PSL does not fuck up your perceptions of beauty!

[thecel]

PSL has NOT warped what I find attractive. PSL just taught me the underlying reasons for why some people are hot and some people are ugly.

Without PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and don’t know why it’s beautiful. With PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and know its beauty results from forward cranial–facial projection, wide IPD, long PFL, and other features.

Having learned the sciences of aesthetics, I can morph people (in image-editing software) into more attractive versions with the help of PSL knowledge. I couldn’t do this before I got into PSL. This leads to other people forming an incorrect belief about me: that PSL has warped what I find attractive. Their reasoning:

• Before you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were models and actors.
• After you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were teraslayer morphs.
• Therefore, PSL shifted your taste in male aesthetics away from reality.

This is flawed. Consider this analogy:

When you do not own a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are real life views—like you’re actually outside in national parks and other places. Once you get a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are digitally enhanced 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR videos recorded on top-end cameras. Just because the processed footage looks more epic and cool than real life does, doesn’t mean you find real-life scenic views less cool-looking than you did before you got the giga TV. Would the Grand Canyon in real life look less cool to someone who’s watched 1,000,000 hours of highly-saturated HDR videos compared to someone who’s never seen a screen? Nope!

Looking at male models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Chads less attractive, and looking at female models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Stacies less attractive.

So, PSL doesn’t make people be less attracted to normal people in real life. But does prolonged PSL exposure make people find things attractive that they otherwise wouldn’t find attractive? Do non-PSL-users not find PSL ideals attractive? No and no. Would a dude who lived in an Amish village his whole life think 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR looks ugly? Imagine a guy seeing a Lamborghini and thinking, “What an ugly car!”, because he hasn’t consumed enough Lamborghini content to see the beauty in it. Just LOL. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

 

[thecel]

View attachment 1442659

He looks good to most people. Like I said in the 1st post, people who aren’t PSL users find PSL ideals attractive too.

 

[MiroslavBulldosex]

It's all about being between 2 and 3 SD from the mean in all areas.

 

[DesperadoRatado]

k

 

[Deleted member 15099]

Jfl, it made me even more autistic

 

[thecel]

View attachment 1442659

TFW someone gets more reacts than you just from posting your avatar—a morph that you put time and effort in

 

[Gaia262]

PSL has NOT warped what I find attractive. PSL just taught me the underlying reasons for why some people are hot and some people are ugly.

Without PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and don’t know why it’s beautiful. With PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and know its beauty results from forward cranial–facial projection, wide IPD, long PFL, and other features.

Having learned the sciences of aesthetics, I can morph people (in image-editing software) into more attractive versions with the help of PSL knowledge. I couldn’t do this before I got into PSL. This leads to other people forming an incorrect belief about me: that PSL has warped what I find attractive. Their reasoning:

• Before you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were models and actors.
• After you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were teraslayer morphs.
• Therefore, PSL shifted your taste in male aesthetics away from reality.

This is flawed. Consider this analogy:

When you do not own a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are real life views—like you’re actually outside in national parks and other places. Once you get a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are digitally enhanced 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR videos recorded on top-end cameras. Just because the processed footage looks more epic and cool than real life does, doesn’t mean you find real-life scenic views less cool-looking than you did before you got the giga TV. Would the Grand Canyon in real life look less cool to someone who’s watched 1,000,000 hours of highly-saturated HDR videos compared to someone who’s never seen a screen? Nope!

Looking at male models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Chads less attractive, and looking at female models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Stacies less attractive.

So, PSL doesn’t make people be less attracted to normal people in real life. But does prolonged PSL exposure make people find things attractive that they otherwise wouldn’t find attractive? Do non-PSL-users not find PSL ideals attractive? No and no. Would a dude who lived in an Amish village his whole life think 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR looks ugly? Imagine a guy seeing a Lamborghini and thinking, “What an ugly car!”, because he hasn’t consumed enough Lamborghini content to see the beauty in it. Just LOL. It doesn’t make sense.

Comparing the aesthetics of a car and the human face is not the same thing.

The aesthetics of a car is 100% artificially fabricated, look how shit a 1980s lamborghini looks you would cringe seeing this in real life today, but in those days you were a god.

Whereas psl knowledge is deep rooted in our DNA -- an attractive face denotes a healthy upbringing, genetics and free of disease.

Crooked Nose? Bad breathing
Bug eyes? Recessed undereyes or hormonal issues
Balding head? Stressed, diseased, auto-immune issue
short height? Poor nutrition, diseased upbringing, weak genetic lineage.

These are fundamentals that will never change.

However,

Our tastes can change culturally, there is no real basis to find blonde hair superior to black hair. Or blue eyes to brown eyes. or even excessively fat asses. These are all culturally ingrained.

I remember the days when fat asses were a massive turn off then "African American" culture took over and the kardashians made it a thing . I remember the days where there was no "thick" girls everyone wanted to be as skinny as possible "thick" was just a coping fat girl.


tldr Therefore, yes fundamental PSL traits are largely ingrained in our DNA we will always perceive certain traits to be attractive (height, nice smile, healthy skin, healthy hair) , the caveat is that non fundamental physical traits can be altered by the media for us to find attractive (blue eyes, blonde hair, pixee nose, tanned skin, oversized asses ect)

 

[thecel]

oversized asses ect)

cope harder bruh ass is gas

 

[Anchor_Ship]

PSL has NOT warped what I find attractive. PSL just taught me the underlying reasons for why some people are hot and some people are ugly.

Without PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and don’t know why it’s beautiful. With PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and know its beauty results from forward cranial–facial projection, wide IPD, long PFL, and other features.

Having learned the sciences of aesthetics, I can morph people (in image-editing software) into more attractive versions with the help of PSL knowledge. I couldn’t do this before I got into PSL. This leads to other people forming an incorrect belief about me: that PSL has warped what I find attractive. Their reasoning:

• Before you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were models and actors.
• After you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were teraslayer morphs.
• Therefore, PSL shifted your taste in male aesthetics away from reality.

This is flawed. Consider this analogy:

When you do not own a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are real life views—like you’re actually outside in national parks and other places. Once you get a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are digitally enhanced 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR videos recorded on top-end cameras. Just because the processed footage looks more epic and cool than real life does, doesn’t mean you find real-life scenic views less cool-looking than you did before you got the giga TV. Would the Grand Canyon in real life look less cool to someone who’s watched 1,000,000 hours of highly-saturated HDR videos compared to someone who’s never seen a screen? Nope!

Looking at male models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Chads less attractive, and looking at female models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Stacies less attractive.

So, PSL doesn’t make people be less attracted to normal people in real life. But does prolonged PSL exposure make people find things attractive that they otherwise wouldn’t find attractive? Do non-PSL-users not find PSL ideals attractive? No and no. Would a dude who lived in an Amish village his whole life think 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR looks ugly? Imagine a guy seeing a Lamborghini and thinking, “What an ugly car!”, because he hasn’t consumed enough Lamborghini content to see the beauty in it. Just LOL. It doesn’t make sense.

Water but still good thread

 

[Tallooksmaxxer]

legit blackpilled thread

 

[BugeyeBigNoseCurry]

PSL has NOT warped what I find attractive. PSL just taught me the underlying reasons for why some people are hot and some people are ugly.

Without PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and don’t know why it’s beautiful. With PSL knowledge, you see a beautiful face and know its beauty results from forward cranial–facial projection, wide IPD, long PFL, and other features.

Having learned the sciences of aesthetics, I can morph people (in image-editing software) into more attractive versions with the help of PSL knowledge. I couldn’t do this before I got into PSL. This leads to other people forming an incorrect belief about me: that PSL has warped what I find attractive. Their reasoning:

• Before you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were models and actors.
• After you joined PSL, the men who you thought looked the best, were teraslayer morphs.
• Therefore, PSL shifted your taste in male aesthetics away from reality.

This is flawed. Consider this analogy:

When you do not own a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are real life views—like you’re actually outside in national parks and other places. Once you get a giga-high-quality TV, the landscape scenes you think look the coolest, are digitally enhanced 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR videos recorded on top-end cameras. Just because the processed footage looks more epic and cool than real life does, doesn’t mean you find real-life scenic views less cool-looking than you did before you got the giga TV. Would the Grand Canyon in real life look less cool to someone who’s watched 1,000,000 hours of highly-saturated HDR videos compared to someone who’s never seen a screen? Nope!

Looking at male models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Chads less attractive, and looking at female models and morphs doesn’t make you find real-life Stacies less attractive.

So, PSL doesn’t make people be less attracted to normal people in real life. But does prolonged PSL exposure make people find things attractive that they otherwise wouldn’t find attractive? Do non-PSL-users not find PSL ideals attractive? No and no. Would a dude who lived in an Amish village his whole life think 3-D 8-K 240-FPS HDR looks ugly? Imagine a guy seeing a Lamborghini and thinking, “What an ugly car!”, because he hasn’t consumed enough Lamborghini content to see the beauty in it. Just LOL. It doesn’t make sense.

JFL PSL autists think 90 degree gonial angle is attractive

 

[thecel]

JFL PSL autists think 90 degree gonial angle is attractive

No 105 is the maesthetic ideal

 

[Deprived]

My taste in women has only gotten more specific after PSL, because I've found out what makes the ons I liked actually attractive

 

[thecel]

JFL PSL autists think 90 degree gonial angle is attractive

It can be attractive.

Contrary to popular cope, gonial angle is not important in the attractiveness of the jaw. Besides ramus length, the 1 other factor that actually makes a jaw attractive or not—the factor that most people conflate with gonial angle—is the angle of the mandibular body relative to the horizon. If this angle is ideal and the ramus is long, a gonial angle of 140º or 90º doesn’t make a big difference to the jaw’s attractiveness.

 

[lebronjames23]

PSL is so overrated , there’s guys on here with good PSLs but they have no IRL appeal