18-11-2025, 09:20 PM
its just a bunch of misconception spread by pop science or the interpretation of those random papers
i dont see how theres a looks imperative for humans, and i cant see it either for any other animal, its mostly a coincidence, specially bc a chad or stacy might as well be 5% of people worldwide maybe at best?
like i dont think theres any reason for why lions, tigers or any feline are sort of "beautiful" while other mammals arent - and this is notable bc beautiful humans tend to have a feline looks to them, making it a morphological coincidence, maybe related to geometry or smth transcendental
a lot of attractive actors/actresses and models have normie at best or even outright ugly parents, so any "marker" or "signal" that people see in genes is bs outside of some markers for lack of healthy or defects which are mostly an error and not necessarily an issue with the genes of the person themselves (this can be seen in people that have had many children, which many being healthy and growing up fine, but one not, so)
i dont see how theres a looks imperative for humans, and i cant see it either for any other animal, its mostly a coincidence, specially bc a chad or stacy might as well be 5% of people worldwide maybe at best?
like i dont think theres any reason for why lions, tigers or any feline are sort of "beautiful" while other mammals arent - and this is notable bc beautiful humans tend to have a feline looks to them, making it a morphological coincidence, maybe related to geometry or smth transcendental
a lot of attractive actors/actresses and models have normie at best or even outright ugly parents, so any "marker" or "signal" that people see in genes is bs outside of some markers for lack of healthy or defects which are mostly an error and not necessarily an issue with the genes of the person themselves (this can be seen in people that have had many children, which many being healthy and growing up fine, but one not, so)
