By David Futrelle
Misogynists who have trouble getting dates have long warned of the insidious effects of makeup, which they claim enables ugly women to pass themselves off as hotties and sleep with hotter dudes, which is somehow a crime against humanity because, I’m not sure, I guess because this is unfair to ugly dudes for some reason, maybe because they’re jealous that the unhot women get to sleep with the hot guys? Or maybe it’s unfair because when the hotter dudes see these women without makeup it makes them feel bad?
Anyway, it turns out that makeup might also be destroying the human race genetically by allowing these makeup-wearing fake hotties to breed, at least according to noted MGTOW scientist zRaXcPk.
Dr. zRaXcPk took to the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit to offer this chilling warning:
Let’s go through Dr. zRaXcPk’s new hypothesis line by line.
Has makeup made women uglier through artificially inflated smv in our breeding?
SMV is of course “Sexual Market Value,” a thing that definitely exists because it’s not like different people are looking for different things when it comes to sex and romance.
Makeup can turn a 4 seemingly into an 8 with a decent pair of yoga pants helping suck in that wine gut.
Wait, yoga pants can do that? Note to self: buy yoga pants.
Extrapolate that over 4-6 generations (sans yoga pants of course) and you have 4-6 generations of women breeding that might not have bred, or bred with higher quality men making lower quality offspring due to the woman’s inferior genetics.
I think what he means here is that makeup allows women to, er, breed with “higher quality men,” which means these men will have “lower quality” kids with their secretly ugly fake hottie wives.
But I am a bit surprised to learn that women have only been trying to make themselves look pretty with makeup and flattering clothing for 4-6 generations.
This could artificially inflate ugly and stupid people into the world. I think we can all agree this is currently happening. It’s like watching Idiocracy in slow motion.
Yep. Apparently ugly people are also stupid, according to genetics or something.
Women with makeup also can have serious self-esteem and self image issues.
Ok, yes, rigid beauty standards can cause issues for some women.
Over the generations, this could also be paralleled to women consuming the vast majority of psychiatric drugs in our society, while continuing to have children, thus weakening the gene pool further by bringing more individuals into it with genetic histories of mental illness.
Er, now I’m no geneticist, but I’m pretty sure that if something in the culture makes you feel like shit this doesn’t somehow change your genes to make you more prone to mental illness.
Could this be a flaw in Dr. zRaXcPk’s theory?
I’m sure makeup isn’t the entire reason for all of this happening, but it surely didn’t help.
How modest of Dr. zRaXcPk to not think his brilliant theory answers everything.
Most commenters in the r/MGTOW thread seemed to think that Dr. zRaXcPk was onto something.
“I agree,” wrote sanicthehedgefund.
Make up caused a lot of damage to our species. While I don’t believe too much in the alpha beta hierarchy, there are definately beta females. And they pose as alpha females with good skin. Unfortunately men took the bate.
“The bate.” I’m guessing sanicthehedgefund knows all about ‘bating, huh”
Sorry, let’s keep going.
I wonder how disappointed some PUAs and redpillers would be if you showed them their “conquests” without make up. There go their 7s and 8s.
Ooh, throwing a little shade at the pickup artists. Nice.
“Definitely,” agreed another commenter whose account has since vanished.
The dumpsters are overflowing with trash. The sewers are clogged and toxic waste is bubbling up and flooding the roads. The west is a septic tank at critical mass about to burst.
“Survival of the most dishonest,” added Darth_Toenail.
“Beauty is based on symmetry, the golden ratio and the face of the average,” Emanresu_rouy_esoohc declared.
By artificially creating a new face, you will screw up the “face of the averages” part of the beauty-equation. So, I guess you have a point. To compete with other women for the best man, they have to use makeup or they lose instantly.
Not everyone was wholly convinced.
“Make up has been going on for a lot longer than this,”MadPreacher1AD pointed out.
Try Jezebel from 9th century BC Israel as she was written about in 2 Kings 9:30-37. She painted herself up with make up and acted ungodly towards Jehu a prophet. She was sentenced to death for her crimes. She is an oft-repeated warning to later women to avoid painting themselves with make up and to commit sins against men of God.
Huh. That seems a little harsh.
This has nothing to do with self-esteem and self-image problems. It is a societal problem that has let women off the hook in regards to accountability.
Good to see that MadPreacher1AD’s skepticism on the makeup timeline hasn’t caused him to forget that the real problem is those damn unaccountable females and the soyboy cucks who enable them!
This is part of the reason why they are on drugs since they were designed to be helpmates to men. Their entire happiness is defined upon this role and a man’s job is to keep his wife in check as the head of the house.
TheOnlyThing-Sufjan offered a more detailed rebuttal.
Lets not jump on the social darwinisme train to fast here. True that it might happen that lesser females attract the top quailty males, however in what regard are we talking here? Is it just looks, if so I’m not that bothered,
Ok. By MGTOW standards this is almost reasonable. But wait, TheOnlyThing-Sufjan isn’t quite done yet.
if it is physical and mental fitness/capacity it is not a great thing, however following said point it is better to let the top man fuck every woman and let the lesser man fuck nobody.
Wait, what? I thought you weren’t riding “the social darwinisme train.”
In that case you have the best possible offspring, therefor makeup can help accomplish this.
But wait there’s more!
The big point is that these top man are then forced to staying with said lesser woman, in the sense of child support atleast, therefore he is no longer willing to procreate with another woman. In short the problem would then not be make up but the idea that a top male should only have so many childeren and partners.
LET THE TOP MEN BREED
In that case a counter meassure could be that the lesser males raise the childeren of the top males (aka chucks). This however is something man are not willing to do since the conclusion is that this social darwinism argument seems to fail.
So the real problem is lesser men getting in the way of the top males impregnating all the ladies without having to take responsibility for the children? So women aren’t really to blame? But this is the MGTOW subreddit! I’m a little confused.
Second what is even more important in my opnion is that woman cannot seem to pick out a suitable mate in the sense that they still judge man according to pre society standards.
Oh good, women ARE to blame after all.
Meaning that the actual sexual attraction (which is based on certain aspects which gives the best offspring in primal times) is based on predicates which are most helpfull in a pre technological society. So tall, jaw line, muscles, ect are all attractive features for woman, that is why they fall for said man.
Yes, the real problem is that women aren’t genetically wired to have the hots for, I’m going to guess here, guys who have trouble spelling “Darwinism?”
However said man could be immorral, stupid, have a fast collection of mental problems, ect. Therefore their genes might get spreaded alltough if the values where being selected which makes you valued in current society then woman should be attracted to intellegence, good moral character, mentally strong, healty.
And obviously they should be genetically attracted to guys who make a lot of spelling mistakes. Women should LOVE LOVE LOVE men who make a lot of spelling mistakes! The mor the bettre!
But this is simply not in their nature since our natural attraction and what makes valuebale citizens do not line up. Unfortunatly there is not allot we can do about that. Some might argue woman like men with money, well this is not necesserily true, since the women like the money not necesserily the man making it.
Damn those golddiggers who love money more than spelling mistakes!
If we want to do selective breeding (which i’m very much against, from an ethical point of view), then the unfortunate conclusion will be that only a select few man will procreate and most man should be left childless.
Wait, so you’re against “social darwinisme” again?
You might argue but why do the lesser woman get to breed, this is simply because the possibilty of lesser genes with greater genes can still create a good citizen. But lesser with lesser genes will make it less likley.
My head hurts.
Ofcourse this idea is total void of any social constructions which can help people flourish even if they are provided with lesser natural abilities. This is why social darwinism is always a tricky argument to make.
And that’s the end of TheOnlyThing-Sufjan’s contribution to the scientific literature.
Don’t you just love a good scientific debate?