What is the beauty of men? Why is it forgotten?

We hear much on Holla Forums about the duties men must undertake in order to be attractive to women. Men like The Golden One will speak long hours about the actions that make men attractive. It is as though, in order to be attractive to women, a man must be in a constant state of self-improvement, struggle, or trial. And then, in turn, we speak much on the duties of women, but we know that this is not their source of beauty. A woman is beautiful for existing, and having emotions and feelings of loyalty, to men or her race.

One may say that this is the nature of difference between men and women. But this is foremost a cultural view–and not one that seems to be in agreement with nature.

In Asiatic cultures, there is a strong modality of thought that the male must acquire social capital, monetary resources, and improve his mind to such an extent before it is even considerable that he pursue a woman. This seems to be the case in Arabic culture as well. And, we in Germanic nations, seem to hold similar views as well, particularly in the Nationalist Sphere.

But what do women actually do?
It is simple; women largely do not care about all of these pains a man might put upon himself. They are female, and they are innately attracted to men, just as we are innately attracted to them. They find beauty in us, just as we might find beauty in them. How many women actually go for the man who has his degree, has all of x,y, and z social standings while excluding those men who haven't these self-imposed restrictions? It does not happen.

In Brazil and more niggerish lands where the mental gymnastics of courtship may not run rampant and it is observed that women have an innate attraction to men, just as men have innate attraction to them. This is similar to the binormal distributive effect one sees with regard to views on race nowadays: only the moderately intelligent are able to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to deny the palpable differences in racial intelligence, whereas even more intelligent souls may see through said charades.

So, then,
What is the innate beauty of men? How does it change with age?
What is the beauty of males in their teenage years? Their twenties? Thirties? Women seem to be attracted to all of these different sorts of beauties.

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencenordic.com/what-vikings-really-looked
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

This topic seems to be something suitable for Nationalist women to suggest.

But too for us men here, what have you noticed about your past experiences with women–what attracted them to you?

For me, they seemed to be attracted to my intelligence, my introversion, and to my male youth. Stronger than they young women, but not stronger than most men. To my slenderness and body, just as men are attracted to the bodies of women. For what I felt and thought.
Does this sound familiar?


Thank you, user. I've been looking for something like this.

Except that they were attracted to me. And I'm blonde, not red-headed.

A body that indicates strength, along with symmetrical and sharply defined facial features. Also, height (sorry manlets). Isn't this pretty fucking obvious?

It is but it wont save the normies from getting shot when the crusade is called.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying you're not aesthetic as fuark?

You know that the cutoff for being considered fashy is 6'2", right?

Goon spotted, kys fam.

Well, yes and no. Some women are obviously attracted to very muscular men.

However, I think we've all observed women going crazy over teenage boys taking their shirts off and revealing their scrawny physique, such as the guy in the right picture. Why is this?

I find that women are most often attracted to this kind of man on the left picture. He looks more elegant than strong.

I believe you conflate your sense of respect and awe for male strength, as a man, with what women feel when they see beauty in men.

Virtue signalling about how 'feminism is good for men, too!' Women never say what they actually want, especially in fucking image macros.

Vitality. The dreamer. Boyish naivety.
Budding of convictions.
Fortitude. Resoluteness.

BISHŌNEN GET OUT

Cause they want children, and the scrawny, big-headed males they fawn over illicit a mother-response

girls look for boyfriends, not husbands.
they want to be women, not mothers or wives.

Women are intrinsically drawn to caring after children and small, cute things. They play with dolls ever since they care children.

What do you mean by this?

If there's one thing that pisses me off the most about leftism, it's that leftist dominated societies are always soul-suckingly pessimistic on a nation-wide scale.

The Golden One also speaks a lot about how vanity is a nice thing in men, how european tribal men used to groom themselves and he is very self-loving himself.
He also made a video on how women must behave to get a good men
T. Not the golden one

You don't live in a liberal area do you?

That dude looks autistic.

the haircut and sunglasses are okay, but that shirt is like two sizes two big.

Cancer isn't a good example of what constitutes a healthy organism.

You fucking faggot hahaha

Let me tell you whats beautiful in a man: size. Purely size. Even I accept this as a manlet. Height, dick size, etc.

You can be ugly as sin but if you're 6'5" and have a 10" dick they'll be all over you

I'm 5'8" and the only reason I do well is because my dick is 8"! And thats BARELY fucking good enough! Y'know what my girlfriend admitted to me; I'm too big for most of the month, but when she's ovulating then its TOO FUCKING SMALL. SHIT!

Its like women are biologically built to cuck us. >7" dicklets better be at least 6'0" tall

You know at least he tries too look good and respectable when he is out in public, he also looks quite handsome if I do say so.

You can clearly see he is a man who fights for his ideals. You don't need too break down his character just because the brown shirt he is wearing is a little too big, maybe he had a hard time finding a brown shirt for his very clear political statement. Also what's wrong with the belt and wide tie?

Animals (subhumans) are attracted to size first and foremost. That's why niggers/negresses go on about "thickness," muh dick, etc. You're another lost cause that has no conception of beauty. Size is only a factor when aesthetics and intent are its foundation.

GAYEST THREAD OF 2017

You're right buddy, but let me settle your white knight fantasies.

Women ARE subhumans

I'm just talking /fa/. Wide ties and brass buckles are outdated and very 80s, the whole look is very early 90s actually. It really isn't hard to find a well-fitting brown shirt or a nice buckle or jeans that have been washed or chinos or I dunno. I'm just giving my verdict, if I saw a dude like that, I'd think he was an autist. I go about my day and certainly don't mince words when I tell people Hillary eats babies or 9/11 was done by jews. I wear corduroys or chinos… a sweater or a flannel shirt… but always shit that fits. It's not hard when you're a skinny motherfucker to find clothing in your size and of this era.


This is true, if you're not big (in terms of musculature), you better be tall. I'm skinny as fuck, but have good bone structure (broad shoulders), and I'm over 6 foot tall.. so I don't go unnoticed.


you must've missed the three threads on that gay little youtube video with the niggers fucking faggots.

You are talking about r / K theory, see anonymousconservative.com

The tropical people are simply more promiscuous and don't have compact nuclear families like the K-selected winter people. K-strategist resist their primitive instincts, whereas r-strategist indulge them.

He's probably just a shill. Their signature is that they almost always attack rabidly–for them criticism always entails a fight.


Not particularly, no. I believe that women are more loyal and loving that we give them credit for. Certainly, there's a lot of conflict in this modern world, but I believe that, at our deepest most primitive level, we were made for each other. There might just be some things that most are unwilling to acknowledge, because these elements of human nature most be repressed to live in the specific type of civilization we do today.

But that is not to say that we need to repress these things to live in civlizations at all.

You guys should read the book of Oera Linda–so called the Germanic bible.
It may have been that, in the Germanic's past, we had founded Atlantis, and that this civilization was actually matriarchal, with women playing a key role in defense, rather than being passive agents for the invasion of foreigners as we see it today.

…Or maybe you're not a shills since you know of a more obscure board on 4chan? I'm sorry, user, this site has me very paranoid as of late.

Show me a manlet statue

Nigger, the only thing I'm shilling for is not looking fucking autistic when you have a message to tell. Don't you know anything about perception and unconscious cues? People trust attractive people more, and that dude is clearly good looking, so he can get away with a bit, but if he was better dressed, he would reach much more people.

Or let me guess, you think a guy in a NES hoodie and husky jeans will garner attention.


every user worth his salt once called that shithole (cuckville) home. I'm not saying the /fa/ community is anything but faggots, but referring to fashion as /fa/ is just idiosyncratic. If you think that guy looks good, then you're fucking insane.

If I recall correctly, species with a higher r value are usually more sexually dimorphic, whereas K-leaning species tend to be more neotenous with less sexual differences. I might be wrong on that, but it does explain why there were shieldmaidens and types of women who fought to defend their tribe and family, while the men were more mellow, intelligent, and neotenous. We see this in stuff like pic related.

Obscure to the shills, I meant. And I don't really care that much about fashion–I care about innate beauty.

IMPLICIT
IMPLICIT
IMPLICIT

Utmost K-selection demographic is Asians. K-selection is a natural consequence of patriarchy, the only alternative being patriarchal polygyny which is usually dysgenic (think Islam). When female have more powerful in society, you get R-selection; chief R-selected society is sub-Saharan Africa.

K-selection:
high intelligence
small genitalia
short stature

R-selection
low intelligence
large genitalia
tall stature

You fags who think women select for intelligence or whatever else need a wake up call

Men are expendable, women are not. That is the main difference, and it is biologically driven. The only womanly "virtue" (vir = man) is chastity. That is her greatest worth in the patriarchy. Women are expected to choose their mate responsibly, to carry on the greatness of our people literally (sex) and figuratively (passing our sacred lore to our children). Men are expected to be leaders and protectors, because we are inherently stronger and more intelligent. We can achieve greater discipline, honesty (in word and deed), courage, industry, and perseverance.

With great power comes great responsibility, so if women are not acting properly due to societal pressure, it is men's responsibility to fix it since that is our doman. The woman's only responsibility should be the 'small word" of our homes, to provide a sanctuary for her man and raise and train the young children's proper emotional responses before they reach the age of reason. They are not suited for any other role, and are very unhappy due to the social revolution.

Speaking of chastity, we need to enforce some level of male control over female sexuality. I don't think burkas and honor killings are what we need, but somewhere in between there and where we are now. Arranged marriage for elites and parental consent (on both sides) for the rest would probably enough for us.

we need society to collapse. they didnt select for intelligence because if you were alive it means you must be smart. idiots die in collapses. preppers are smart because they see it coming.

Collapse means natural selection will favor K-type people. Natural selection usually supercedes sexually selection; when natural selection is removed, sexual selection is all that matters. One of the best things about Christianity is that it forces K-selection when implemented

Your analysis seems to be wrongly segmented; civilization did not begin until about 2000 years ago. (Or 12,000 years ago, going with the book of Oera Linda–but that was matriarchal.)

In the conventional case of history, the patriarchy of European civilization would not have had enough time to drastically change men. Europids became a K-selected sub-species during the Ice Age, and my guess is that they probably were not patriarchal in these early years.

That is, apparently there was a strong selection bias for intelligence made by women. We clearly evolved into this state; it was not suddenly created for us by The All in its current state of being.

LMAO at your life, you wimp. We have records 7000 years back

No, there was a strong selection bias for intelligence made by an ice age


Typical

Andy's alright.


Psychic projection.

or, y'know, my opinion of his clothing

Which seem to be autistic. Hence the accusation.

I clearly said The All. From that you might've inferred that I'm a Hermeticist.

I hear you though that natural selection can supersede sexual selection on many cases. However, how is the low sexual dimorphism of Hallstatt Nords and viking skeletons accounted for in your reckoning, then? And, don't forget, sexual selection absolutely can create impediments, as we see with certain animals like pic related.

sciencenordic.com/what-vikings-really-looked

m8 the shirt doesn't fit and his pants are high-waisted. I also think his tie and buckle are outdated. big fucking deal LOL

People not on the spectrum don't care. Like your dad, he doesn't care.

Thanks for proving my point. Its the insect version of "muh dick." Sexual selection ALWAYS selects for SIZE in males; natural selection does not. For example the optimal male height from the perspective of health and biomechanics is ~5'8 for men, but sexual selection has pretty much no upper limit.

Huge changes can happen very quickly. For example, the Dutch went from shortest people in Europe (at a time when the average male height was ~5'6) to the tallest in the space of 100 years; research revealed historically taller dutch men had more children. What brought this on was wealth and prosperity; natural selection didn't matter anymore.

History is full of tall "ubermensch" getting BTFO by manlet civilizations; from Rome v. Germanic barbarians (Romans described the Germans and Celts as physically huge), all the way to tall lanky Europeans getting BTFO in a round-about way by manlet Muslims.

If a people has an average male height taller than around 5'10~, being generous, then this indicates FEMALE SEXUAL SELECTION, which means their civilization won't be around for much longer.

Nationalist woman here. This is a specific topic for a woman to answer, so all you tits or GtFO faggots just chill this one time. To answer this question in a broad sense without getting too specific to my personal tastes… hardness. In almost all respects, a man's hard (or rough from calluses) hands, prominent knuckles, arms, pecks, thighs, jaw line (hard/ square not doughy/round), even a "hard" & edgy tight hair cut not soft and flowy [even though long or flowy hair can work on a fit guy] and last but not least what you've been thinking about since I mentioned "hardness" is of course important in a male's phallus. This is so lacking in today's men/boys, they all have donuts around their wastes and A cup tits. Fucking gross. I think that is probably the most general and physically attractive aspect of male physique that turns on a heterosexual woman. Women obviously have natural subcutaneous fat even if their skinny, that's a good thing and makes women soft. Men should not be looking like women, men should not be soft. Men are most attractive when living a lifestyle that is good for T production, like hard labor or competition somehow. Just for added bonus, likewise women are more attractive when their lifestyle produces good amounts of Estrogen. So, women like a handsome face, but it's the beauty of a hard body that is so attractive to a woman.

Average height in Europe was 5'6; Dutch were like 5'3"-5'4"

Right.

Thanks, anoness. So male beauty, for you, is toughness and strength. You like hard, working type men, at least in physicality.

Do you also like this hardness in terms of their emotions? What is the beauty of men, for you, in these terms?

Also of interest, what would you say physical state is; are you northern or southern European? Short, feminine curves, tall, narrow? I notice that the wants of women tell a lot about their physical state.

The women who like hairless boys without any muscle are usually closet-pedophiles. The kind of female who would get caught screwing her students.

That's amusing. There must therefore be a high percentage of female pedophiles that almost everyone in society isn't privy to. (Which could actually be true–people tend not to anticipate that women can also be sexually deviant.)

This does sound quite similar to the argument that men who like small-breasted women like pic related are closet pedophiles. I'm not sure whether it holds any water, or if it's just one of those urban myths.

I guess several centuries of Roman rule, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, etc. don't count as civilization.

Hell, Otzi the iceman is 3,000 years old and he had waterproof boots that show evidence of mass-production rather than being a one-off, a waterproof coat/cape, copper axe, bow and arrows, food in his stomach that indicated farming and long-distance trade, and he died hundreds of miles from his place of birth. Stone age Europeans invented flush toilets and had a continent-spanning trade network 5,000 years ago.

So how the hell do you figure civilization didn't begin until 2,000 years ago?

Germanic tribes destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire, so the BTFOing clearly went the other direction.

And science proved almost a century ago that people today are taller because of better nutrition, not sexual selection. And yes, taller men historically had more children; because they weren't dirt-poor peasants and could afford to feed themselves (hence their greater height) and their children.

And if you don't think wealth and prosperity has anything to do with natural selection, you're an idiot. Competition for resources is competition for resources, whether it's food, land, mates, or money, and the more powerful (physically or socially) and more intelligence are selected for by virtue of being more capable of competing.

Know how I can tell you went to public school? Because you don't know jack shit.

You're right user; I massively fucked up there and forgot about Mesopotamia.

r/K selection is bullshit and doesn't explain anything. Whites have just as much testosterone if not more than blacks and the people who say otherwise have some sort of negro and east asian fetish.

Filter and ignore

Differences between testosterone are statistically insignificant between Caucasoid and negroid. Native American is higher. Estrogen is higher in negroid

Here's another cool myth: whites are inbred. Hell yea dude!

In order for a recessive trait to be passed down to a a majority of the population, a genetic bottleneck MUST have occurred.

Yes. I think a good way to describe it another way fitting in with the original analogy would be that an attractives man's emotions are not easily malleable. They are not easily swayed by emotions and it takes a lot of "heat" to affect their emotions.


In terms of emotion, an ultimately attractive man is like what I described: keeps it cool for most all situations. Does not rise in temper no matter what life or women or other men throw at them. Pretty much opposite of a woman that might cry over seemingly nothing of consequence.


Nordic .50, Anglo .25, German .25


Feminine curves (no, that doesn't mean I'm just fat lol ample size tits [full of mama milk] small waist, wide hips), taller than most manlets

I like men that are unapologetically manly.

"Tits or GTFO" is for women who announce that they are women superfluously. It reflects in a crass way that anonymous online, being a woman is irrelevant. On this particular topic, you being a woman is relevant, so we'll give you a pass on showing your tits.