D
Deleted member 1252
Parody Account
-
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2017
- Posts
- 9,877
I’ve watched a lot of nature documentaries (mostly David Attenborough) over the years. I have noticed that in every single species of mammal (also true for birds, and probably others too, but I’m focusing on mammals since that’s what humans are), it is in fact the MALE of the species that is the physically impressive, beautiful one, NOT the female. Further to this, it is the MALE that has to attract the female purely by virtue of his physically impressive display of superior genetics. THIS IS TRUE FOR EVERY SINGLE MAMMAL ON EARTH. It’s not just size and strength, it’s everything. Flick through a book of animals, you’ll find it’s the male that has bright colors, the fancy aesthetics (the lions mane, the peacocks tail, etc).
And yet, somehow, a bluepilled cope that society created started painting females as “the fairer sex”. Why is this? The makeup, the obsession with beauty products, clothing, shoes, hairstyles, perfume, etc. It’s almost as if human society started trying to deny its nature sometime in the last few hundred years. And then of course with feminism we had the backlash to female beauty “standards”. But demand for male looks never diminished, did it?
And yet, somehow, a bluepilled cope that society created started painting females as “the fairer sex”. Why is this? The makeup, the obsession with beauty products, clothing, shoes, hairstyles, perfume, etc. It’s almost as if human society started trying to deny its nature sometime in the last few hundred years. And then of course with feminism we had the backlash to female beauty “standards”. But demand for male looks never diminished, did it?