so poor that they don't take real big shits like that. Any time I've accidentally peeped a shit from a woman it looked like some beef teriyaki nonsense.
Representation of it is terrible.
Valid point. But its effect is very striking. No "master" can paint that artwork. Thankfully Nerdum was still in his initial phase when he painted that.
checked
>greatest humanist artwork of 20th century.
hardly. I can't tell if she is taking a shit or dyking off in the woods with a stick.
>says women are disgusting
>surprised when people call him a gay
So? Misanthropes say that mankind is disgusting but nobody say them that they're asexual. But that's the point you can't call women disgusting in a pussy oriented society because you will be labelled as a homosexual.
You’re saying that women are disgusting while saying men are more attractive. That’s a gay in every nation of the earth. You’re not even saying what kind of women are disgusting, you’re saying ALL women are disgusting. It has nothing to do with le matriarchy but with your latent homosexuality.
>saying men are more attractive
More misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
Aesthetic and erotic are different, FFS. I am not attracted to men sexually but aesthetically without the erotic and its vice versa for women. Women are aesthetically disgusting.
You’re a masochist, then. Fricking people you find disgusting is masochistic. The most likely scenario is that you”re a repressed homosexual in denial.
I also think with my dick so I am also erotically attracted to women. It is not a problems.
Sure, Lawrence.
Ok, roastie.
>You’re le woman!
You have mommy issues.
You're a result of Pussy infestation where if you say anything about women you're a homo
>mommy issues
No.
You’re not just “saying anything about women”. You’re saying they’re disgusting and men are more attractive. Just come out, pal. Lots of homosexuals like you out there in parades and whatnot.
Again you're misrepresenting my words. I am erotically attracted to women. The fruity homosexuals in parades hate men and their behavior is drenched in the ethics and aesthetics of pussy. Of course I hate ethics and aesthetics of pussy.
> The fruity homosexuals in parades hate men
Right. That’s why they suck their wieners and offer their asses to them. Your worldview is completely against reality. I’m convinced you’re just baiting and shitposting at this point.
There is a difference between a true homosexual(who is a slave of pussy and the not IQfy "anon is a homosexual" homosexual) and men(which also include some homosexuals who aren't drenched in ethics and aesthetics of women).
>I’m convinced you’re just baiting and shitposting at this point.
Easy on ass-umptions, chum. You sound like you came here one or two years ago.
>apoplectic KHV robot got told so badly he's simulating le ebin moron trololo to save his homosexual face
Epic win on identifying a troll "robot" bro, you won an internet.
Stay mad, gay.
Keep worshiping shart drenched underwear like a good boy.
Go back to lolcow and enjoy the company of ethereal hags like the orbiter you're.
I like how you didn’t say no to being with your homosexual peers lmao
Yeah there are some homosexuals(men not true homosexuals) on IQfy so I don't mind sharing the board with them. But should go back to that haghouse.
Of course you don’t mind being with homos, that much is true, since you’re one of them. Denial, denial.
Ok roastie.
>improvements
*lies which will scare a man after she will wash her face. I don't like roid trannies. Gains are physical and real they stay with you for a long time.
Go slave more for your slam pig of a wife and provide until your death like a good slave.
seething homosexual lmao
Seething foid
Is Metaphysics of Love similar to it?
>homosexual is one who likes pussy, not one who likes wieners
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA a homosexual apologist. Confirmed homosexual.
You can't discern between "eroticism, ethics and aesthetics".
Embarrassing.
okay homo, go be a real man with the homosexuals
>Women are aesthetically disgusting.
Sorry, protest all you want, only a gay would say this.
Women are more aesthetic, not just more erotic.
Men have blocky frames with more bulk, are covered with rough hair, have rugged faces with squared features, small eyes and thick bones, they have straighter, more boringly functional silhouettes.
Women have lighter frames with fragile, delicately curved surfaces that decay as fertility expires, like a wilting flower. Even their lips are more curved and aesthetic. Women have neotenous faces with elegantly subtle jawbones, small and pretty chins and proportionally large eyes. Curved asses and large breasts that serve little purpose other than to be admired for their aesthetic qualities. Girls have less body hair making it easier to see the aesthetic displays of their body. (And in the natural state, the one part that's aesthetically ugly is fully covered with a little bush of hair)
>Women are more aesthetic,
Tell her to take off make up, fake hair color, fake eyebrows, piercing and fake eye lashes and then we will talk.
Didn't read the rest.
> Tell her to take off make up, fake hair color, fake eyebrows, piercing and fake eye lashes and then we will talk
Why should she be denied these improvements when you love men who are buff and ripped (steroids)?
> Didn't read the rest.
Yes, because it’s a heterosexual observation and you’re clearly a homosexual. You’re allergic to anything not gay.
>odd nedrum
>titles his self-portrait 'savior of painting'
>acts like it's just a joke when asked about it
God what an enormously pretentious loser.
good, frick sincerity
This exact thread is up on IQfy right now.
Why does IQfy blindly accept obvious agenda pushing/psy ops as long they are from a non mainstream point of view?
>it is impossible for an ordinary anon to post exact same threads on two boards
>psyops propaganda slide glowBlack person #wwg1wga jidf mossad dajoos putin did this
Go back
lmao stay mad Vlad
You would be screeching about the israelites if the posts being spammed were things you disagreed with and we all know know it.
>autistic summergay is unable to comprehend not every board is his heckin ebin le shill subreddit
my brother in Christ you are basing beauty on your own default perception which obviously is a bias on Western ideas(White woman)
Wasn’t IQfy a heterosexual board? What’s up with this thread?
newbie, lit has never been heterosexual
Been here for hears. I had never seen this level of homosexualry. Maybe it’s because of degenerate month that all the freaks get confident enough to come out
>plebbit shutting down
And this board was always filled with women and trannies.
>The idea of someone being biologically or inherently superior doesn't fit with modern sensibilities. What they want is an average or below-average person made attractive by setting, attitude, and consumer choices. The attractiveness can then be achieved "equally" by anyone
And how is this a bad thing, exactly?
Uggos are subhuman
>"It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated—a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius."
Schoppie was a genetic deadend and women rejected his marriage proposals. He was a bitter fella. It’s particularly weird his description of women’s bodies. Broad hips are not hot? Come on.
>choppie was a genetic deadend
He had two bastard kids who died during infancy but he didn't care for them, based. If you read his biography he got tons of working class pussy.
Predictable pussy jabs at the great sage, kek. Try harder.
The women at McDonalds are obese mexicans. I hate going outside because everyone is ugly.
The truth comes out.
Straight from the chuds mouth (typing)
The shallowest prigs on earth are the ugliest
There is a great book by Schopenhauer that was translated to my native language but I have never seen an English translation of it, which is a shame. It is called Metaphysik des Schönen or La métaphysique du Beau, something along the lines of The Metaphysics of Beauty.
Jesus Christ, this is the worst thread I have ever read.
The Symposion by Plato.
Good thread, lads.