
Goldeneye
Bronze
- Joined
- May 1, 2020
- Posts
- 384
- Reputation
- 454
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Western beauty stadards but objectively they have recessed orbitals and bad colouring.Is it only considered ugly because of the current societies standards?
No its not. Blacks have dark skin too and yet they are not failoed by itSkin color is biggest failo
No its not. Blacks have dark skin too and yet they are not failoed by it
Thats what youve been brainwashed to believe. It doesnt look dirty or gross.shitskin legit looks dirty.
Doubt it.Dark skin is better than shitskin.
shitskin legit looks dirty.
Indians have bad undertone. Lacks the red glow looks yellowish most of the time. Also lacks collagen compared to the blacksNo its not. Blacks have dark skin too and yet they are not failoed by it
That's not shitskin.Doubt it.
What about this guy?That's not shitskin.
![]()
North Indian light skin
![]()
North Indian tannish skin
![]()
Shitskin
That's shitskin, found all over India reaches peak in the south.What about this guy?
Nordic on women agreed. but Med skin tone is ideal for men.Nordic skin is the skin of the gods
Med is good but Nordic mogsNordic on women agreed. but Med skin tone is ideal for men.
No its not. Blacks have dark skin too and yet they are not failoed by it
Its because blacks have dark skin with negroid skull features.Nordic on women agreed. but Med skin tone is ideal for men.
What do you mean ''bit off''Its because blacks have dark skin with negroid skull features.
we have dark skin with skull features that are closer to Caucasian (and in some cases abo).
It makes us look "a bit off" if you get what I mean.
Thats why most successful Indian males are light skinned.
Like we look like burnt malnourished whites literally.What do you mean ''bit off''
It is considered ugly because indians are throughoutly mixed with subhuman dravinians and arabs, and just like nobody wants a mixed-breed dog, nobody likes a mixed-breed human. I can't tell the difference between the average indian, brazilian, egyptian, and so on.Is it only considered ugly because of the current societies standards?
Is it only considered ugly because of the current societies standards?
Indians just have extremely bad features
Bug eyes , uneven skin tone , shitty smell. Bloated faces.Tbh Indians just have extremely bad features, its not subjective, its objective.
Short height, bald earlier, small penises, 30% lung capacity, lowest skeletal muscle mass , prone to diabetes and CVD. There's more aswell. They also have Australoid ancestry.
![]()
Facts, Studies and Statistics on Indian Men
- predisposed to bald early https://himhacker.com/why-are-indian-men-more-likely-to-be-bald-and-highly-confident/ - low skeletal muscle mass https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46960-9 -30% more fat cells in the abdominal region hence skinny fat look...looksmax.org
Aren't you Nepali?jfl at self hating Indians
noAren't you Nepali?
jfl at self hating Indians
No its self hate.It's not self hating. It's just being self aware of legitimate flaws. of course we have been brainwashed by eurocentric beauty standards however flaws such as short height, balding at an earlier age, prone to diabetes (belly fat), prone to gynocomastisia etc are all objective faults regardless of eurocentric beauty standards.
NoIs it only considered ugly because of the current societies standards?
No that's not lightskin.That's not shitskin.
![]()
North Indian light skin
![]()
North Indian tannish skin
![]()
Shitskin