Talk:Facial masculinity

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Trivers-Williard[edit source]

This would not be about female choice, but parental investment, the idea being that parents are more inclined to invest in cute looking offspring as suggested here. It's hypothetical, with the most significant unknown being the heritability of male adult neoteny on the offspring of either sex (at child age). I don't care much about its inclusion of this in this article as it's just an idea. Bibipi (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems dubious as all babies are pretty much highly neotenous to begin with (tautology). Ugliness in a child is determined by other factors than facial masculinity. Babies are already pretty much adapted in several ways to get maximum investment from their parents. Facial masculinity doesn't really seem to strongly express itself until later in development, apart from fWHR, which likely isn't sexually dimorphic (at least to any major degree) and so it's arguable that this is even a 'masculine' trait at all. Doesn't really fit in that section of the article and would be better just mentioning that as a hypothesis in the neoteny article itself, IMO. But if you want it in you could rewrite it. It was vaguely written so it wasn't really sure what type of viability it was referring to. Adding the picture to the article was good, BTW. Altmark22 (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Problems with Single Factor of Facial Attraction[edit source]

TL;DR Wheat Waffles' Optimization of E-Boys vs Chads vs Uber-Masculine isn't without validity, thus anti-blackpill beauty relativism is even more incorrect (the Prego pasta sauce fallacy and "niche market" optimization)