@deeplydisturbed There's 7 (simplified) categories.

Abnormal - 1

These people have physical deformities, disabilities, abnormalities etc.

Unattractive - 2-3

Most people would look at someone in this range and quietly think they’re not easy on the eyes. Big facial imbalances, proportions way off, serious weight in either direction, skin that’s been rough for a while, or just zero effort put into grooming.

Average - 4 - 6

This is where the huge majority of us sit. Normal face, normal body, nothing really wrong but nothing screaming for attention either. You’re clean, you take basic care of yourself, features line up okay, but you’re not turning heads walking down the street. You date, you hook up, you get interest when the vibe is good or you bring energy or style, it’s just that the physical side isn’t carrying anything on its own.

Attractive 7 - 8

These people are solidly hot. You notice them right away. Good bone structure, body that looks taken care of, clear skin, strong features like a nice jaw or eyes that stand out, hair and clothes on point. Everyone agrees they look good without having to think about it.

Exceptional - 9

This is the rare top tier. Faces and bodies that hit every mark. Perfect symmetry, killer cheekbones or jaw, skin that looks fake in real life, amazing smile, eyes and proportions. You see them and immediately get why they’d be on a billboard or in a movie.

Preference - 10

The fabled 10. The fabled 10 is a 9 that just happens to hit your specific criteria in every aspect. 10's are unique and individual to everyone.

Special: Ugly Hot

These are the ones that break the scale. Rated objectively, probably a 4 - 6. But for whatever reason, they instil a sexual desire that you cannot understand.

Special: Hot Ugly

The opposite of ugly-hot. Rated objectively they sit in the 7 - 9 category. But for whatever reason, their objective good looks don't do anything for you (or them).

@adam-l Well that was interesting. I started out thinking "This looks poorly founded, I am not sure what conclusions can be reached form such a foundation" Breaking societies into theistic, zoistic and manistic seemed a bit arbitrary. Confining oneself to a few civilisations, many of which had vanished before any kind of accurate information about demography was available seemed likely to end badly and so on.

On the other hand the conclusions seem to fit well with what we have now. So certainly interesting.

I think decadence in a society and entropy are two different ways of looking at the same problem and a bit chicken and egg. Decadence leads to entropy, which leads to decadence but which is the actual cause of the rot.

Is for example unbridled female sexuality the cause of the problem -decadence in society means that the family breaks down and there is really nothing for young men to strive for any more or just the result of cultural entropy that has left people standing on the success and prosperity of their forebears with nothing much to do but "drink and smoke and screw" as Jarvis the lefty cockhead wrote.

@First-light

arctotherium.substack.com/p/review-of-j-d-unwins-sex-and-culture

This is an extremely interesting analysis.

Unwin has a ftamework that combines the Right with the Left perspective: the Left corresponds, roughly, in "internal expansion", what used to be called progress, while the Right is at least open to "external expansion".

Under this schema, what passes as "the Left" in the West, in the past few decades, is really another name for right-wing policies. Humanitarian wars and neoliberal policies have nothing to do with what the Left stood up for.

In any case, what that framework offers is the view that women repurpose energy that could be used elsewhere, to be directly consumed by their vanity.

As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm in for internal expansion, and I'm against external expansion. Not because the later it's unrealistic, it might as well be very realistic. It has to do with my personal taste and my stubborn idea that I will inpose my will on the world.