Layered model of human physical appearance

[Neanderthal]

The way that people evaluate each other’s appearance and attractiveness has always puzzled me. It seems that every individual has his or her own criteria, there are no objective standards, yet for some reason society agrees on who the beautiful people are (and it’s usually a rather mediocre looking group of people). To explain these inconsistencies, I propose the following model of appearance, and I propose that people tend to focus on different depths or layers of the model.

The layered model: There are four layers to human appearance. They are, starting with the outermost layer, feathers, skin, muscle, and bone. Each layer is governed by different factors, and the ability to perceive the layers becomes less common with depth (everyone can see the feather layer, but few people can see the bone layer).

1. The feather layer - named so because of its role, which is similar to the plumage of birds. It consists of clothing, hair, accessories (glasses, jewelry) and everything that’s on top of our skin. It includes makeup, nails, tattoos (despite the fact that ink is underneath the skin), beards, accessories, shoes, and so on. This layer is chiefly governed by the choices of the person in question. It has nothing to do with genes, only with deciding to follow fashion or not; some people also think that the elements of this layer are useful tools for expressing personality or identity.
2. The skin layer - It consists of our skin, and the visible natural features of our appearance, such as eyes and teeth. It’s very simple and plain, but as I will explain, many people fail to look at others even skin-deep.
3. The muscle layer - it includes muscle, fat, and other soft tissues which make up our bodies. This layer is governed primarily by calorie intake and exercise regime, or lifestyle in general. Unhealthy and sedentary people are very ugly on this layer, and athletic and active people are beautiful on this layer.
4. The bone layer - it includes bones and other immutable internal characteristics. This is the innermost layer, and the most difficult to perceive. In fact, even if you can perceive this layer, it may take so long to discern the features of this layer that you only perceive them in your closest friends and relatives.

Some thoughts on the model, in no particular order.

• The fact that normies are stuck on the feathers layer, and care nothing for the deeper layers means that they are very easily fooled. Its possible to command obedience by simply wearing a suit, a hi-vis vest, or the right hat for the situation. It’s possible to evade attention by dressing plainly or cheaply.
• In the state of wilderness, the feather layer does not exist. It is entirely artificial. In history, it was simpler and more straightforward, and as society advanced it got exponentially more elaborate.
• Race is not skin-deep. It is bone-deep, obviously, and the most significant racial differences are not expressed in physical appearance at all.
• In history, monarchs, priests, members of secret societies, members of some privileged groups - always used the feather layer to signify their identity to others. This layer of appearance commanded respect and obedience, even if the person was hideous in layers underneath. This also happens in modern times, and only works on normies.
• The skin layer is uncommon to see in women, because of the omnipresence of makeup. In fact, men are sometimes so well-trained by society that they prefer a woman who obscures her face in this way!
• The muscle layer is sometimes appreciated by people well-versed in anatomy, and physical activity. However, in bodybuilding this layer is abused for vanity, and when bodybuilders prepare chiseled, dehydrated physiques for competitions, is when they are in fact weakest. The ideal in bodybuilding is unsustainable, and a strong, robust, and healthy body does not actually look very impressive to the uninitiated.
• Someone with beautiful inner layers will not be considered beautiful by normies, when no care is spent on the feather layer.
• The skin and muscle layers increase in beauty on their own, when the overall health improves (usually with nutrition and exercise). The outermost layer has nothing to do with health. The innermost layer cannot be changed by any method.

Feel free to poke holes in my model, there is definitely room to improve and refine its terms.

[johnnymcivor]

The above post is jumping off from a debate we had about Asian women – why white men and Asian women have such a strong affinity for each other. I argued that my interest in Asians was innate, but geographically exaggerated. That is, the races evolved features to capture sexual attention, and they exaggerated as humans migrated in different directions. So when you introduce a man from Ireland to a woman from China, the man sees a very intense but also exotic kind of beauty.

Biru Otsuka

If you notice, white people like to get tans. Well, Asians have a natural golden-yellow glow. They also have beautiful epicanthal folds (“squint eyes”), and other features which are hard to place.

Of course, given divergent evolution, some features will also be disgusting, such as the bizarre apple-shaped buttocks, the strange-looking feet, the square cranium, and the pancake-flat face.

---

I also want to say: a lot of white nationalists get really triggered when I say that I find them attractive. You don’t have to support racemixing to admit that they’re nice to look at. My purpose here is to EXPLAIN.

None of them would ever argue that there aren’t innate characteristics that make whites more attractive to brown people. Why would this only be a white phenomenon?

It’s true that the white men who marry these girls tend to be bugmen with less options. There is the famous “sexpat” trope. But it’s not just a sexual marketplace thing. I found Asian women attractive since I was a little boy.

[johnnymcivor]

I think that the layers model that you’re operating off is overfitting; the basis of a theory of sexuality should start with the idea that humans are learning algorithms and they find all sorts of things attractive. For example, accents are sexy because they tell us about the dimensions of the internal organs.

It’s cleaner to use a “feathers” layer and an innate or natural layer. Because all people see bone, but they see it in different ways and choreography is also important. The Asian woman is attractive from the front, but less so in the side profile. I find the side profile of a woman’s foot to be totally uninteresting, but the front – and especially the back view or heel – is extremely interesting. The algorithm is better-trained on those angles.

Clelia Montali

Angle is super important in sexuality, especially if you’re autistic. Allistic sexuality is less sophisticated in almost every way. Their sexuality is not erotic, it is pornographic. They can’t detect sex pheremones in sweat, they don’t understand the foot “fetish,” they like unnatural sex postures like cowgirl and doggystyle. Natural sex is missionary, unsanitary, and extremely emotional. There’s a lot of skin-to-skin contact, and it is preceded by extensive courtship-play.

[johnnymcivor]

The algorithm view also makes more sense when talking about the feather layer. It explains why those things work.

For example, modern female clothing is actually far more stimulating than pure nakedness. This is because it segments the body, and suggests nakedness rather than actually showing it (which manipulates completion, which is another topic).

Cropped tees, nail polish, lip gloss, chokers, thigh highs, eye shadow, nose rings, naval piercings, waist-high jeans etc – they highlight and exaggerate through contrast.

Sua Yoo

[johnnymcivor]

Another important principle is that our sexuality can only make sense in the context of comparison. It makes no sense to find a specific breast shape attractive if it’s not being compared to a template. This is to say that there are images / measurements of the ideal woman physically encoded into the structure of our brain.

Personally, I believe this woman is an anime girl, and this explains the popularity and stability of anime as a style. The Japanese, being perfectionists, have found the ideal way to render a human female.

And yes, that does encode for chibiness, even though big eyes on a real woman would be utterly disturbing. Our template is abstract, like a cartoon.