Agreed. I volunteer a perfect 10/10 as an example.
Certainly Pearl. Who looks like a supermodel even when she forgets to comb her hair.
In the old days Hollywood would call them "statuesque." A fancy way to say they were so beautiful as to defy men's ability to rate them.
Once she has combed her hair and washed her face, I find her so lovely that any man who would not marry her on the spot if given the opportunity would be crazy.
IQ alone is a 9.5 and then her physical appearance puts her way over that.
Biologically superior redhead, Vox, sorry but no contest in this division unless you're also some kind of Neanderthal superwoman.
All sapiens chicks most resemble Ernest Borgnine with a wig on in comparison.
I wanted to post her Vox just to hear your rebuttal. I am enamored of Pearl but each to his own tastes. I think she is possibly the prettiest girl I have ever seen in my life. I can easily see why other men would not find her perfect - no rubber appliances, botox in her lips or a 1 inch slab of cosmetics. For me she is that girl next door who beats all the others with pure sex appeal. She's feminine. And she was born a biological woman, too. You can't lose.
We're agreed on Marilyn Monroe. She's a 7 on her best day with makeup. Hollywood is constantly making mountains out of molehills. If you think she was overrated (she was) then take a look at the hideous 304s they are putting in films now.
One of the most attractive things about a woman for me is how livable she is long term. If she's a woman who is not marriageable then she will never look much good to me.
Science shows heterosexual men like women with a little baby fat and some rich curves. It is mainly gay standards that tell us women should look like 8 year old boys. Men find it natural to be aroused because it points to lower miscarriage rates and better recovery from pregancy, so that sort of woman is a natural schwing. Mass media tells us our instincts are wrong, if she's not anorexic she just isn't healthy.
This sounds like a guy who's never dated skinny athletes. The ice skaters and runners, particularly middle distance types, have nice butts. The ballet dancers have very nice legs. The tall (more like not-short) gymnasts, they all have bigger hips and busts than you see in the Olympics, plus their flexibility turns heads.
Once you've dated a skinny athlete with a flat stomach, there's no going back. Plus they wear very little makeup, as exercise sweats it off, so what you see is what you get.
It was pretty clear that you were applying different criteria when you said "IQ alone is a 9.5". But IQ is not an aspect of basic objective physical beauty.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer in de gustibus non est disputandum. The crank is turned by what turns it. But if we're just talking personal preferences, there is no metric for mutual understanding.
I honestly thought Arcane was posting satire, but he's a fairly straightforward person it seems from previous comments. Pearl is confident enough to buck the feminist trend, but ultimately comes off as a "pick-me" girl. She is to "trad-wives" what Shapiro is to "based/right-wing/etc."
6 at best on the looks--if you're into redheads. Miscommunication due to medium of text? Or genuine difference in personal desires?
There's another possibility, too. I can sense superior genetics at a glance. Long before science caught up with me, I already knew instinctively they were a better breed of women from as early as 6 years old. I have always known these things. Did you already know that, Vox? Shows you the gulf in perception. I'm not red haired, how do I know so much pre-loaded instinctual information about redheads without any external cues? Everybody thinks ginger women are frail and somehow damaged. In fact their bones are nearly 2x harder than ordinary females and they have far greater muscular strength. Imagine the variance in instinctual knowledge about the world that exists there.
The planet is normally freezing. All the types of women here are just decline variations during the Holocene. When the natural temperature returns, redheaded women are literally the only females in town adapted correctly to survive here. Other types of females are a kind of grasshopper that flourishes briefly here during this 12,000 year window of warmth and then are gone. How do I know the exact opposite is true of almost every single common assumption about the world? You might mistake me for a native as well.
I guess it's more important to you to classify anyone who disagrees as defective somehow. In the next breath you will say it's only science. But the science doesn't agree with you. It says redheads are honestly superhuman.
They may be better. I don't know. But regardless, better isn't more beautiful.
A brick is less fragile than a Venetian glass. But it is not more beautiful because of that.
You have it precisely backwards. The cherry blossoms are all the more beautiful for their transience, not less.
There is nothing intrinsically defective about lower social rank. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I simply observe what is and reality will reliably support my observations.
I know absolutely nothing about Pearl, but I predict that If you look at whomever she has been dating, they will not be handsome, high-status men. She can't attract them.
I didn't see Charlton Heston pulling top quality chimp girls in PLANET OF THE APES. They didn't place much value on him. He also had different standards just as I do. My priority seems to be mate and offspring survival. And better genes. If you'll look around you'll see mankind appears to have different criteria now and it has resulted in an average IQ of 94 with enough disease and disability that the whole business of reproduction becomes moot, doesn't it? If you are survived by children who look like gibbons where is the benefit?
Too much high school in these modern standards, same as any third world country. Men are not life support systems for a pair of testicles. Everything else ends with the BBL circus.
Inside the hierarchy, it can be difficult at times to draw a line between objective and subjective ratings when personalities are involved. Looking forward to your future posts!
Agreed. I volunteer a perfect 10/10 as an example.
Certainly Pearl. Who looks like a supermodel even when she forgets to comb her hair.
In the old days Hollywood would call them "statuesque." A fancy way to say they were so beautiful as to defy men's ability to rate them.
Once she has combed her hair and washed her face, I find her so lovely that any man who would not marry her on the spot if given the opportunity would be crazy.
IQ alone is a 9.5 and then her physical appearance puts her way over that.
Biologically superior redhead, Vox, sorry but no contest in this division unless you're also some kind of Neanderthal superwoman.
All sapiens chicks most resemble Ernest Borgnine with a wig on in comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Pearl_Davis#/media/File:Pearl_Davis_on_James_English.jpg
That's insane. Pearl is a 5. She doesn't look anything like a supermodel. She weighs at least 1.5x what a supermodel does.
I wanted to post her Vox just to hear your rebuttal. I am enamored of Pearl but each to his own tastes. I think she is possibly the prettiest girl I have ever seen in my life. I can easily see why other men would not find her perfect - no rubber appliances, botox in her lips or a 1 inch slab of cosmetics. For me she is that girl next door who beats all the others with pure sex appeal. She's feminine. And she was born a biological woman, too. You can't lose.
We're agreed on Marilyn Monroe. She's a 7 on her best day with makeup. Hollywood is constantly making mountains out of molehills. If you think she was overrated (she was) then take a look at the hideous 304s they are putting in films now.
One of the most attractive things about a woman for me is how livable she is long term. If she's a woman who is not marriageable then she will never look much good to me.
Science shows heterosexual men like women with a little baby fat and some rich curves. It is mainly gay standards that tell us women should look like 8 year old boys. Men find it natural to be aroused because it points to lower miscarriage rates and better recovery from pregancy, so that sort of woman is a natural schwing. Mass media tells us our instincts are wrong, if she's not anorexic she just isn't healthy.
This sounds like a guy who's never dated skinny athletes. The ice skaters and runners, particularly middle distance types, have nice butts. The ballet dancers have very nice legs. The tall (more like not-short) gymnasts, they all have bigger hips and busts than you see in the Olympics, plus their flexibility turns heads.
Once you've dated a skinny athlete with a flat stomach, there's no going back. Plus they wear very little makeup, as exercise sweats it off, so what you see is what you get.
It was pretty clear that you were applying different criteria when you said "IQ alone is a 9.5". But IQ is not an aspect of basic objective physical beauty.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer in de gustibus non est disputandum. The crank is turned by what turns it. But if we're just talking personal preferences, there is no metric for mutual understanding.
I honestly thought Arcane was posting satire, but he's a fairly straightforward person it seems from previous comments. Pearl is confident enough to buck the feminist trend, but ultimately comes off as a "pick-me" girl. She is to "trad-wives" what Shapiro is to "based/right-wing/etc."
6 at best on the looks--if you're into redheads. Miscommunication due to medium of text? Or genuine difference in personal desires?
Men who are lower on the SSH always significantly overrate the lower tier women. They don't even register the higher tier women.
It's actually a gift, when you think about it. It's entirely normal. And it's an observable tell when you don't have any direct information.
There's another possibility, too. I can sense superior genetics at a glance. Long before science caught up with me, I already knew instinctively they were a better breed of women from as early as 6 years old. I have always known these things. Did you already know that, Vox? Shows you the gulf in perception. I'm not red haired, how do I know so much pre-loaded instinctual information about redheads without any external cues? Everybody thinks ginger women are frail and somehow damaged. In fact their bones are nearly 2x harder than ordinary females and they have far greater muscular strength. Imagine the variance in instinctual knowledge about the world that exists there.
The planet is normally freezing. All the types of women here are just decline variations during the Holocene. When the natural temperature returns, redheaded women are literally the only females in town adapted correctly to survive here. Other types of females are a kind of grasshopper that flourishes briefly here during this 12,000 year window of warmth and then are gone. How do I know the exact opposite is true of almost every single common assumption about the world? You might mistake me for a native as well.
I guess it's more important to you to classify anyone who disagrees as defective somehow. In the next breath you will say it's only science. But the science doesn't agree with you. It says redheads are honestly superhuman.
They may be better. I don't know. But regardless, better isn't more beautiful.
A brick is less fragile than a Venetian glass. But it is not more beautiful because of that.
You have it precisely backwards. The cherry blossoms are all the more beautiful for their transience, not less.
There is nothing intrinsically defective about lower social rank. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I simply observe what is and reality will reliably support my observations.
I know absolutely nothing about Pearl, but I predict that If you look at whomever she has been dating, they will not be handsome, high-status men. She can't attract them.
I didn't see Charlton Heston pulling top quality chimp girls in PLANET OF THE APES. They didn't place much value on him. He also had different standards just as I do. My priority seems to be mate and offspring survival. And better genes. If you'll look around you'll see mankind appears to have different criteria now and it has resulted in an average IQ of 94 with enough disease and disability that the whole business of reproduction becomes moot, doesn't it? If you are survived by children who look like gibbons where is the benefit?
Too much high school in these modern standards, same as any third world country. Men are not life support systems for a pair of testicles. Everything else ends with the BBL circus.
Excuse me sir, your Wall of Text and Secret Crown are showing.
I have not learned the secret language yet but I am assuming these are bad things.
You're sounding an awful lot like a Gamma.
Is this scientology or rastafarianism? Please send me a flyer with some prices for E-Meters, I have to get them all if I want to get better.
That tracks well. I'll keep that in mind.
Inside the hierarchy, it can be difficult at times to draw a line between objective and subjective ratings when personalities are involved. Looking forward to your future posts!