This post is also available in: Deutsch
“Hold your head high” and “chin up” aren’t just esteem-boosting slogans; they’re nonverbal indicators of the alphaness that women lurv:
Our research investigated if looking at the face from different perspectives as a result of the height differential between men and women influenced perceived masculinity or femininity. The research found the way we angle our faces affects our attractiveness to the opposite sex.”
Men, typically taller than women, view a woman’s face from above; and women view men’s faces from below. Through a series of simulations, the research tested whether the angle of view was an important determinant of masculinity/femininity and attractiveness.
The research found that female faces are judged to be more feminine and more attractive when tilted forwards (simulating viewing from above), and less feminine when tilted backwards (simulating viewing from below). Conversely, male faces are judged more masculine when tilted backwards and less masculine when tilted forwards.
Ya gotta love these traditionalist “real man” throwbacks leaving their drive-by comments at the Chateau castigating the players for their “black and white” view of the “false dichotomy” of alpha males and beta males, while a steady drumbeat of scientific studies flies in the face of their indignant assertions. Here is yet another one of those studies providing support for the view expounded at this blog that there really are objectively identifiable traits — physical, emotional and behavioral — that distinguish alphas from betas. And that you… yes, you the reader… can learn those alpha traits, apply them, and become alpha yourself.
Starting now, you need to hold your head up so that your chin is slightly elevated from parallel with the ground. This is especially critical for short men, who can mimic the alpha gravitas that naturally accompanies taller men by tilting their heads a bit upward. If you find your chin unconsciously returning to its basal beta level pointing at the ground, you can use mental tricks to realign your head tilt to the dominance position. Imagine you are a haughty snob looking down on all the insufferable SWPLs (or proles, season to taste) who live and work around you. Soon, your mind will associate the identification “haughty snob” and “insufferable SWPL” with the backward head tilt, your head will accordingly readjust, and pussy will flow to you like the Orinoco.
How well a person performs in a coalition is partly hereditary, according to a recent study.
Researchers found that how successfully an individual operates in a group is as much down to having the right genetic make-up as it is to having common cultural ties with fellow group members.
After assessing nearly 1000 pairs of adult twins, researchers at the University of Edinburgh found that strong genetic influences have a major influence on how loyal a person feels to their social group.
It also has a significant impact on how flexibly they can adapt group membership.
Can a cooperation gene that recognizes in-groups and out-groups evolve without some sort of group selection mechanism at work? Group selection is fascinating to a lot of thinkers because of its implications for the evolution of hard-wired racism in all human populations.
Religion may mitigate inborn xenophobia:
Family ties were less influential. Instead factors outside the family such as ethnicity and religion seem to account for the environmental influences that determine how successfully a group will operate.
To assess the influence of genetics, scientists asked the twins a series of questions about how important it was for them that people with whom they are affiliated share their religion, ethnicity or race.
They found that identical twins – who share all their genes – gave very similar responses, whereas non-identical twins were much more likely to differ in their answers.
Interestingly, they found that being part of a strong religious group made subjects less likely to emphasise ethnic and racial influence when deciding with which coalitions they become involved, regardless of genetics.
The insular, secular elites for whom religion is not needed to pursue successful life strategies need to come to grips with the fact that religion serves as a moral anchor for the lower classes, without which their tendency to flounder, regress and parasitize the provider classes would mushroom. Richard Dawkins wept.
Employer callbacks to attractive men are significantly higher than to men with no picture and to plain-looking men, nearly doubling the latter group. Strikingly, attractive women do not enjoy the same beauty premium. In fact, women with no picture have a significantly higher rate of callbacks than attractive or plain-looking women. We explore a number of explanations and provide evidence that female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace is a primary reason for the punishment of attractive women.
Me-OW! Jizzabomb denizens wept.
But other research shows that hot babes receive higher raises than plain janes or fuglies.
Easily explainable. HR women are the ones filtering potential hirees. Men in positions of power are the ones offering raises.
Women live longer than men because men are biologically expendable.
On average, women live five or six years longer than men. There are six 85-year-old women to four men of the same age, and by the age of 100 the ratio is greater than two to one. Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the greater longevity, but there is growing evidence for the disposable soma theory, which says males are genetically more disposable than females.
Maxim #200: Chicks dig guys willing to risk an early, gruesome death. Expendability is a DHV.
Researchers at the University of Bath have found that heterosexual male students are more comfortable kissing their friends than ever before.
Their research shows that university students now see nothing wrong with showing friendship to another man through a kiss on the lips.
Dr Eric Anderson, from the University’s Department of Education, found that 89 per cent of white undergraduate men at two UK universities and one sixth form college, said they were happy to kiss another man on the lips through friendship.
He found that 36 per cent of these men have also engaged in sustained kissing, initially for shock value, but now they occur just for “a laugh”.
Dr Anderson said: “Heterosexual men kissing each other in friendship is an offshoot of what happens when homophobia is reduced. At these universities, overt homophobia has reduced to near extinction, permitting those men to engage in behaviour that was once taboo.
“Men are kissing each other in university clubs and pubs, in front of their peers, and for many it serves as an occasional, exuberant greeting or banter when partying. The kiss is a sign of affection in student social spaces, a sign of victory on the pitch, or celebration at a nightclub but it does not have a sexual connotation in any of these spaces.
If it isn’t the soy, maybe it’s the fact that British women have turned into a waddling mass of warpigs.
“We noticed that more and more men were kissing each other in clubs or after scoring a goal as a form of celebration, and many would put pictures of themselves kissing their friends on Facebook. We then began our research and realised that the way men tell each other that one has made it into their circle of close friends is to kiss. In this respect men are catching up with women who regularly use a kiss as a sign of affection to a female friend.”
Too funny. I guess fist bumps aren’t cutting it anymore. Theory: As more Western women become cad-chasing, self-entitled solipsistic sluts, the men will respond by finding their affection fix in the arms of other, similarly situated, men. Or there’s something in the water.
Adi, who is heterosexual, added: “My first experience of kissing a man was at uni and I was bit taken aback, but now it feels like a normal act of friendship. It doesn’t feel that it threatens my masculinity or heterosexuality – instead it is becoming part of acceptable masculinity and heterosexuality.”
If you mention your masculinity enough times, Adi, maybe you’ll believe it. By the way, this is how the slippery slope to park bench masturbating and sheep sex starts.
Kissing other men isn’t the only alternative outlet available to underloved betas. There is always the green card whore option:
An upsurge in marriages between older Swedish men and young, underprivileged foreign women raises serious questions about gender equality, according to a new report.
In a new ‘migration by marriage’ study, experts at the University of St Andrews found that over a fifteen year period there has been a 44% increase in young women moving to Sweden from mainly poorer nations to marry.
The study also found that the poorer the country of birth of the migrant woman, the bigger the age gap between her and her Swedish partner – a finding that experts say raises serious concerns over such women’s freedom of choice.
Green card whores these foreign women may be, but I don’t fault Western men for pursuing this avenue to sexual and emotional fulfillment. No surprise this is happening in Sweden, land of the institutionalized überfeminist and castrated pissbucket boy. When your native women are egomaniac wide-load femcunts unworthy of your time or investment beyond a three month fling, the overseas alternative begins to look very appealing. Sure, it’s straight up barter, but betas getting the shaft end of the stick in the modern dating market might be inclined to overlook the crass exchange of sex for citizenship and dispense with their idealistic romanticism for the chance to steadily bang much younger, and typically more submissive, pussy. Who could blame them? Anything less would be… uncivilized.
And to the shibboleth spewing clackademic tards wringing their hands about “female freedom of choice”: No one’s slapping chains on these poor foreign babes and dragging them into relationships with relatively wealthy Western men. Just as no one’s forcing men at gunpoint to compete for the attention of young, slender chicks. Until these inane feminists come to terms with the fact that men and women have different reproductive goals and sexual desires, we will continue hearing them say the stupidest shit in so-called respectable academic journals.
Newsflash! It’s better to be born a winner than a loser. Tony Robbins wept.
Attractive people have it all. As babies they get less chastisement, more cuddles, and better presents.
At school they are more popular, have more friends and are less likely to be bullied. And as adults, they have more sexual partners, and are more likely to be married, have a good job, and earn a higher salary – around 10 per cent more than plain Joes and Janes. They are also perceived to be healthier, smarter, and more trustworthy, and if they go into politics they are more likely to be elected. But why are some people seen as attractive and others not? And why have we evolved to find some features attractive and others not?
According to new research, it may all be down to oxidative stress and antioxidants. Psychologists have discovered that men who were rated as the most physically attractive by women have the lowest levels of markers of oxidative stress. […]
Ten bilateral features of the men – ear width, ear height, wrist width, elbow width, lengths of four fingers, ankle breadth and foot breadth – were measured and compared. The men’s urine was measured for markers of oxidative stress and for hormones, and they were quizzed about any birth complications, such as late or premature birth, which can increase levels of oxidative stress. Finally, a group of women were asked to rate images of the men’s bodies and faces for physical attractiveness.
Results show that men who were rated as attractive by the women had significantly lower levels of oxidative stress. And men with more symmetrical bodies had lower levels and were rated as more attractive. Men who had experienced birth problems had higher levels of oxidative-stress markers. […]
Lesson: Ladykillers don’t sweat the small stuff.
Some studies have shown that men are especially attracted to women with a low hip ratio – small waists and large hips. Just why remains elusive, although suggestions have included better child-bearing abilities, improved health, and greater survival. One University of California study showed that women with larger hips perform better in intelligence tests, as do their children.
Body mass index, a measure of both height and weight, is another dimension that has attracted the attention of researchers. A ratio of 20.85 has been found to be most attractive in women, because, say researchers, it is seen by men as sign of good health and good reproductive potential.
The fat cows who lumber in here to moo that female BMIs of 25 are attractive (they use the euphemism “curvy”) are full of shit. Science once again confirms the validity of the Dating Market Test for Women that has been at the top of this blog for three years. Oh, and you gym rats stuff it. BMI is a reasonable measure of attractive body composition for women because most women are not muscle-bound meatheads.
In the same article, why do men prefer blondes? Answer: Handicap principle.
[A]ccording to research out of the University of California, the answer is that blonde hair, like the peacock’s tail or the rooster’s bright-red plumage, is a sign of fitness. The evolutionary reason why men are attracted to blondes is that the hair and skin colour make it easier to spot problems. Anaemia, jaundice, skin infections, cyanosis (a sign of heart disease) and some other conditions, are, these researchers say, much easier to detect in fair-skinned individuals than in brunettes.
So, in ancestral times when bugs and infections were thick on the ground, there was an evolutionary need to be able to pick a mate who would be healthy and have healthy offspring – hence the preference for blondes.
Prediction: this post was very painful to read for we-are-the-world equalists.