Let’s Take Looksmaxxing Seriously

[Hojo]

 

7 hours ago, LordFall said:

Sure it is, I see plenty of dudes with unkept facial hair walking down the street.

I also have better style hair in that 2nd picture

The glasses are particularly not great since they are bulky and reduce my facial symmetry. The grey contacts seem to do me well but mileage may vary based on individuals. I got the tip from when I was living with a male stripper in Toronto. 

The jewelry draws attention to me more than having a more bland style.

The shirt is more form fitting.

You don't have to get surgeries to looksmax already by dressing better and optimizing accessories, hairstyle and facial hair will raise most guys by like 2 points. Then the fitness as I mentioned is a big part of it. Surgeries you can go off the wall and do stuff that some will say makes you look worse like Clavicular and his recent nose job. 

 

 

Thats called dressing nice and shaving. Not looksmaxxing. You dont stop looksmaxxing. You need to get surgery to be looksmaxxing.

We already have terms for those two things and its called wearing nice clothes and grooming yourself. 

Looksmaxxing is a new word that means to go beyond that into hurting yourself and doing surgical shit.

All you did was groom yourself and put on a new shirt and take your glasses off.

Now you feel like you have an authority to speak on what looksmaxxing is. 

What you did was just ordinary still that men do and its not called looksmaxxing its called not being a slob.

Looksmaxxing is like a job that you take seriously and are constantly thinking about how to look good and doing it.

Its insanity.

You will do it till you fuck it up.

Its a body dysmorphia. Like trans.

If you admit you are a looksmaxxer you admit you have body dismorphia.

Losing weight is not looksmaxxing, dressing up is not looksmaxxing, shaving is not looksmaxxing, taking off your glasses is not looksmaxxing. None of these maximize your body potential, you need surgery to get the ken doll look. Or whatever Japanese anime characters these people are trying to look like.

All things youve stated are done by the body. To reach maximum looks you need to modify your body not naturally.

The premise is that your body is flawed and must be modified to look its best.

Because thats what the most attractive people do and they make the most money.

If you ever see the celebrities that get weird plastic surgeries and your like oh why did you do that? They are looksmaxxing.

They have brainswashed children into thinking these retards are cool.

Edited 10 hours ago by Hojo

[Jirh]

Lol.

People be obsessing, trying looksmaxxing.

My GF gives me fashion advice because she thinks I'm outdated 

How I got her with my outdated looks? You'll never know 

Your girl should take care of your looks, you shouldn't. You just follow the rules she gives.

Edited 10 hours ago by Jirh

[Joseph Maynor]

Yes if you want to show up in person especially, you need to make sure you look good.  You do it for others as much as for yourself.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Beauty is not so rigid as to be objective.

Can you show me some historical data and links to support none of this existed prior to you encountering it as trend?

Can you tell me where the basis for these rules came from?

Can you tell me how long they existed for, prior to adoption to faces?

Can you give me some evidence to support that others didn't use any of these concepts previously?

If you could also share how you came to the conclusion these principles made for 'better aesthetics'? How did you get there from the principles? How exactly do these principles enhance appearance? What elements of beauty are they engaging?

How are you deciding what looks better? Who is deciding this?

How does this system account for subjective preference? 

I can give a more detailed response later. 
 

Essentially, noticing these principles is a recent phenomenon. You didn’t see people analyzing each part of a face scientifically 40 years ago. It’s in part due to gender roles changing, plus survival being easier, contributing to men caring about appearance being actually feasible sociologically.

It’s quite easy to see how looks could be objectively studied. What makes men see a woman as hot? (They generally agree). Well, obviously it’s something about the facial features. Same thing with male celebrities. Take an attractive male celebrity and mess around with his face in photoshop. What makes him look worse if you change it? That is a factor in looks. You get the idea.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@AtmanIsBrahman you are just repeating a claim. 

Can you please support it? 

How are you personally seeing that people weren't analysing each part of the face 40 years ago? Can you please supply some research, or historical timelines for the development behind looksmaxing? Do you realise 40 years ago was 1986? 

Photoshop and it's effects have been replicated with cosmetics for a long, long time. Millenia timescales. 

Can you show me some data that reports all men agree to the same nose being attractive, the same face dimensions, the same geometry? How do you explain beauty preferences that differ across culture and the data available there? 

Can you show me data that confirms all people agree that certain celebrities are attractive? That would substantiate "objective" a bit more.

Repeating statements isn't building as case.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Jannes]

12 hours ago, LordFall said:

Why is looksmaxxing not spiritual? People are way too sensitive when it comes to beauty. Aesthetics are one of the most beautiful aspect of reality. Mountains ranges and the french riviera are nicer to look at than plains or swamps. Both can be appreciated but there are unique aesthetic value to some landscapes that others don't have.  Overobsessing on it or not accepting yourself because of it are different concepts entirely. I always liked the idea that you should think of yourself as always awesome but always on your way to becoming more awesome. 

When I take psychedelics I always find myself so beautiful. Especially my natural form though, a groomed beard looks artificial like you cut through the natural order and beauty for some odd reason. Wild untrimmed hair is where its at. It literally seems antithetical to spirituality to me to groom myself.

[integral]

3 hours ago, Hojo said:

 

lmao this guy. As a joke a friend of mine put some of the most decrepit picture we had of me on tinder for men dating only.

It exploded got 50 messages the first hour, the images were of me looking homeless and crazy, wearing bagels on my head and socks on my hands.

One of the messages was young university professor, we asked "why did you swipe right?" and he responded "because i see a fun guy with a great sense of humor"

The men on men dating domain is nothing like the woman scene. does same pictures got 0 matchs on the woman only section.

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[integral]

8 hours ago, LordFall said:

I've never tried shrooms that's wild. Sometimes I try to game with high on weed but it's too intense for me. I'm sensitive to it and then I get awakening experiences walking down the street and my own consciousness looking at me through random women it's quite anxiety inducing. 

It depends on how the drug is affecting you, I get a really strong body high from mushrooms, it's so enjoyable to be in my own body that it's like every breath is so good I just want to sit there and breathe.

So for most people they might not have this relationship with a drug for whatever genetic reason.

Marijuana gives me extreme problems, anxiety, psychedelic past life experiences, I'm reliving memories from the first month I was born. lol

So it's whatever works best for your body to give you that good vibe. And I'd focus on the ones that give you that body high and not a mental High.

Also I'm not going on the date high on a five grand mushroom trip, we're talking half a gram or a micro dose. lol

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[integral]

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

Your girl should take care of your looks, you shouldn't. You just follow the rules she gives.

Forget that im doing Anti-looksmaxxing.

Look so bad it goes full circle and its attractive again.

Its like picking up woman on halloween 

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[LordFall]

8 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

@Natasha Tori Maru It’s not true that women have been looksmaxxing for ages. Yes, they have done makeup, but looksmaxxing is much more detailed, broad, and extensive than just that.

For example:

Do you know what the FWHR is? Facial width to height ratio. In males, the ideal is close to two. It signals dominance and untrustworthiness. People with a high FWHR are considered more likely to cheat. This is based on science by the way, not just stuff made up by looksmaxxers?

Do you know what the three facial thirds are, and how they should be proportioned and men and women? Looksmaxxers have this down to a science.

Do you know what makes a good eye area? Most people think it’s eye color. Really, it’s a combination of features in the eye region— in males, dense and lowset eyebrows, minimal upper eyelid exposure, deep set eyes, narrower rather than round eyes, lack of scleral show (white of the eye underneath the iris), a clear sclera with minimal red, etc.

See? This is very detailed, and it 100% is new. People were not talking about these things in 1980.
 

That's going over into black pill territory bro. You can fuck really hot girls without worrying about your facial ratio. It's the classical being scared to take action so you overanalyze on theory. 

You could also call it bad science. The whole point of science is to TEST YOUR THEORIES. If you're making a bunch of theories that you're not testing you're not a scientist you're idk bro coping. 

PUA had issues but it was actual dating science. Read about a theory or an opener on the internet -> go try it a few times -> it worked or didn't work -> go report back-> try someone else or double down. Rinse and repeat until you have the dating life you want. 

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." - The serenity prayer

@Hojo Wrong that's hardmaxxing vs softmaxxing. I agree with most of your points otherwise but looksmaxxing has many areas.

@Jannes Sure you should accept and love yourself unconditionally. You live in material reality with the rest of us though and I'm sure you have goals in life. Use your life to fulfill your goals. Your ultimate perfect self will be waiting afterwards regardless. If your aim is to develop an autosexual relationship with yourself go for it no one is stopping you. If you want to fuck mates of the opposite or same gender taking care of your appearance is gonna be important.

The problem with blackpill/hardmaxxing is that PUA/red pill got demonized so much that now this stuff started to take root. Social skills, status game, social circle and social media are the way. Black pill is cope; it's literally sitting in your room ruminating on why you can't go and fuck people instead of going out and fucking people. 

Leo's post on Clavicular is a perfect recap on black pill/hardmaxxing ideology I'll re link it

https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-clown-world-of-looksmaxxing

 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[AtmanIsBrahman]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

you are just repeating a claim. 

Can you please support it? 

How are you personally seeing that people weren't analysing each part of the face 40 years ago? Can you please supply some research, or historical timelines for the development behind looksmaxing? Do you realise 40 years ago was 1986? 

Photoshop and it's effects have been replicated with cosmetics for a long, long time. Millenia timescales. 

Can you show me some data that reports all men agree to the same nose being attractive, the same face dimensions, the same geometry? How do you explain beauty preferences that differ across culture and the data available there? 

Can you show me data that confirms all people agree that certain celebrities are attractive? That would substantiate "objective" a bit more.

Repeating statements isn't building as case.

I asked claude about the looksmaxxing/attractiveness science timeline. Here's an excerpt of what it said:

Quote

 

The impulse to systematize beauty is ancient. But it was largely aesthetic or philosophical in character, not scientific in the empirical sense.

The 1970s: The First Real Wave

The modern scientific field begins in the 1970s. Cross-individual agreement on facial attractiveness is one of the best-documented and most robust findings in the field, with research going back to the 1970s. The landmark early papers include Dion, Berscheid, and Walster's 1972 paper "What is Beautiful is Good," which documented how attractiveness influences social judgment. These studies were in the social psychology tradition — measuring how attractiveness affects how people are treated — rather than identifying specific facial geometry. It was observational and sociological rather than metric.

The 1980s and 1990s: The Breakthrough Decade

This is where the field becomes recognizably modern. The late 1980s and especially 1990s saw the application of evolutionary psychology and computational methods to facial attractiveness, which transformed the field. The pivotal paper is Langlois and Roggman's 1990 Psychological Science study, "Attractive Faces Are Only Average," which digitized samples of male and female faces, mathematically averaged them, and showed that composite faces were judged as more attractive than almost all the individual faces comprising them. This was genuinely groundbreaking — it was arguably the first time anyone had begun to rigorously unravel what the standards of beauty are, as one commentator put it at the time. Sage JournalsVT Scholar

The 1990s then exploded with work on:

Symmetry — Thornhill and Gangestad (1993) demonstrated the attractiveness of facial symmetry and linked it to developmental stability and parasite resistance

Sexual dimorphism — Perrett et al.'s 1998 Nature paper on how masculine vs. feminine facial features affect perceived attractiveness

Cross-cultural universality — Rhodes et al. (2001) testing whether preferences for averageness and symmetry held across non-Western cultures

By 2000, facial attractiveness research had yielded many discoveries, with four main cues emerging as the most important determinants: averageness (prototypicality), sexual dimorphism, youthfulness, and symmetry. PubMed

2000s–Present: The Specific Metrics Era

This is when the specific quantitative metrics that looksmaxxing would later borrow enter the scientific literature. The facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) became a major research topic in the 2000s-2010s. Research showed that higher fWHR is associated with various physical and behavioral traits including testosterone levels, aggression, attractiveness to women, and success in sports. A 2014 speed-dating study found that men's fWHR was positively associated with their perceived dominance and attractiveness to women for short-term relationships — the first study to show this in a controlled interactive situation that could actually lead to mating. Gonial angle, canthal tilt, facial thirds, and other specific landmarks entered both surgical planning literature and evolutionary psychology around the same period. WikipediaPubMed

Today, facial beauty is a fast-expanding field across developmental psychology, evolutionary biology, sociology, cognitive science, and neuroscience.

Conclusion:

The general scientific study of attractiveness is not new — it has roots in antiquity and a genuine empirical tradition dating to the 1970s. But it was thin and unsophisticated in 1980 by current standards: there was basically no work yet on specific facial metrics, cross-cultural universals, or evolutionary mechanisms. The landmark studies (Langlois, Thornhill, Perrett) all came after 1980, mostly in the 1990s and 2000s.

The specific looksmaxxing framework — the PSL scale, gonial angle optimization, fWHR discussion, canthal tilt, etc. — is definitively a 2010s phenomenon, emerging from incel forums and essentially nonexistent before that. The community did sometimes draw on real science (fWHR research is legitimate, though contested), but the ideological scaffolding and the specific metric vocabulary are entirely post-2010.

So if someone claims systematic analysis of facial attractiveness "basically didn't exist in 1980," they're wrong about the general scientific field but roughly right about looksmaxxing specifically. And if someone claims attractiveness science is ancient, they're right about general aesthetic theory but wrong about the rigorous empirical work on specific geometric metrics, which is genuinely recent

 

Anyways, looks are objective not subjective, they are cross-cultural, and recent advancements are actually... well, recent.

Edited 1 hour ago by AtmanIsBrahman

[AtmanIsBrahman]

44 minutes ago, LordFall said:

That's going over into black pill territory bro. You can fuck really hot girls without worrying about your facial ratio. It's the classical being scared to take action so you overanalyze on theory. 

You could also call it bad science. The whole point of science is to TEST YOUR THEORIES. If you're making a bunch of theories that you're not testing you're not a scientist you're idk bro coping.

I see your point-- I am mostly just theorizing. But it's also disingenuous to say pickup artists were doing genuine science. If they neglect a huge variable (looks), that's not good science in my book. 

 

46 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Leo's post on Clavicular is a perfect recap on black pill/hardmaxxing ideology I'll re link it

https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-clown-world-of-looksmaxxing

He has a point. The looksmaxxing space is very ideological and gross. But there is a lot of truth behind it too.

I think Leo's position is that looks do matter quite a lot, but they aren't changeable. I would disagree with the latter part-- they can be meaningfully changed by just about everyone, and of course some more than others. 

 

[Jannes]

51 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Jannes Sure you should accept and love yourself unconditionally. You live in material reality with the rest of us though and I'm sure you have goals in life. Use your life to fulfill your goals. Your ultimate perfect self will be waiting afterwards regardless. If your aim is to develop an autosexual relationship with yourself go for it no one is stopping you. If you want to fuck mates of the opposite or same gender taking care of your appearance is gonna be important.

There is nothing wrong with improving your looks, it will have a lot of benefits for your personal life. 

I only have an issue with calling it a spiritual pursuit.

[LordFall]

22 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

I see your point-- I am mostly just theorizing. But it's also disingenuous to say pickup artists were doing genuine science. If they neglect a huge variable (looks), that's not good science in my book. 

 

He has a point. The looksmaxxing space is very ideological and gross. But there is a lot of truth behind it too.

I think Leo's position is that looks do matter quite a lot, but they aren't changeable. I would disagree with the latter part-- they can be meaningfully changed by just about everyone, and of course some more than others. 

 

Pickup artists were doing softmaxxing, most of them talk about refining your appearance as much as you can. They also did peacocking which is trying to wear unorthodox stuff to grab attention and see if it works to their advantage or not. It is genuine science and truth because hypothesis cannot account for all unknown variables so you need to test it in a real environment to get accurate results. For example most experimental drugs act one way in a sterile petri dish and a whole other way in a live organism. It's the difference between a complex and complicated system if we use systems theory. 

I agree you improve yourself by 3-4 points very easily with all the things I've mentioned in this thread. 

17 minutes ago, Jannes said:

There is nothing wrong with improving your looks, it will have a lot of benefits for your personal life. 

I only have an issue with calling it a spiritual pursuit.

Why not? The only way that you're separate from your spirit is with your material form and life. Being able to accomplish goals in a separate form is the gift of duality we've been given. To default back to the shield of the perfect higher self is coping and spiritual bypassing IMO.

You can also say that the people of the opposite gender are here to experience what reality has to offer. For you to deny that to them and be offended to have to improve yourself to give them a great experience is selfish and egotistical. 

The whole point of materialism is that it's hard and presents challenges. If you cower from those challenges and call yourself spiritually superior as some people do on this forum I don't think you understand spirituality at all. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[bazera]

19 minutes ago, LordFall said:

For you to deny that to them and be offended to have to improve yourself to give them a great experience is selfish and egotistical. 

Are you doing that for them or for you? Honestly. Are you really improving your appearence to satisfy your partners or meet your needs?

[LordFall]

Both, they're pretty similar. A market is an interplay of wants and needs being met for a certain price. For someone to date you they are spending their spare time on you so you need to be valuable for them. The degree to which you wanna please people and who you wanna please is up to you my friend. Self-awareness is figuring out what you want and what's gonna get you there. 

I like sleeping with hot women and dating many of them is my goal as I've laid out in another thread. For me to do that and have a fun lifestyle travelling the world looks is a small part and being financially independent with a large disposable income is a bigger part.

Ideally I want to find a corporate sponsor or a rich client that will let me lease their Sunreef 100 for a year and sail across the Mediterranean, Africa and Asia while I host events in multiple countries, network with cool people and start a polycule with the coolest hottest women(and some cute guys) I can find. I have a high drive towards sensuality and aesthetics and I  like the fashion and media industry and find politics interesting so spending my life raising my status and thus access to interesting, hot and powerful people is fun and interesting to me. 

This will take a few years to accomplish but by this winter I want to be out of Canada and be able to live in South America/SEA as a digital nomad full time. That's doable on like $5K/month remote income and when I scale it up I'll head to Europe to actualize that dream above. 

Most people don't spend the time crafting an appealing and custom life vision and purpose they just react to their limitations and get mad at people living a life better than they do. That seems silly to me. 

 

Edited 26 minutes ago by LordFall

[bazera]

@LordFall Good luck on your plan, sound exciting!