mopdop wrote:females are extremely looks orientated/superficial, good post OP.
They're also very meticulous in their presentability. None of them come up to you without pre-emptive premeditation. That is essentially manipulative. And most of them do it. So much, so pre-instilled (because it comes as the natural course of their urges/ impulses) that it's fair to say that it might just be the way they're geno-programmed. The same way a cat gives itself a bath or a beaver builds a dam. If most of them are willing to undergo that process, then they don't want real friends. They don't hold true bond/ love/ compatability/ immaterial connection in such a high esteem as being someone of high impact in the external world. The main virtue underlying having high impact is being superior to other people, as that is the ultimate end goal/ source of stimulus. They're obviously not doing it for survival. They can definitely make it without acting regal to this extent.
But even if they didn't want to do it for the sake of being regal, their geno-pressures still will take over and fight for regality outside of what they're consciously aware of. There is no free will. Women are geno-programmed to be cunts. That seems like an extreme label. But in reality the world was never supposed to be as tame/ civilized as this in 2018 to build a moral-stance for women to be considered dark/ cuntish for doing any of this. This was only natural, and not any less brutal than the world when you get to the bare bones of it/ uninsulated to the point of intangibility with all of these social constructs/ contraints/ laws/ faux-ethics.
Sure, you can say they need to do that for connective reasons. To be superficial/ good looking so they can get men to like them back for survival capital. But that's ultimately unnecessary at this point. And probably a red-herring reason for their behavior. It's for status-capital. Women just want to hide their identity to gain the best machiavellian-vantage-point.
Women are hormonally built to desire men. And to desire vanity. If they were as hard pressed to get love from men for internal/ immaterial connection reasons, then they would probably know that they wouldn't find it from a guy who would like them from their appearance, and thus stop altogether. Women have a primal-impacted viewpoint of the world. That men are psychsluggards who are primally predicated and only care about LMS (and they're not wrong). I think this viewpoint has pervaded for so long that their neurology has put such excessive emphasis on the material capital as a bio-ingrained psychstance. They couldn't be not- superficial even if they wanted to be.
But this also essentially means they don't want friends who have a morale which accepts people for who they are truly. Women don't value genuine connections, just ones with more primal capital behind them. Women put weight on certain methods of gaining gratification. The one that is rarer, has higher novelty, more primal regality behind it is the one that they will get their real gratification from. There is carnal gratification - sex. Sugar/ Food gratification like eating a Reese's peanut butter cup. But the one that women put the MOST emphasis on is hierarchical gratification/ primarchial gratification. In the primal-hierarchy, those who have higher Evolutionary Capital get more rare/ status indicative gratifications. It's a relational gratification system that their criteria for satisfaction is dependent on. Primal satisfaction I call it.
They want to gain the attention of people who have a system of criticism/ discernment/ judgment that posits the worthiness of people purely on primal traits/ primal vibe/ being the clear winner/ being of predatory existential affiliation/ cosmic significance. Those men are harder to get because of social crowdation/ high value emphasis. The higher up the ladder of status you go, the less people you'll find. And women want those people, as they are more of an achievement.
Women are drawn to people who have the existential affiliation of a bad ass/ primal prodigy. Not incels or betas. And they want to qualify for men who have the dismissiveness/ darkness/ identity acquitted to an alpha who can treat people like shit but still get his way. They want THAT at the expense of genuine relationships. So that's why they fall into such anxiety when they can't qualify for HIS criteria of association, as opposed to the criteria of association that is humble/ meek/ for the people around them.
It's quite funny that people can't put these nuances together and build the proper portrait of women and what they really represent. And what their vanity-consumed identity revolves around.