Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 31, 2026, 08:55:56 pm »

You can't make this **** up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2wr2cj2mys

As usual, the False Leftist narrator gets it wrong:

Quote
people pushing a distorted version of masculinity onto them.

It is not distorted. It is accurate.

Quote
moral courage, taking accountability, emotional
8:338 minutes, 33 secondsintelligence, having the courage to be vulnerable, acting with integrity, being a supportive partner, showing empathy,
8:408 minutes, 40 secondslifting up others if you're able to do so. These are all examples of strength and masculinity

They are not. If they were, why are women who exhibit these characteristics not viewed as masculine?

In contrast, why have we never heard about women wanting cauliflower ears? (Answer: because cauliflower ears are accurately masculine.)

Quote
A lot of men
9:069 minutes, 6 secondsseem to have lost sight of what masculinity really means

No, they are rediscovering what False Leftism has tried to bury because False Leftists just can't bring themselves to say masculinity is evil (unlike True Leftists who say this with no difficulty).

Cue relativist comment:

Quote
I wish as a species we could just learn to accept each other how we are instead of setting ridiculous standards for what’s attractive.

Indeed everyone should accept their born phenotype instead of trying to disguise it using cosmetic procedures. But that does not mean we should not set standards. Setting standards and then accepting that most people are born failing to meet those standards is true acceptance, whereas avoiding standards is avoiding the above acceptance.

In other words, leave beauty to those few who possess it effortlessly, rather than attempt to acquire it for oneself through effort.

So, from best to worst:

1) admire low sexual dimorphism, possess low sexual dimorphism;
2) admire low sexual dimorphism, possess high sexual dimorphism, do not pursue low sexual dimorphism;
3) admire low sexual dimorphism, possess high sexual dimorphism, pursue low sexual dimorphism;
4) refuse to set standards;
5) admire high sexual dimorphism, possess high sexual dimorphism;
6) admire high sexual dimorphism, possess low sexual dimorphism, do not pursue high sexual dimorphism;
7) admire high sexual dimorphism, possess low sexual dimorphism, pursue high sexual dimorphism;


I expect 2) to feel a duty to voluntarily refrain from reproducing. 3) and below should be prohibited from reproducing. 1) are most likely to voluntarily refrain from reproducing in reality.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 16, 2026, 05:26:23 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Hqb1vYSNU

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_torture#Nipple_torture

Quote
There are some health risks associated with nipple torture. Nipple clamps that are positioned wrongly can cause small cuts.[26] Nipple bondage can result in damage to the nipples[29] and tearing the skin of the nipples can cause scarring.[23] Regular heavy nipple play that produces scabbing and bruising can cause internal scar tissue and de-sensitization, resulting in permanent nerve and tissue damage.[30]

This is how racially inferior Trump is.

Bonus video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0hBEB3_mA
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 09, 2026, 06:15:46 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgoIajELUds

For reference:

https://drjarryd.medium.com/height-preferences-111e27af3bfc

Quote
Bisexual women/ lesbians prefer lovers of similar heights whereas heterosexuals prefer hypergamous height patterns (Valentova et al., 2016). Bisexual men/ gays also prefer lovers of similar heights (Valentova et al., 2014, Valentova et al., 2016).
...
When women commit infidelity it’s usually with someone taller than her current boyfriend (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997).
...
Kirchengast (2000) found that shorter women had more offspring & taller men had a higher number of surviving offspring.
...
According to both the scientific literature and popular media, all one needs to win a US presidential election is to be taller than one’s opponent.
...
Women who chose taller men as mates could directly pass this propensity for taller height to offspring, and, therefore, women prefer taller men as mates.
...
The crucial factor was not that tall men had more fecund wives, but that tall men more often had a second family. Selection worked strongly in favor of very tall men, not just against short men. Since there were no hints of any evolutionary check on this selection, these findings suggest unconstrained directional selection for tallness in men.

So, which civilization is the most racially inferior?

Quote
A preference for males being taller than their female partners is widespread in Western populations (e.g., Fink, B., et al., 2007, Pawlowski, B., 2003). Male height is associated with intra-sexual dominance, which leads to a higher resource acquisition (Stulp & Barrett, 2014). Thus, female preferences for taller men are suggested to be adaptive, because they direct them to better resource providers.

By coincidence, the same civilization is also the most patriachist:

Quote
The social norm that instructs men should be taller than women perpetuates gender stereotypes, which in turn supports and somehow describes a patriarchal society. These stereotypical perceptions manifest in what may seem to be overlooked aspects of the everyday, such as height preferences in romantic relationships, yet insidiously enforce sexual inequality. This was noted by Ocay (2019) who posited that gender norms that constitute the construction of tall men as masculine may be reflected in stereotypical height preferences.

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-and-sexism/

Informative comment:

Quote
Friedrich Wilhem I, King of Prussia, also had a fascination with really big dudes. He assembled an army of absolute units from across Europe as a personal regiment that he paid handsomely primarily just to march around and pose for paintings. It was a massive, stupid waste of resources, but also really funny to read about if you’re into history.

From Wikipedia:
“The king trained and drilled his own regiment every day. He liked to paint their portraits from memory. He tried to show them to foreign visitors and dignitaries to impress them. At times he would try to cheer himself up by ordering them to march before him, even if he was in his sickbed. This procession, which included the entire regiment, was led by their mascot, a bear. He once confided to the French ambassador that ‘The most beautiful girl or woman in the world would be a matter of indifference to me, but tall soldiers—they are my weakness’”
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 12, 2026, 06:58:42 pm »

Purely for entertainment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVlGcGssCeg

Quote
RFK Jr. starts babbling about how teen boys these days don't have enough [ __ ]
2:272 minutes, 27 secondsHe started talking about when I was a young whippersnapper, we had [ __ ] for days. We had an endless amount of sperm. The sperm count was through the roof.

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/re-sexual-dimorphism-preferences/msg24370/?topicseen#msg24370
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 28, 2025, 03:31:44 am »

Continuing from:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/re-sexual-dimorphism-preferences/msg14610/#msg14610

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/sexual-dimorphism-preferences/msg25735/#msg25735

How inferior is Western eroticism? Answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDD70n886s

To generalize, focusing on sexually dimorphic areas is inferior, whereas focusing on areas that are sexually non-dimorphic is superior. (This is another reason why **** is inferior to gravure.)
Posted by: rp
« on: January 28, 2025, 11:12:48 pm »

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824001053#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20facial,Marcinkowska%20et%20al.%2C%202019%3B
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 31, 2024, 12:29:40 am »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrglGbINv5A

Anyone who likes to sniff panties should be prohibited from reproducing. (Also, the narrator should be prohibited from reproducing.)
Posted by: rp
« on: November 07, 2024, 11:55:33 pm »

"OK, but why with her and not with some other girl? (I assume she wasn't the only girl in the class?)"
We were placed together for some activity. There was also a redhead with her, but due to Eurocentric conditioning from Barbie dolls and television shows, you could say I had a Eurocentric bias.


"So you would have had a similar blood rush if a non-blond girl was interacting with you? Or not?"
Yes. I had a similar rush with a brown-skinned Hispanic girl, and also the redhead.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 07, 2024, 01:41:58 am »

"it just felt like that the conditioning was such that the "right" thing to do was pair up with her, more of a vacancy-filling mindset than anything. Compulsory schooling cultivates masculinity from an early age"

OK, but why with her and not with some other girl? (I assume she wasn't the only girl in the class?)

"it was mostly one of a girl interacting with me (blood rush). I wasn't attracted to the blond hair in and of itself"

So you would have had a similar blood rush if a non-blond girl was interacting with you? Or not?

"I knew something was "reptillian"  (for the lack of a better word) about being attracted to a blonde-haired girl."

What about celebrities? Is there a similar feeling towards your favourite blond celebrity that is absent towards to your favourite non-blong celebrity? (This is actually probably a better test, as other factors of appearance can be maxed out.)
Posted by: rp
« on: November 06, 2024, 12:30:12 am »

Now that I think about it, it wasn't even "attraction" per se, it just felt like that the conditioning was such that the "right" thing to do was pair up with her, more of a vacancy-filling mindset than anything. Compulsory schooling cultivates masculinity from an early age by forcing **** like gender-segregated bathrooms, color coding (blue is for boys pink is for girls). So boys are shown as different from girls, and any interaction is a potential sexual relationship. There is also the fact that many "children's toys" advertisements are male coded (esp Mattel advertisements for mechanical toys which have the archetypal deep-voiced man as a narrator), and most TV shows feature heterosexual relationships

As for primitive emotion being switched on, it was mostly one of a girl interacting with me (blood rush). I wasn't attracted to the blond hair in and of itself, but I knew something was "reptillian"  (for the lack of a better word) about being attracted to a blonde-haired girl.

"I do not find this too convincing, given that only recently you told us about being attracted to someone else with a terrible face shape."

 I didn't really notice the face shape, I just liked that a girl was giving me attention, and I assumed she was "kind" because she was doing so. After interacting with her again after a few years later in middle school I learned her personality was very different from mine (as were most girls') so all attraction went out the window. But now looking back at her face shape, I would say there was a correlation.

As for the other girl, I really wanted to be non prejudicial and give her the benefit of the doubt. It was definitely her other features (low sexual dimorphism, ectomorph, gracility), that attracted me the most. And definitely her having an upbringing with Aryanist values made me want to believe that she truly was noble.

"Unless you mean this one is even worse than that one."
I would say so. The second one at least had some potential in her body physiognomy, which caused me to jump the gun and assume it correlated with her personality. I similarly assumed the same of some other gracile ectomorphs when in school, but upon learning that they eat meat, my attraction went out the window.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 05, 2024, 11:33:07 pm »

"I could tell that it was due to some primitive emotions in my brain being switched on (the classmate also happened to be blond)"

Can you elaborate? In what way are the emotions primitive? And are you saying they would not have been switched on if the classmate were not blond?

"Looking back at her face shape I couldn't imagine how this was ever the case"

I do not find this too convincing, given that only recently you told us about being attracted to someone else with a terrible face shape. Unless you mean this one is even worse than that one.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 05, 2024, 08:54:03 pm »

I remember my first Oedipus complex experience at 6, when I would pretend play to be pregnant in the womb with a female second cousin of mine. In this way I became attracted to older cousins. I didn't know conception was the result of consensual sex at the time.

In contrast, my first psychosexual experience of mine was with a classmate. I remember being a little attracted to her, but I could tell that it was due to some primitive emotions in my brain being switched on (the classmate also happened to be blond). Looking back at her face shape I couldn't imagine how this was ever the case, but under some circumstances (e.g. compulsory schooling) it is possible.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 17, 2024, 10:53:01 pm »

https://us.yahoo.com/news/more-republican-democratic-men-think-172403292.html

Quote
Republican men are significantly more likely than Democratic men to rate themselves as “highly masculine,” according to a Pew Research Center survey.

The survey — conducted in early September and published Thursday — shows 42 percent of men rate themselves as “highly masculine,” including 53 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning men and 29 percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning men.
...
Views of masculinity continued to split when examining the ideological divides within the parties.

Among Republican or Republican-leaning men, 60 percent of those who identify as “conservative” call themselves “highly masculine,” whereas 38 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning men who call themselves “liberal” or “moderate” say the same.

Among Democratic and Democratic-leaning men, 20 percent of those who call themselves “liberal” say they are “highly masculine,” and 37 percent of those who call themselves conservative say the same.

I have always said that False Leftists who try to attack rightist men as unmasculine are getting it all wrong.

Also:

Quote
The rate at which men describe themselves as “highly masculine” is 25 percent for men ages 18 to 29; 36 percent for men ages 30 to 49; 53 percent for those ages 50 to 64; and 54 percent for those 65 years old and older.

So False Leftists who try to attack rightism as "childish" are even more wrong. As I keep saying, Western civilization is the most adultlike civilization in history. This is why it is the worst. It is also the most masculine civilization in history, because men are more adultlike (lower in neoteny) than women on average, therefore in order to be the most adultlike, it must be the most masculine by necessity.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 21, 2024, 08:11:23 pm »

For TV/movie purposes, I personally prefer MILF characters to be played by non-reproducers in real life, as this way I don't have to worry about them treating their real-life offspring worse than their on-screen offspring.

Posted by: rp
« on: September 21, 2024, 04:55:08 pm »

"whereas MILFs are already declining in fertility."
Ectomorphic MILFs are love ngl.