I found this on twitter:
I had never even heard of this person prior to this posting, so I’m not sure how much of this is a “sensation” vs. an attempt at sensationalism, but when I saw this picture there was one word which came to mind; “EW.” Ew is the natural reaction I had as a kid if I smelled a rotten fish on the side of the pond, or stepped into a pile of dog poo. It’s the verbalization of a visceral, gut level reaction when something is revolting to the senses.
The hotness is negligible at best, and the claim about straight women turning into lesbians over this is absurd. So because Ruby Rose looks like a teenage boy straight women are being turned into lesbians? I don’t think so, and if that were the case then it wouldn’t help the LGBTalphabet soup to show that people could wink into homosexuality so easily, as it would indicate that people could wink out of it with the same level of ease and so little provocation.
So what is this? After looking at this creature for a bit, I can say she does have an attractive face, and i wouldn’t dispute that. I guess her skin is attractive, at least, the parts that are not covered in ink. But really she has vandalized her body with all those tattoos, and it doesn’t make her look more attractive. The real-estate is damaged. It seems like she’s trying to imitate male dock workers and biker gangs. If a man can do it why can’t a woman? A woman should be able to do it and men should be made to find it attractive, right? Well, as corrupt as the culture is, I still don’t believe the average 20 year old white male gets turned on by dock workers and bikers, or by androgynous female celebrities who imitate them. But the leftist solution here is to get ALL women to adopt this look, and that way men will have no choice but to swallow their inherent misogyny, right? Wrong. If that were the case there would be no sexodus or MGTOW movement.
As for the hair… Most men do not like women with short hair. I was born in 1981, and throughout my life there have always been those fat middle aged women with short hair which was almost a buzzcut. How anyone can like that is beyond me, but my impression was that these fat middle aged buzzcut women had other priorities besides their looks, which was further evidenced by the fact that they were usually married and had kids. So whenever I saw those sorts of women I never viewed them in a sexual way, I just saw them as being out of the pool. Some women can get by with short hair if they are young and attractive, or even well preserved and middle aged, but that doesn’t make it ideal, and whether or not it works is highly dependent on the individual woman, who might be interested (or who is around/looking), and what sort of haircut it is. Is it a buzzcut? Does it look like something an old woman from the early 1900’s would have? It’s tenuous territory at best, and endogeneity lurks around every corner in that muddled swamp.
As for Ruby here, this is a 1990’s man haircut. This is the hair I wanted to have when I grew up in the early 90’s. Zack from “Saved by the Bell” had this hair, as did Ryan from “VR Troopers,” and of course Rick Astley.
While seeing that haircut may evoke feelings of nostalgia, it is an absolute no-go when it comes to sexual attraction.
On the surface it just looks like the liberals are trying to confuse things, and to a certain degree they are. They want men to lust after men, women to lust after women, and they want it to be difficult to tell men and women apart when walking down the street. Little Johnny should wear a dress and carry a purse, and little Betty should shave her head.
I think this also factors in with the left’s general war on beauty. The modern “art” appearing in museums is mostly crap which looks like nothing, and in some cases it is literally fecal matter. Women who are physically fit are “bullies,” yet fat women who take pictures of their lard gut and cottage cheese are “brave” and “beautiful.” If there is a woman who is objectively beautiful the left wants her to do something disgusting, like show her unshaven privates, or get tattoos or shave some part of her head.
I’m married now, but if I were single some woman who looked like Ruby Rose would not have a chance with me, no matter how much she begged. Even if she didn’t have the Rick Astley haircut, the tattoos are too much. It’s body vandalization, and it’s ugly. Also there’s no reason for it, because if you want to have some design on your skin there are temporary tattoos which can last up to a few weeks. Permanently marring the skin is stupid, and predicated on the assumption that you will always think (and maybe look?) as you do at that exact moment.
It seems a lot of younger girls are getting tattoos these days. They might think the hearts and butterflies look cute and innocent, but that doesn’t change the fact that tattoos are a form of body mutilation, and that the origins are essentially tribal and savage. Instead of trying to change what men find attractive and calling them misogynists (how can you be a misogynist for not liking women who look like men?) when they don’t buy it, we ought to focus on teaching women to be ladies, to look, and act like ladies.