"With only a face that a mother could love" The true brutal reality of how conditional a mother's "love" is, even when it comes to her kids.

[CFW432]

 

[Biiyo03]

What a bitch

 

[AbuSAF]

people proving blackpill by using babies @jm17 @Blackmannnns @ThatDjangoWalk

 

[Dorado]

100 years ago she would have cried of joy upon seeing her first child.
Now even babies are subjected to lookism

 

[CFW432]

100 years ago she would have cried of joy upon seeing her first child.
Now even babies are subjected to lookism

Uh no, she wouldn't have, atleast not genuinely. Why can't you people accept that women are literally walking eugenics machines. Their whole purpose is to find good genes, get pregnant, and reproduce, and then give birth to offspring with those good genes. Women can't help but respond positively to what they perceive as good genes, and negatively to what they perceive as bad genes. It's literally their biological function.

100 years ago, what she WOULD'VE done, is "cry out of happiness" from of SOCIAL PRESSURE, so that she doesn't look like a massive cunt for rejecting her own offspring that she gave birth to. All you people are seeing now, is true female nature exposed, empowered by feminism and no longer held down by patriarchal systems of societal function and government. We still have a few decades to go though, before women become fully "emancipated" and learn to act unthinkingly and on instinct. Get ready to see women 40-50 years from now start smothering their own babies to death just because they thought they were too ugly to let live.

 

[volcelfatcel]

lmao, imagine shitting on your kids while looking like some girl @kjsbdfiusdf posts here jfl

 

[lutte]

wow what a whore they came out of her rotten womb and then she posts them for millions to see calling her own children ugly

 

[Deleted member 6403]

She should put them down and /reroll, wait another 9 months and see what happens again

 

[Dorado]

Their whole purpose is to find good genes, get pregnant, and reproduce, and then give birth to offspring with those good genes

If you're reducing the purpose of human life to reproduction, which does make sense evolutionarily, then at least be consistent about it. It's not just females, our whole purpose is also to find good genes, impregnate and reproduce. Only difference is that the majority of us can't afford to be so picky so we take what we can get. Abundance vs scarcity mindset shaped by the amount of options that you have.

Women can't help but respond positively to what they perceive as good genes, and negatively to what they perceive as bad genes

We do that too. Everyone responds positively to good genes and negatively to bad genes. It's not just female nature, it's human nature. Nobody is immune to the halo effect last time I checked.

100 years ago, what she WOULD'VE done is "cry out of happiness" from of SOCIAL PRESSURE

100 years ago she wouldn't have seen thousands of pictures online of other newborn babies to compare to hers. There was no culture of sharing baby pics on social media and receiving validation. There was no pressure for babies to look a certain way. She would have seen her baby first and she would have loved it without even thinking about such things. People were more emotional before too, now everyone's dopamine receptors are burned out and we don't value these moments the same way as before.

 

[Vermilioncore]

This is why women want to be raped. Usually rapists are high t chads. So women crave to be raped by chads who will later murder them

 

[Deleted member 6403]

lmao, imagine shitting on your kids while looking like some girl @kjsbdfiusdf posts here jfl

she's ugly

 

[volcelfatcel]

she's ugly

ya so is every girl you post here without makeupo

 

[Jason Voorhees]

That whore should be thrown off a cliff for posting her baby on tiktok

 

[BrendioEEE]

Uh no, she wouldn't have, atleast not genuinely. Why can't you people accept that women are literally walking eugenics machines. Their whole purpose is to find good genes, get pregnant, and reproduce, and then give birth to offspring with those good genes. Women can't help but respond positively to what they perceive as good genes, and negatively to what they perceive as bad genes. It's literally their biological function.

100 years ago, what she WOULD'VE done, is "cry out of happiness" from of SOCIAL PRESSURE, so that she doesn't look like a massive cunt for rejecting her own offspring that she gave birth to. All you people are seeing now, is true female nature exposed, empowered by feminism and no longer held down by patriarchal systems of societal function and government. We still have a few decades to go though, before women become fully "emancipated" and learn to act unthinkingly and on instinct. Get ready to see women 40-50 years from now start smothering their own babies to death just because they thought they were too ugly to let live.

Bluepilled take, this didn't apply to virgin females in the old western world.

 

[CFW432]

If you're reducing the purpose of human life to reproduction, which does make sense evolutionarily, then at least be consistent about it. It's not just females, our whole purpose is also to find good genes, impregnate and reproduce. Only difference is that the majority of us can't afford to be so picky so we take what we can get. Abundance vs scarcity mindset shaped by the amount of options that you have.

We do that too. Everyone responds positively to good genes and negatively to bad genes. It's not just female nature, it's human nature. Nobody is immune to the halo effect last time I checked.

100 years ago she wouldn't have seen thousands of pictures online of other newborn babies to compare to hers. There was no culture of sharing baby pics on social media and receiving validation. There was no pressure for babies to look a certain way. She would have seen her baby first and she would have loved it without even thinking about such things. People were more emotional before too, now everyone's dopamine receptors are burned out and we don't value these moments the same way as before.

"If you're reducing the purpose of human life to reproduction, which does make sense evolutionarily, then at least be consistent about it. It's not just females, our whole purpose is also to find good genes, impregnate and reproduce. Only difference is that the majority of us can't afford to be so picky so we take what we can get. Abundance vs scarcity mindset shaped by the amount of options that you have."



Actually the basic driving force behind reproduction, is genes in general, not good genes. No genes= no species. However nature does incentivize the selection of good genes as a way to further adapt a species to be able overcome and survive environmental change, so that they dont become extinct. Actually you are right about the picky part and the abundance and scarcity mindset playing a role, but it's actually mainly the fact the male sperm is abundant and replenishes itself daily where as females ovulate an egg, once a month, I think?



"We do that too. Everyone responds positively to good genes and negatively to bad genes. It's not just female nature, it's human nature. Nobody is immune to the halo effect last time I checked."



You are completely right about that. But my biggest problem is that the burden of artificial morality is placed moreso on the shoulders of men than it is women. If a woman goes around as a cocktail carouseling whore, society accepts her and supports her calling her a "empowered woman exploring herself and her sexuality" where as if a man does it, he's vilified and called a manipulative sexual deviant.



"100 years ago she wouldn't have seen thousands of pictures online of other newborn babies to compare to hers. There was no culture of sharing baby pics on social media and receiving validation. There was no pressure for babies to look a certain way. She would have seen her baby first and she would have loved it without even thinking about such things. People were more emotional before too, now everyone's dopamine receptors are burned out and we don't value these moments the same way as before."

Uh, I'm not sure if that's entirely the case tbh. While I can definitely see it through you point of view, looks are NOT subjective. What people consider physically attractive is actually natural sexually dimorphic traits that humans are aware the opposite gender is supposed to have. Women didn't suddenly fall in love with tall, fit men, with a defined jaw and piercing eyes archetype in just the last generation lmao. This archetype is considered the peak of male fitness, because it is the peak of male fitness, from a biological standpoint. It's the same reason why men are physically attracted to women with youthful small looking faces, puppy eyes, wide hips and who are in the age range of 13-25, it's because this is when women are in their most fertile, and are able to produce offspring without many medical problems, as opposed to if they produce them at a later age.

 

[AlexAP]

All you people are seeing now, is true female nature exposed, empowered by feminism and no longer held down by patriarchal systems of societal function and government. We still have a few decades to go though, before women become fully "emancipated" and learn to act unthinkingly and on instinct. Get ready to see women 40-50 years from now start smothering their own babies to death just because they thought they were too ugly to let live.

Turbo-Autism

 

[AlexAP]

The babies looked ugly. Nearly all babies look ugly. My mother told me she thinks all babies are ugly and that all people who say babies look good only say it because of social pressure.

It doesn't matter, they still love their babies.

 

[Yuya Moggershima]

What a dumb whore, even if they were deformed, and they're not, she shouldn't have said this

 

[turkproducer]

Most people are not fit to be parents

This is why there’s so many retard uglies walking about, sociopaths like this are roaming about.

 

[Adriana Lima]

Most people are not fit to be parents

This is why there’s so many retard uglies walking about, sociopaths like this are roaming about.

Just say black ppl next time racist ass

 

[turkproducer]

Just say black ppl next time racist ass

she looks like a latinam ethnic

 

[.👽.]

her babies are really ugly tbh look at that giga high hairline. its over

but it's her fault tho cuz shes ugly af too

 

[Deleted member 14667]

average foid its a fucking newborn what do u expect

 

[Deleted member 6306]

Newborns are always ugly, they're like old people : no hair, wrinkles, no teeth, weak, almost blind, shorter, they stink and they drool

 

[Deleted member 8853]

If you're reducing the purpose of human life to reproduction, which does make sense evolutionarily, then at least be consistent about it. It's not just females, our whole purpose is also to find good genes, impregnate and reproduce. Only difference is that the majority of us can't afford to be so picky so we take what we can get. Abundance vs scarcity mindset shaped by the amount of options that you have.

We do that too. Everyone responds positively to good genes and negatively to bad genes. It's not just female nature, it's human nature. Nobody is immune to the halo effect last time I checked.

100 years ago she wouldn't have seen thousands of pictures online of other newborn babies to compare to hers. There was no culture of sharing baby pics on social media and receiving validation. There was no pressure for babies to look a certain way. She would have seen her baby first and she would have loved it without even thinking about such things. People were more emotional before too, now everyone's dopamine receptors are burned out and we don't value these moments the same way as before.

High IQ take.