What can you tell about a female based on her looks?

Sorry Satyr for spamming new threads night and day.

Though I've been meaning to start a thread like this before, and now a perfect opportunity has arisen, since Æon posted interesting theories on another topic created by me. I'll quote him:

Æon wrote:

I learned this as a rule in Anthropology. Low-class woman = skinny, due to starvation, no choice. Middle-class woman = chubby to obese, shows access to food/wealth, but too fat demonstrates illness too much choice. High-class woman = skinny/shapely/proportioned, has access to unlimited food, but restricts herself, Disciplined.

I've observed something like this too.

But what do you think of that?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dailymail wrote:

Woman 'disgusts' Twitter after claiming that 'short women' are only attractive to men because they look like they are easier to 'physically dominate and CONTROL'

Of course we see that there is a strong feminist agenda in the news article.
But I've observed something like that too.

I've noticed that quite skinny, short and vulnerable looking women get approached and flirted more, pretty much by all males. I recently read a book about a man who womanized a lot, and even ripped off some women. He said that the easiest women to lead on were very tiny-figured women. So that's who he was always after. Greater success rate.

On the other hand, it almost seems that not too many males dare to approach a woman who is, let's say over 175cm tall, even though this kind of long-legged woman is admired widely by males.

My rationalization is that many males approach tiny women, because any male can feel very masculine and confident compared to this tiny and helpless woman. 


These two tennis beauties are 188cm and 182cm tall. In my opinion, these kind of women strike very sophisticated energy; I would bet they are very choosy and picky about their preferences in all things and especially the mates. They don't strike me as a slutty type of woman, having had dozens of sex partners. But also these women have something intimidating about them. Here's a video for instance where Muguruza smashes her racquet @ 0:35:


I can't find it now, but there was another video where Muguruza was upset with the reporter that shooted her with his camera. She very angrily yelled at him: "Are you fucking done with the camera?" How many females act this way, breaking things as fiercely as she does, and how many females dare to confront fiercely a male shooting them with a camera?

Do you think most males would ever dare to approach either one of them? I doubt it. Though I'm not saying these two ladies are exactly the most desired women on earth, but I'm saying even though many males admire such strong women (I mean, really strong women, not "strong" like feminists understand it), they never ever dare to approach them; instead they settle for the woman they can truly feel condifent with.

I'll post more later. For now, let us analyze in general, what you have observed based on the looks of the females. Thank you Æon for letting me this opportunity to create this thread by bringing this up.

I said that Muguruza and Sharapova strike me as being somewhat coy. I think they use really strict criteria when they choose their mates. They are physically strong, tall, rich, professional athletes. So why would they settle for a weak man, short man, poor man or an average man? Also like I said, there is something intimidating about their behavior and in their essence, really. So... I would say they have traits that could be considered masculine...

But there are other kinds of examples.
This is a Finnish female weightlifter:

Note how she is there like "oh look at me, I'm just "casually" showing some training tights" but she is flirting by twirling with her ass @ 1:55 and @ 3:28

Now this woman is married with another Finnish weightlifter, they have been married for 5 years. But after being married for two years, she suggested that they continue their relationship as an open relationship, so both can have sex with other people. She has admitted that in her previous relationships she has cheated her boyfriends, and "that's why I suggested an open relationship, because I don't want to hurt my husband."

She has also said that: "I really need the flirting and attention from other men, I need to feel that I'm accepted and I need to be recognized as a woman."

She was in Finland's Olympic Committee, but she resigned from that position, because last year there was a big sensation about her, because she had asked a dickpick from one Finnish hockey player. So... she has a reputation of being a little bit sleazy, disgusting, direct and aggressive.
Masculine sexual strategy presented in her?

But in Muguruza and Sharapova these traits that could be considered masculine, are presented very differently. I can't imagine Sharapova saying such things as "I need to be accepted and I need to be recognized as a woman" for example.


She seems very comfortable in her own skin, also she has somewhat feet on the ground, she can make fun of herself, etc... Also like I said, she is a beautiful, rich, successful professional athlete, she could have limitless options. But using Æon's word, she restricts herself, quite a lot actually. She is disciplined. Controlled.

Why is this Finnish weightlifter unable to be disciplined, controlled? Why is she unable to restritch herself? I mean, of course she needs to be somewhat disciplined in order to success at what she is doing, but why she lacks the discipline in other areas of life? She is clearly engaging in the not-so-controlled, hedonistic, animalistic behavior. Why is it that she isn't feeling comfortable in her own skin? Why doesn't she get the self-esteem boost from being a successful athlete, strong, and nice looking? Because I would say she suffers from a weak self-esteem, saying publicly and desperately such things like "I really need to be recognized as a woman! I need that flirting and attention from other guys!"

I also notice that even though she is a weightlifter (and obviously strong) she doesn't strike me as very able and functional. I bet Muguruza could beat the crap out of her were they fighting in a cage.

But of course, this weightlifter is only 162cm tall. This goes along with my theory that taller women tend to be in many ways more controlled and rational; even more honourable.

Personae = developing individual psyche - organ hierarchies, fluctuating over time - private, true self, i.e., synthesis of mind/body, determining tastes, impulses, inclinations, potentials.
Character = adopted performance - imposed and/or gradually chosen - based on cultural socioeconomic ideals/morals, and social status. Character requires a degree of suppression of an individual's innate and fluctuating personae/psyche - public, false, self, i.e., performance/image.

Appearance is essence...
Appearance - an interpretation of presence - is a manifestation of past - genetic and increasingly experiential, revealing all the choices made before birth, by others, and since birth by the individual itself.
Appearance is concealed by a choice of garments, and adornments...all saying something about the intended message, the image, exposing the personae's chosen or adopted character.

Juxtaposition of appearance and actions/choices, including words/symbols - over time - may expose a persona's harmony with its chosen or adopted character.
The naked body is the manifestation of personae - character is the chosen or adopted garments, adornments, selectively concealing/revealing it - genes/memes.
So, we can say that organ hierarchies determine strength of impulses, and tastes, and garments adjust these to the prevailing cultural and moral norms and to different circumstances.
Appearance is not only how someone looks - existence si dynamic - therefore appearance includes all sensory input, more so physical movement.

Interviews are helpful, but when the individual knows he/she is being watched then the character is dominant, promoting a chosen/adopted image....the best analysis will be of one being watched when he/she does not know they are, even if it is in public.
I notice little gestures, looks, facial grimaces, when the individual feels relaxed or believes they are not being watched.

When it comes to male-female gender issues and relationships, I always premise it with whether it can apply equally with men.  In this case, "what can you tell about a female based on her looks?" this applies the same if not more, than to or with males.

You can judge any creature based on its looks.  Any animal.  Any person.

Women have a greater 'average' than men.  So men have excessive amounts of retardation on the low end, and genius on the high end.  Retardation and genius in women is very, very rare.  So "high quality" women is the same.  Most women are not very disciplined, and are simply womanly.  Maybe you can point-out some exceptional women, but so what?  Women do not make good role-models.  They are not inspired, as men are.  This is because men need to be exceptional to reproduce, while women do not.

So a great tennis player, use Sharapova as an example, why does it matter that a woman plays sports well?

Women play sports, to imitate men playing sports.  Women imitate Men.


In a roundabout way, I have an answer to your question.  The way a woman dresses, also represents the men around her, or the men they sexually idolize.  Ever notice that a woman, especially girls and young women, tend to imitate the dressing style of their male romantic partner?  "Goth", "Emo", "Jock", "Metalhead", "Hippy", you choose the sub-culture.  Do you think women are 'leading' sub-cultures?  No, of course not.

Æon wrote:

In a roundabout way, I have an answer to your question.  The way a woman dresses, also represents the men around her, or the men they sexually idolize.  Ever notice that a woman, especially girls and young women, tend to imitate the dressing style of their male romantic partner?  "Goth", "Emo", "Jock", "Metalhead", "Hippy", you choose the sub-culture.

I suppose you're right here. I've noticed that a lot. Especially in Finland where there is a significant metal music scene, you see a lot of women styled such as you listed there.

But of course, it still is a minority of women who represent Goth or Emo. Most of the women are, like you said, average. Not extremes. Of course you are right that women never lead anything. When they represent Goth, they are following. And even when they dress modest and decent, they are still following.

Æon wrote:

Women have a greater 'average' than men.  So men have excessive amounts of retardation on the low end, and genius on the high end.

But isn't it the case, that when average women follow retardation, then in the women, there suddenly is represented strongly this phenomenon you call retardation?

Wouldn't it be better to categorize women as those who willfully follow even retardation (which is most females) and those who don't (which is minority of females)? Where is the "average" woman? Now it seems in our everyday observations that an "average" female is missing, since those women who seem modest and decent these days, are really above average IQ. Personally I don't know many "average" women. It tends to be that a certain female individual is either a disgusting, stupid, easily controlled, diseased, sleazy, hedonistic, animalistic creature or somewhat decent and modest (and in some rare cases, they have or they imitate or whatever... these masculine qualities, such as dignity and honor). There has been in the past, at least, somewhat honourable women. In Middle Ages, those women who refused to follow Christianity, got liquidated.

I'll go further.

You see a person, a woman, or a man. Your brain is making sub-conscious judgments that your conscious mind is not aware of. Most of the "sub"-conscious involves 'taboo' judgments, thoughts you're "not supposed to have". This represents suppression, from indoctrination, propaganda, edumacation, etc.

Then there is the Un-consciousness. This is your threat-detection instinct. This triggers around existential threats. Sometimes people, or animals, or dangers trigger this unconsciously. This is much, much more difficult to control or become aware of. Most humans are not aware of their unconsciousness, and barely aware (usually not) of their sub-consciousness. Most of humanity is not self-conscious at all.

Especially women. Women look at the mirror, often, judging their outward appearance, but their minds are too weak to 'empathize' what other men and women actually think of them. Most women are too self-involve, self-absorbed, narcissistic.

This is why women are poor judges of other women's beauty.

Illiterate wrote:

But isn't it the case, that when average women follow retardation, then in the women, there suddenly is represented strongly this phenomenon you call retardation?

Wouldn't it be better to categorize women as those who willfully follow even retardation (which is most females) and those who don't (which is minority of females)? Where is the "average" woman? Now it seems in our everyday observations that an "average" female is missing, since those women who seem modest and decent these days, are really above average IQ. Personally I don't know many "average" women. It tends to be that a certain female individual is either a disgusting, stupid, easily controlled, diseased, sleazy, hedonistic, animalistic creature or somewhat decent and modest (and in some rare cases, they have or they imitate or whatever... these masculine qualities, such as dignity and honor). There has been in the past, at least, somewhat honourable women. In Middle Ages, those women who refused to follow Christianity, got liquidated.

That's a good point. Women even follow retardation, yes.

Look at 'Nihlistic' women and their dress style, their freakish hair, ugly tattoos and piercings, looking like mutants. I associate that trend with Self-annihilation. These types hate Life, their life, and represent misery. They are voids, who want to pull everybody and everything else, in with them. A sinking ship. What Satyr calls "genetic pollution".

So yes, women do follow such negative trends too. But this topic goes into Propaganda/Commercialization/Subversion tactics. Examine Bernays "Century of Self" and Freud. Globalists, Marxists, Internationalists attack cultures, sub-cultures, and women of nations. Much of this is controlled and intentional.

For example, look what the Internationalists have done with Sweden, your neighbor. They would do that to Finland too, maybe they already are?

Æon wrote:

For example, look what the Internationalists have done with Sweden, your neighbor.  They would do that to Finland too, maybe they already are?

They are doing this in everywhere in Europe. In 2015, there was 32,000 Middle-Eastern refugees coming to Finland. This is nothing compared to Sweden, but you have to consider that in Finland, on average, less than 50 000 babies are born annually.

Of those 50 000, not all are white (Europeans). In UK, Muhammad is the most popular name given to a male child (source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

In Finland, Muhammad is about the 30th popular name given to a male child.

So 25 000 male childs born to Finland every year. So, if Finland takes up to 32 000 male refugees each year, you know where this is going. Also keep in mind that the refugees are not 5 years old or 50 years old. They are 16-30 years old; representing a very specific age group.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Sweden has 123 boys for every 100 girls in age group 16-17.

Satyr wrote:

For females male competitiveness is a positive.....for males, who want to establish stable systems, it is a negative.

This explains why feminists are so eager to take these male refugees.

But that's also why I would never touch a female that has ever interacted in any degree with a nigger or a sandnigger. Sadly there are not enough males thinking like that, forcing white females to choose between a white man and a black/Muslim man.

But to answer your question: it's bad in Finland. In 10 years it's the same as in Sweden now.

Estonia would be an attractive place to move to for a Finnish male or a healthy female, because in Estonia it's not too bad... yet and also Finnish and Estonian languages resemble each other. Also like Hungary and Poland are resisting this multi-culti ideology. But Finland is long gone, so are pretty much the rest of the European countries. I'm sure there are areas in US where there are relatively more white people of all people, than in anywhere in Finland (yes, even the northern area of Finland).

'The new generation of Irish people' [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Adam Green - Know More News (@Know_More_News) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The message is clear.....across the American dominion.
The same commercial narratives are being repeated.
Always a black male and a white female....and their well-adjusted mulatto children.

Why always black male and white female?
1- Their primary target is European heterosexual males.
2- Dumbing-Down, reducing European genetic potentials by diluting them with African will produce the ideal slave.
3- Simpler minds are easier to manipulate and exploit. We see this in the US and how Blacks are now proxies - we see them everywhere in the entertainment, and media....and pop-culture; all prone to superstitions and easily indoctrinated into Abrahamism.
Both women and blacks gain from miscegenation - females gain sexual options - empowerment - practicing their sperm-sampling - blacks gain ascent by mixing with an intellectually superior race.

The brainwashed, usually from the anglo-sphere where the propaganda has reached its apex, Sweden, Greece, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam etc....etc.....are "social constructs".
Australia, New Zeeland, Canada...US are political constructs - meme-based-....but some, like the ones mentioned, are founded on tribal genetic foundations that go back centuries...sometimes thousands of years.

The goal of Americanism is to make all the world into the American model - not founded no tribal, blood, biological criteria, but on a idea....a construct...a word.
Miscegenation is how they will achieve it. Female acquiescence will be their method.

That's how the global politics is spread, through the women and children. Globalist target the weakest among foreign/global tribes. The first step of Subversion is to "make it acceptable". Anybody who resists this first step is an "Evil Nazi Kill 6mil Jews". You're a "hater", "misogynist", "racist". Use ILP as an example. And don't underestimate the sophistication, funding (George Soros), and effectiveness of all this.

Yes, the lower and below-average women will fall first, in Finland, as they have elsewhere. How do people fight back?

Learn from the Hellenes. Develop a stronger culture, a stronger tribe, a stronger ethnic identity, than your enemies. Keep fighting, or fall. Never relent, never relax. Your enemies certainly won't.

Æon wrote:

Learn from the Hellenes.  Develop a stronger culture, a stronger tribe, a stronger ethnic identity, than your enemies.  Keep fighting, or fall.  Never relent, never relax.  Your enemies certainly won't.

Yes, I idealize Sparta. I've read Lycurgus by Plutarch. I also idealize the discipline of samurais, presented in Miyamoto Musashi's works for example. And I've done some mental and physical feats; some are available on internet, I can PM you if you are interested. Though it's very specific kind of performance, I dare to say there are very few who can do the same as I. I've tried to inspire others, but with no great success...

In the end, Sparta fell. That's kind of demoralizing, isn't it?