Theres this theory that makeup gives women an advantage they have more tools at their disposal and the males cant take advantage of makeup due to looking more feminine rather than masculineSo women are turning lesbian because they believe woman to be more beautiful now with the modern tools than malesHow would you deal with this line of thinking? im trying to create an argument to defeat this for a long time.So males are stuck in a more dull look and women are getting all the attention due to makeup and things like this what is the counter narrative you could use to persuade women that males are still in the running and could be atleast equally as beautiful as females
1) Most men were never attractive to women throughout history. They just had to lie to themselves and others for survival. Now they don't have to anymore. 2) To acknowledge that women are more beautiful / desirable / sexier than men, with or without makeup, doesn't mean that they're lesbian. It just means that most men are unattractive. Attractiveness is very objective and measurable. 3) Most women are chad-sexual or mostly asexual otherwise. 4) You cannot defeat an illogical creature with arguments. If you want to defeat a gynocentric narrative, you do it at the state level. Unfortunately it seems that in Western societies that can only happen from the bottom up, meaning a lot more men have to suffer before they will elect a chud.
>>84358819>So women are turning lesbian>turningthis cope again?
>>84358819>women are turning lesbianlol. lesbians aren't real, anon
>>84358846so whats the counter argument if both men and women find the opposite gender dull looking by nature without makeupthen women add makeup and have somewhat stirred up a pot of gold when men start to pay a lot of money for porn and stuff of women with makeup on instagram etcso they have this resource of money and attention that they are cashing in on and males what is the answer to it so women cant just run with that and say hey look were pretty pay us we wear makeup and you cant because youre a guywhat is the male equivalent or what is the male answer >>84358873they are absolutely real if you ask modern women on the street mostly all lesbians holding hands with other women in feminst korea especially >>84358858you have a capitulation argument where youre bowing down to females winning its not an argument counter narrative im looking for
>>84358939I'm not bowing down and I'm not simping, it's just the truth. Women aren't really attracted to men and they don't really enjoy the company of men.
>lol. lesbians aren't real, anon
>>84358957i know that modern women do that today they seemingly have no sexual libido for males todayhowever if there was a hypersexual female interested in men which theres some evidence theres a few who still existim interested in tackling the narrative that males are at a deficit because we lack the makeup and other tools at their disposal to "cheat" their way into beauty that the male gender doesnt clearly have an answer for it and the men would be left out of the benefits of that if there was women who were picking up on it
>>84358939>so they have this resource of money and attention that they are cashing in on and males what is the answer to it so women cant just run with that and say hey look were pretty pay us we wear makeup and you cant because youre a guyThis only happens because the regular guy no longer has access to pussy like they used to. So they use simping as a substitute to provide for a woman (natural instinct), and women use pets and voting for brown rights as a substitute for tending to their children. What you do is take away female rights. That simple.
so, what do you reckon, when is your failed raid gonna end? you know you fags are just trolling each other with made up bullshit, right?
>>84358973>modern womenmade up tradcuck term>the narrative that males are at a deficit because we lack the makeupI think you're wrong, women's in-group preference and natural contempt for men wouldn't change even if you removed makeup from the equation
>>84358973Dude makeup is steroids and lying about being loaded with cash. Pump & dump, do it enough times and you're bound to have a few bastard children.
>>84358981i agree with you but women get millions of views on tiktok for makeup routines and the average guy talking about like theoretical physics will get 2 views if you can understand what im sayingthe overt visceral beauty shilling women have captivated an audience using these gimmick methods you can put a girl in your thumbnail you get thousands of free viewswomen are substantially cashing in on the beauty gimmicks they use to appear more beautiful and leaving men in the dustif they had no makeup on the reaction wouldnt be as strong is my beliefthey would get 12 viewers because they would appear more dull like the natural male without all the tweaks or worse because women without makeup is pretty badso if women were going to create their own society and say hey look at our gimmicks and tweaks we use we all worship women nowwhat would be the male answer to this so we cant have them running the entire world claiming to be more beautiful because the truth of the matter is that gender cannot be more beautiful its equal depending on which one you are attracted towomen should be overtly visciously attracted to males and vice versa >>84358997steroids is unhealthy that would mean our version is uniquely unhealthy compared to theirs leaving us at a disadvantagenot a convenient truth if it is partially one of the answers and cash is not legitimate form of male beauty that could be seen as taking the L as the payer to women who are the goddesses ruling over us in a sense>>84358995yes i agree it would continue but im interested in defeating their argument that theyre more beautiful now
>>84359030Well if you're gonna argue against steroids and money, and if we assume that makeup is there to cover up inadequacies, then metaphorical makeup for men would be removal of female rights. Since emancipated women can simply cancel reproduction for 90% of men, we use male makeup to cover up our physical unattractiveness by taking away women's rights. Now they're forced to find settling down with us an attractive option. There's no other masculine way to use makeup. Looksmaxxing clavicular-style is just taking the L and submitting to women, as you said. But even in enforced monogamy with no female rights, you're still "taking the L" as the payer, but only to 1 woman. Since she can't work or vote.
>>84359053i agree with removing their rights however im interested in defeating the substance of their argument they think women are actually more beautiful todayso they have given into a reasoning to justify their beliefs today that i an trying to debunk it organicallytaking away their rights is the strong arming way to deal with it but not the substance where i know im correct and males are in fact atleast equally as beautiful as woman
>>84358819Yes, I've been saying this since forever. Makeup essentially hides a woman's true face. The male equivalent would be facial hair for those that can grow it. Women can paint their faces and look like something they are not. This in and of itself wouldn't be a bad thing. However, women are kind of dumb and then they start viewing themselves as something as they're not. The attention gets to their heads and then they start believing they are more attractive than what they really are. This is a problem and disrupts natural intersexual attraction and dynamics, leading to hoeflation and increased hypergamy. Cosmetics aren't natural which is why we're dealing with unnatural problems. The problem is women act full of themselves. They start talking mad shit. But then you wash all their makeup and fake eyelashes off and you start laughing hard.
>>84359030>yes i agree it would continue but im interested in defeating their argument that theyre more beautiful nowThey are more attractive than women of previous generations because they are more neotenous due to estrogen poisoning. It's sick and they will have all sorts of health issues, but they do register as more attractive to the human brain.
>>84359075You can't argue with women, that's the point. They don't respond to logic, only action. As long as makeup gives them and advantage, they'll defend it. Doesn't matter if it's unnatural. Same with dudes. As long as the political order is in their favor (enforced breeding for dysgenic men) they'll defend it. Basic self-interest.
>>84359117so what are some solutions you can think of facial hair is only the bottom half of ur face and its pretty static its just hair women have all kinds of colors and tricks they can put on their entire faceand its hiding ur chin not enhancing your beauty perhapsin my opinion its a pretty weak solution maybe like 2/10 if womens makeup is op and 8/10 enhancement trickbeards are not that popular in other words a beard might make you look 5% better while makeup will make a girl look 60% betterso surely there is if women are enhancing their beauty this much there should be something equivalent or perspective to deal with the fact that women are getting away with murder by using these tricks what is your answer you have identified a problemwomen can just wear makeup 24/7 and live a better life with more male attention theyve incorporated it as a always on feature
What actually happened is that things that are universally attractive became into being "feminine" things.Look at Ancient China. The most attractive men wore long flowing robes and ornaments and long hair and makeup. And these looks are, even to this day in modern china pretty much the peak of attractiveness. Somewhere around the period of the industrial revolution possible they brainwashed men into giving up all of this. Imagine what would happen to the man in my pic if you gave him a crew cut and a dress shirt and shitty skin. Society is unnaturally tricking men into dressing themselves like slaves who aren't allowed to participate in the fundamental human pursuit of beauty.
>>84359218another capitulator into the feminine"women are more beautiful" when in fact there should be an equally as powerful offshoot of beautiful malespromoting masculinity as its own heirarchy of beauty >>84359173women dont care if its unnatural they will still benefit from makeup every daythere needs to be an answer almost like a male makeup or a comparison of females with makeup vs males and seeing if we can get some sort of middle ground where we can see the beauty of each gender using all the tricks combined for each
>>84359182just wear makeup. if its light it just makes your skin look indescribably better and bumps you up a few attractiveness points. if you want to go heavy there's balanced and masculinising style guides out there.
>>84358858how the fuck this retarded theory explains gay men
>>84359255Uuuh parasites or something
>>84359247until recent history none of the things I described were even distinctly feminine they were neutral signifiers of attractiveness. long hair means you're healthy and youthful enough to grow it, clear skin or makeup means you maintain it well or can spend the time to fake it, ornaments obviously signify wealth. you only think thats feminine becauee your perceptions been warped. Thats the real problem. men look like unhealthy unattractive slaves because theyve been tricked into thinking thats masculine. But its not, its just unattractive.
>I should be free to wear makeup, just look at [ancient society with no concept of gay / straight, just dominant / submissive]>Fucking Christian chuds ruined everything, that's why Rome fell and I can't wear cute dresses without being called a faggot
>>84359255niche fetish passed on through child abuse + most of them are attracted to feminine features anyway + coping with being unwanted by women
>>84359250ok lets say there is a masculine makeup guidewhos to say that isnt making us look more feminine and girly?it needs to be almost new forms of powder that hasnt been invented to provide a "rough" masculine surface that hasnt been invented yetbecause i dont have 3 gay men at my disposal and 3 straight women to provide me with data of whether its making me look better or worse from a objectively straight womens perspectiveit could be taking you down in points you dont have a masculine makeup store right now clav is just adapting female makeup which could be making him more feminine >>84359265no this is you becoming a lesbian attracted to soft feminine features and long hair claiming it to be universal when it isnt
>>84359293im not even a woman im a straight guy. although I live in east asia. I do in fact wear makeup and have long hair lol and I do have success with women.actually for makeup straight up you will just look like a guy with good skin most of my friends just ask me wtf my skincare routine is when i wear it. i just wear sheer foundation, blush for some healthiness and eyebrow gel.
>hey bro you ready?>yeah hold on bro just gimme 30 minutes i'm not done putting on my male-kup
>>84359284if theres anyone at all attracted to the male masculine hairy form at all it means its possible that all women could possess this forcejust because its very weak and unpopular today doesnt mean it shouldnt be investigated and thoroughly promoted and not overshadowed by womenby trying to make it more popular or even just understanding its strengths
>>84359304 i agree with you because women want girly feminine men they are becoming more lesbian due to the culture putting women at the top of the totem polenot that there isnt another category of equally beautiful masculine males im struggling with wrestling womens arguments by trying to say no makeup and all these tools can not make you have an absurd advantage your success is not proof its masculine
>>84359326what is masculinity if its not being male and being attractive?I dont understand why you're attached to proving some weird specific aesthetic can be attractive when its cobbled together by a combination of practicality and lack of effort. Two things that are the opposite of beauty. I legit feel like the whole masculine aesthetic is just something invented to keep men down. Its not biological and its not really culturally inevitable because not all cultures developed that way.
>>84359313>here's how we could possibly TEACH women how to like men a little bitbrother...
>>84359344not youre just saying males and females dont exist and theres no differencesno there clearly is a difference males wear short hair and women wear long hair is one example of a different beauty standard archetype we have different paths hereso no males trying to blend into the women one is you becoming more appealing to women because you look like a women not a man they are lesbian in nature and you havnt embraced the other direction
>>84359365you're the one whos complaining that women dont find masculinity attractive. You already are observing a discrepancy where one set of appearances seems more beautiful than the other. Do you seriously think the one which is literally built around things that are practical and take less effort is "just an alternate route"? guess what? i see women with short hair and who always wear polo shirts and never makeup too..they're the indonesian workers who clean the toilets at my campus. They're not alloted beauty because they're poor as fuck.its not because they're choosing an alternate route to beauty they're just not beautiful because they cant really be.and men are doing the same thing to themselves when they follow standards created by the ruling class and the military to create an obedient slave class.
>>84359382thats your theory another theory is that masculine males with bears and hairy bodies and muscles and short hair is a unique distinct category of beauty that is not currently being valued or has not enough tools like makeup for menor men not wearing makeup is more beautiful than women with makeup is another theory ive thought about theres multiple angles of looking at thisyou saying that only women can be beautiful is biased and doesnt include gay men who are fundamentally sexually attracted to masculine males or ancient women who claimed they were attracted to men for being menyou saying the category cannot exist or hasnt ever existed is probably not correct im claiming its underdeveloped or its so developed that women are simply missing it culturallyits one of those or im trying to find another perspective in here nowi dont think yours is the right one you werent born a straight women so you dont know what its like to NOT BE attracted to girly girls
>>84359401im not saying only women can be beautiful. i literally posted a picture of a man id consider beautiful at the startim saying what you think of as the divisions of femininity vs masculinity.. is mostly just beauty vs practicality.and men got tricked into believing the latter was masculinity and uglifying themselves even lesbians like butches sometimes. there will always be a subset of people who like bearish, big, practical and rough looking people. but going in that direction is never going to make you more beautiful because its defined by being the opposite of it. nothing wrong with it but its its own thing.there might be a split in how many people naturally want to be/are attracted to this roughness in each category based on gender but its closer to 10% vs 20%, with the majority of humans regardless of gender still wanting and desiring beauty in themselves and their partners
>>84359419no if we took roughness to its final form and we had an equal amount of women who were into the masculine archetype we would have a different worldright now we dont have enough women who are interested in hairy and masculine looking males enough due to a cultural women failure on their behalf they dont have the sexual drive for the opposite gender the same as gay men have ittheyre not ambitious enoughyou claiming soft feminine features is the definition of beauty comes from a straight males perspective not being born in a genuinely straight womens brain if you were you would be able to take the masculine features to their final forms and outperform females with makeup taking femineity to their final formsone is not worse than the other due to women being born with a vagina and sexual charge toothey are just pointing it in the wrong direction at the current time in history or we dont actually have the tool like i said a new form of makeup that makes you appear more "rough" is one theory im having right nownot necessarily what i mean feminine looking men is only beautiful in the eyes of the straight man thats why ladyboys get fucked by straight dudes
>>84359435> not being born in a genuinely straight womens brainthe same straight women that constantly talk about how all men are unattractive compared to women who are all attractive?delicate and rough isnt strictly gendered. both men and women have a mix of rough and delicate features. theres some tilting but at most you can say the ratio is 60/40 vs 40/60. the base human form is hairy and ugly.if you take the delicate features and enhance them to some degree (up to 70-90%) while keeping a grounded rough element you get what most people would call beauty. even if you say the optimal balance is a bit rougher in men (which id agree with) you still become beautiful by enhancing those delicate features to some degree. if you go backwards, take rough features to their extreme what would that even be? wouldnt you just look like an inhuman Neanderthal?most modern men know this is stupid and so dont, but they're too brainwashed to properly put effort into making themsleves look nice so they stay at what their born at, default human, which isnt very appealing as evidence now is showing.
>>84359450see this is your theory and perspective you are trying to blend femininity and masculinity togetherand claiming you have to become more feminine and thats the only way of achieving beautywhen there could be in another world or country a world where the males are on the runways and male models dominate the landwe dont live in that world because of feminism doesnt mean it couldnt be a thingit could be based on masculine attributes not soft feminine delicate ones us not currently seeing that manifested in reality doesnt mean it couldnt be real and we shouldnt promote it the best of our ability and see where it goesi believe it should be atleast equally as beautiful as women are what are the chances one gender is born with a inherent advantage when women are supposed to be charged sexually too by somethingor men cant be sexually attractive? simply an unlikely perspective same merit as saying women cant be sexually attractive it would be an absurd standpoint you would be an asexual
>>84358819Theres this theory that makeup gives women an advantage they have more tools at their disposal and the males cant take advantage of makeup due to looking more feminine rather than masculineYou didn't finish this fucking statement and it's annoying the hell out of me
>>84359508im trying to get you to fill out the rest of the informationwhat is the male answer to makeup that is going to equalize this claim from women>>84359450 furthermore where are the women becoming more masculine and benefiting from that if its truly a healthy balancewhen womens goal is to become more masculine looking it backfires its not going to increase their wealth at all
>>84359218>>84359419no one gave up anything. chiggas were always less hairy and had a less incidence of balding. the turning of boy(16 to 22) to a man was always a thing in the west. there's nothign you can do about a thick beard shadow until now with laser hair removal but it's not worth it no one finds it unattractive as long as they grow up with itwomen only care about that kind of beauty till thjey teens which makes sense cause their partners are other teens.
>>84359546no we are finding today that women appreciate more the female look than the male look even when theyre olderthey might be stealing wealth from a masculine looking male and then truly attracted to women in their brainits very sickso what im inquiring here in this thread is i want to atleast know that men can be equally as beautiful as women but on a different wavelength of the masculine attribute side of things even with the existence of makeupit makes sense to me that there should be a equally charged innate potential in males to atleast match women in beauty from the differening perspectivesit would be a scary world if women were given unique tools and abilities that we dont have that would crush you that theory world is a tough one to reconcile
Eventually, beauty standards will become so high that only a small percentage of women will be able to meet them. The cost of plastic surgery, AI filters and make-up is not something the average woman will be able to afford either. When women say that they find all women beautiful they are coping. It is just the hivemind coping trying to keep the lie alive. With every generation women are becoming more suicidal and inflicting more self-harm onto them. They are realizing that they are nothing more than a product for men to use. An over-sized sex toy to discard off right after use, because spending any time with them whatsoever is immense torture. >>84358846>Most men were never attractive to women throughout history. They just had to lie to themselves and others for survival. Now they don't have to anymore.Sex is freely available to any men now, and marketed at 50$ an hour. There is no need to invest time, mental space or romance to them anymore.
>>84359587no theyll continue to abuse them as best as they can and men will keep enjoying women
thump pump
