War on Beauty: Ruby Rose

I found this on twitter:

Ruby Rose

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.

Advertisements

Published by:

Radamanthes

I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s