What Ugly Girls Need to Know About Beauty and Beautiful Girls Need to Know About Ugliness

Some may find it offensive that I use the term “ugly”, but let’s be real here.  None of us is perfect.  We all get a pimple, a scar, or some other defect in the course of our lives, and no good can come from PC-ing this fact.  People have greater or fewer defects than others.  Different women have different hormonal profiles.  Different groups have different regional adaptations, which may or may not be attractive to people of other groups.  In an ethnically diverse population, you may find that your regional adaptations may become unattractive to people of your own group, especially if you are living somewhere other than your indigenous environment.  You may be free of glaring defects and living in a climate you’re very well adapted to, but socially inconvenient.

Whatever kind of ugly you are, you know it because, as women, we’re constantly reminded of it.  Denial does not solve whatever problems you’ll have because of it.  In addition to this, we all become ugly eventually.  Age happens to every woman, even very beautiful ones.

Because however, a perfect beauty either doesn’t exist, or is so rare that it may as well not, we’re all just different degrees of ugly.  Most guys will tolerate or overlook certain kinds of ugliness, but which kind depends on a combination of “instinctive” and social values.

Beauty is objective, except for cultural fetishes and environmental necessities.  It’s ugliness that is relative. Beauty needs no excuses.  Ugliness does.  How much and what kinds of ugliness a guy can get over will depend on his options, his values, and what excuses he considers valid or invalid for a particular defect.

Beauty and Ugliness Then and Now

Beauty for women is measured in youthful nubility, femininity, and fertility.  I mention them in order of importance.  They are in that order because the recognition of beauty is an evolutionary adaptation.  Allowing for regional adaptations, since humans all share the same genetic origin, there are some hard standards of development.  Even other baby mammals have similar markers of their infant status.  Before humans knew that males had anything to do with reproduction, they did mate and bond.

Readiness to mate was signalled by the development of breasts and the appearance of pubic hair.  The closer to this phase a young woman was, the more likely it was that she was not the domain of another male yet.  It was less dangerous for a man to pursue her because whatever competition he had probably hadn’t (consensually) consumated the relationship yet.  If they had, she was still very young and may not have bonded with them very deeply, perhaps because of the youth itself, and perhaps because she was an unprotected girl who felt herself unfortunate.

When it was understood that mating was the cause of pregnancy, and spread some diseases, there were even more reasons for choosing a virgin or someone as close as possible.  So youthful nubility, in and of itself, is the most attractive thing ever.  This is natural, and without a stable infrastructure to support older marriages and the inherent dangers of older first-time childbirths, a good thing.

Second on the list, there is femininity.  The fact of being a woman, and looking and behaving like one, is attractive.  Size differential is an important factor in femininity.  Female mammals are generally smaller than male mammals.  They are also generally less physically well equipped for hand to hand combat.

Because of the size differential and weight leverage aspect of recognizeable femininity, being fatty didn’t used to be a problem until the amount of fat made you heavier and bulkier than most males around you, or obscured other aspects of your femininity.  Women were expected and preferred to be soft, just not man-sized or man-shaped.

Portability was also important in the size differential factor.  You needed to be small enough to be carried while pregnant, or if incapacitated.  All sorts of things happened, and your man needed to be able to get you to safety or retrieve you if you passed out somewhere.  In some cultures, women were often married by kidnap, so a smaller woman was a more attractive candidate than a larger one.

In some stable cultures, portability wasn’t such a concern.  Some climates are more woman friendly than others.  Women didn’t have so many problems with menstruation, pregnancy, or childbirth, so portability wasn’t the issue.  Some cultures favored larger women because of the kidnap problem.  Men didn’t want to marry women who could be too easily taken away from them.  Some also associated fatness with greater fertility.

Women were still however, required to look like women to be considered beautiful.  So in the relative few cultures in which fatness was preferred, women usually accentuated their breasts and hips more than their bellies, arms, and legs.

Now there’s fertility.  Once men knew they carried the seed, they wanted to be fairly sure they’d be able to make viable babies with her.  She needed to appear well fed, not overly stressed, and capable of surviving childbirth.  She had to look healthy.  Looking anemic, ill, or otherwise a visibly unhospitable environment for a gestating baby, meant that she was ugly.

The primal beauty juggles all of these factors at once and with ease.

Now, in light of all this, do you understand what is wrong with the current media standard, and why the most dominant men you know will have none of it?

Trade Offs

Since again, none of us is perfect, and we are all staring down the barrel of ugly sooner or later, men will settle and make tradeoffs.  This sounds harsh if you prefer fairytales and Hollywood to reality, but it is what it is.

Some guys understand that they will never obtain the ideal beauty, and settle for what they feel they can afford.  Some guys understand that physically ideal is not the same thing as phyiscally or psychologically compatible with them.

Though a petite, slim, teenager with a doll face may be closer to physically ideal in general terms, most teenaged girls in the west are not mentally or psychologically prepared for marriage or be able to negotiate non exploitive premartial or non marital sex.  It may also be illegal for a man to pursue a young woman under 18 or 16 depending where he lives.  So he will give up the ideal youth for a woman who is prepared for marriage or sex.

So looking at the current western media ideal, a hard bodied, square jawed, Lara Croft who somehow manages to kick male ass with her bony feet, twisted from too many years of wearing high heels, one has to ask, “What are western men being asked to trade off?”

First, remember that health is a marker of beauty.  A woman must be healthy to have healthy children.  Size differential is also important.  A woman should ideally be woman sized.  (This included both height and weight, by the way.)

We are taught in the west that weight is the most important factor in female beauty.  We are told that this is because it is unhealthy to have too much bodyfat.  Okay, so what’s the ideal bodyfat for women according to the health experts?  The answer is 21-22%.  If you’ve been into fitness awhile, that sounds about right.  Most women you know at that level look pretty good.

…but what is the body fat percentage of most of the celebrities being pushed on us as ideal?  Most of them are under 12%.  Even good old Marilyn Monroe was at about 8% close to the beginning of her celebrity.  This is not a bad thing.  They are in front of a camera often, and this is one of the sacrifices one must make to not have any sign of sag or flab whatsoever.

Twiggy was about the same body fat percentage as Marilyn Monroe.  The difference between the two and in the promotion of one over the other is in the arrangement of the little body fat they have.  It’s not that we are just being told that fat is bad.  We’re being told that femininity is bad.  If your fat is arranged to be more concentrated at the breasts and hips, you are more media ugly (despite your attractiveness to men) than if your fat is more uniformly distributed, or simply, masculine.

Since men are just going to like breasts, in order to compensate for a masculine figure, many women get breast implants, and some even get butt implants.  So strangely, they are pumping themselves up with fake fat deposits in order to compensate for lacking the ability to gain real fat without being shaped like fat men.

Mind that I am not saying that having a masculine figure is wrong or makes someone totally ugly.  I’m saying that a masculine figure on a woman is less beautiful than a feminine figure on a woman, but men are willing to trade femininity for masculinity for the sake of health or at least what they’ve been told is health.

Objectively, men are more fit than women.  So the more closely a woman resembles a man, the more fit she may seem.  Up to the point that she appears to be too masculine, social enforcement is not required for men to view her as passably attractive in body.

Because there is social enforcement of a masculinized ideal in women however, women who are doing things that both masculinize them and threaten their fertility and their health in the long term (you need that leftover estrogen when you’re menopausal to stay healthy) may not notice in time to change their behavior.  They may also embrace masculinization because they view it as beautiful and healthy, without realizing how they are alienating all but the most submissive or socially dependent men.

Submissive men have always liked women on the more masculine side.  This is natural and a good thing since not all women are adapted the same, and not every guy is super dominant.  Dominant women who like submissive men shouldn’t have a problem looking tough as nails.

Socially dependent men, are being programmed to prefer masculine women and older women against their best interests.  Social dependence and submissiveness may overlap, but they’re not really the same thing.  In a stable, humanistic culture, a socially dependent man will rule his roost and adhere to the values of masculinity and honor.  If however, he is in an anti humanist culture that ignores the needs of men and women within a civilization, and manipulates people negatively, he will become a crusader of cretiny and aid in the social enforcement of the twisted values.

In a culture that glorifies the masculinized woman, his trade offs are not starting from the point of a super feminine ideal.  His are starting from the point of an androgynous ideal.  So the primal dominant or humanistically enculturated dominant will start taking off points for unwomanliness.  The anti humanistic dominant will start taking off points for socially inconvenient womanliness.

When settling, the primal or humanistic dominant ends up with a plump, bubbly farm girl.  The anti humanist ends up with a mean boyfriend with a vagina (that he may never have access to again once she pops out a baby or two or divorces him and takes half).

What should this mean to you?

Well, it should tell you not to listen to the media or pay attention to female social hierarchy about what beauty is.  By female social hierarchy, I mean both women and badly programmed men.  You can tell if they’re badly programmed by their intensity in hating on feminine traits.  If you want to know what it is, ask men who are naturally dominant or raised properly.

Your beauty to ugliness ratio is relative to your age, femininity, and fertility.  Age and fertility you will, at some point, not be able to do anything about.  Your femininity however, is something you can control at least behaviorally.

Since, one more time, nobody is perfect, and even the beautiful are mortal, your best asset is your femininity.  That, if you want it to be, is permanent.  That will be around, if you like, even when you are a wrinkly old prune…and it may not get you every man you desire, but it’s guaranteed to be one who appreciates your womanhood.

If you try it after some time of butching up because you thought you had to, you’ll discover a new world where not just your man but almost every other guy you meet will enjoy your company.  They’ll want to do things with you and for you…not just sex.  If you’re not a girl they want to shag or marry, you’ll remind them of the other women in their lives who they value.

In other words, you don’t have to be ugly.  You can just be not perfect.  Ugliness, whether it’s a real defect or social inconvenience, doesn’t have to be your whole identity.  By the same, if you’re beautiful, your beauty doesn’t have to be your whole identity.

No matter what you look like, be feminine…well, at least when you’re not kicking someone’s butt or doing extreme sports, or bodybuilding or something.  I’m not saying don’t do traditionally male activities if you’re inclined to.  Just when you brush off the dust or put down the wrench or hang up your suit, let your hair down and your guard down too, when it’s safe to.  You’re a woman.  Deal with it.

Now here’s some wisdom from a sexy professor: