/lit/ - Literature

Morphological attractiveness is based on biological superiority, for example a strong/defined Jaw is the result of high testosterone levels, height naturally offers great strength, and so does a large chest, broad soldiers, all of these factors. For women however wide hips are attractive for birthing, plump (but not too plump as then it goes beyond the initial attraction into absurdity losing its original benefit) lips are the result of higher oestrogen levels, big round eyes the same. Feminine women, and masculine men. All these reasons are also why children and babies of both sexes have these typically feminine features, and so you wish to protect them, like a cat or kitten also, because you recognise them as weaker than yourself in individual survival and that is mans compassion taking forth. Though of course the sexual aspect of the desire is totally removed and remains an option only for the adult of the opposite sex. It also extends to race: a well defined European nose is of superior facial angle and so cranial size as well as of the colder (more suffering) climate and finds a more beautiful shaping to it, it is the same reason, in regards to facial angle, why a protruding mouth is also unattractive.

Morphological attraction is not always representative of certain states of being, look at Kant for example, or Socrates, or Schopenhauer -- none by any means "attractive" in the traditionally masculine sense but a look of interest, for that is representative of a higher intelligence/character/will, and so remains a higher attraction in itself. All of these traits blend together, for example the morphological traiting of a negro forbid this same higher look of interest, just as an extremely effeminate man likely would. All related yet simultaneously unrelated in their many exceptions.

T. 6 ft 4, good looking, intelligent chad

>>14165529
Physiognomy is real, but not a rule of thumb.

However you should take a look in the mirror, physical attraction is based on nothing other than a physiological and genetic advantage other than itself. The European nose for example is a production of the entire facial angular, the strong and well defined jaw a testosterone marker, the plump lips of a woman(but not to an extreme as with a negro as they lose their original advantage and become negatively abnormal) an oestrogen marker, wide hips for birth, etc.

>>13776530
>>13776543
>he thinks attraction doesn't correlate to phenotype
Attraction is based upon a biological imperative, for example a strong and defined jaw is attractive in a man because it represents high testosterone levels. Other testosterone marker being a big chest, broad shoulders, high muscle definition (it comes easier), etc. An oestrogen marker would be big eyes, puffy lips (not too extreme otherwise it looses its benefit), wide waist, round head, etc. Though of course attraction is not just limited to sex hormones as example a Greek nose is attractive for cranial reasons, as is the facial projection angle(as seen in pic related), a protruding jaw bone is unattractive because it presents a hindrance on the development of the prefrontal cortex. Why a monkeys or niggers face is unattractive in comparison to the phenotypically Aryan.

Beauty matters, it doesn't matter if it isn't truly innate in an object it is subject and so is a reflection of truth in both phenomenological form as well as innate appreciation of the heights of man.

Sorry if explained badly I am tired and am getting over a headache.