Women have been in a looksmaxing arms race for hundreds of years minimum, why is it viewed as weird for men to looksmax?

[blackpilled I lost]

.

 

[lyricism]

because it was feminine-dominated as you stated, ofc it'll look weird to them

 

[studymaxxer]

because historically a negative canthal tilt or bad gonial angle in men wasn't important while their provide was. Looks were always relevant for women. Now that you unlocked the pandora box of female sexuality, looks matter for men as well as the above guy said, since looksmaxxing was already associated with women, It just is seen as a feminine thing to do and in a way it would be, if women didnt start selecting men for their looks

 

[HarrierDuBois]

because historically a negative canthal tilt or bad gonial angle in men wasn't important while their provide was. Looks were always relevant for women. Now that you unlocked the pandora box of female sexuality, looks matter for men as well as the above guy said, since looksmaxxing was already associated with women, It just is seen as a feminine thing to do and in a way it would be, if women didnt start selecting men for their looks

This is not true, truly historically looks were bred for in hunter gatherer societies where 17 women reproduced for every 1 one man, this construct of marriages and money meaning more than looks is fairly recent in only beeing a few thousand years old.

 

[studymaxxer]

This is not true, truly historically looks were bred for in hunter gatherer societies where 17 women reproduced for every 1 one man, this construct of marriages and money meaning more than looks is fairly recent in only beeing a few thousand years old.

Doesnt hurt my argument. If you read my original argument, I brought up gonial angle and canthal tilt instead of say, height, frame or deep set eyes. This was intentional since the former characteristics are considered attractive despite there being no real significance in survival. Even in hunter gatherer times, If you managed to outperform someone attractive in terms of being a better hunter, you'll still do better than him. This is no longer. A pretty e boy will take your girl even if you are a masculine guy making $300k a year.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Doesnt hurt my argument. If you read my original argument, I brought up gonial angle and canthal tilt instead of say, height, frame or deep set eyes. This was intentional since the former characteristics are considered attractive despite there being no real significance in survival. Even in hunter gatherer times, If you managed to outperform someone attractive in terms of being a better hunter, you'll still do better than him. This is no longer. A pretty e boy will take your girl even if you are a masculine guy making $300k a year.

But every ratio and feature signifies something about either your survivability, development, health, or genes.
There is more to looks than only survivability that makes a person attractive.
A forward grown brow ridge signifies high fighting success.
A good gonial angle signifies a properly developed face during puberty with ideal craniofacial development, this in turn promises no issues with breathing, chewing, biting, living.
Youthful supple skin signifies virility, fertility, and healthy functioning body with no deficiencies.
Positive canthal tilt signifies good genes since your orbitals had enough bone in them not to make your eyes appear droopy.