tyrazane
Iron
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2026
- Posts
- 60
- Reputation
- 38
People overcomplicate this because they want to feel sophisticated while nursing their preferences.
For example:
Indians are not some automatic lower tier of attractiveness to Americans. That framing is lazy and dumb. Attraction is heavily shaped by what you were exposed to growing up. If your visual diet was mostly one set of facial structures, skin tones, and features, those become the default template your brain treats as normal, desirable or just fucking ugly. That’s not some profound moral failing or pure racism in every case—it’s familiarity bias. People pretend otherwise because admitting “I prefer what I saw a lot of” feels less flattering than inventing hierarchies.
Western media spent decades flooding the zone with a narrow band of faces and bodies as the ideal. That shapes baseline expectations whether people admit it or not. India is genetically extremely varied; talking about “Indian features” as if there’s one face is the same retard-tier thinking as treating all Europeans or all Africans as interchangeable. Some Indians hit conventional Western beauty standards hard. Some don’t. Exactly the same is true inside every other population. Individual genetics still decide who got the better proportions. That part isn’t egalitarian.
Grooming, skin, hair, body composition, posture, and presentation routinely matter more than the racial taxonomy people on forums jerk off over. A well-presented person from almost any background will outperform a neglected one from the “preferred” group more often than the race theorists want to concede.
The actual failure mode is taking your own preference—shaped by exposure, media, and personal wiring—and treating it like an objective ranking of entire ethnic groups. You can prefer whatever the fuck you prefer. Just stop pretending your taste is a universal law of human aesthetics. People respond to individual trait combinations filtered through what they’ve been conditioned to notice and value. Everything else is post-hoc rationalization.
Then again if you see a indian and a american person side by side and you had no internal bias Indian genetics are generally a lot worse compared to western regions.
Thanks.
For example:
Indians are not some automatic lower tier of attractiveness to Americans. That framing is lazy and dumb. Attraction is heavily shaped by what you were exposed to growing up. If your visual diet was mostly one set of facial structures, skin tones, and features, those become the default template your brain treats as normal, desirable or just fucking ugly. That’s not some profound moral failing or pure racism in every case—it’s familiarity bias. People pretend otherwise because admitting “I prefer what I saw a lot of” feels less flattering than inventing hierarchies.
Western media spent decades flooding the zone with a narrow band of faces and bodies as the ideal. That shapes baseline expectations whether people admit it or not. India is genetically extremely varied; talking about “Indian features” as if there’s one face is the same retard-tier thinking as treating all Europeans or all Africans as interchangeable. Some Indians hit conventional Western beauty standards hard. Some don’t. Exactly the same is true inside every other population. Individual genetics still decide who got the better proportions. That part isn’t egalitarian.
Grooming, skin, hair, body composition, posture, and presentation routinely matter more than the racial taxonomy people on forums jerk off over. A well-presented person from almost any background will outperform a neglected one from the “preferred” group more often than the race theorists want to concede.
The actual failure mode is taking your own preference—shaped by exposure, media, and personal wiring—and treating it like an objective ranking of entire ethnic groups. You can prefer whatever the fuck you prefer. Just stop pretending your taste is a universal law of human aesthetics. People respond to individual trait combinations filtered through what they’ve been conditioned to notice and value. Everything else is post-hoc rationalization.
Then again if you see a indian and a american person side by side and you had no internal bias Indian genetics are generally a lot worse compared to western regions.
Thanks.
