Read on Twitter
It's funny how divergent female desire is from male conception of female desire. The visually biased male desire conceives of female desire as visually biased-- but it's not the case. This is why the evopsych "mra" redpill PUA stuff is ironic-- it's dudes writing "as women"
This is how the autogynephiliac & the hyper-masculine converge upon the primacy of the visual in terms of desire. Both are "men pretending they can inhabit female subjectivity" in different ways.
The autogynephiliac replicates in himself the visual depiction of male desire-- the hyper-masculine replicates in himself the visual depiction of the male conception of female desire. Both attempt to represent a visible desirability. But neither have access to female subjectivity
This is why both are confused when women are not attracted to someone that *they would imagine that they would be.* The autogynephiliac demands lesbian women's attraction-- the hypermasculine demands all heterosexual women's desire. Neither receive this.
Meanwhile-- you have extremely attractive women getting picked up "hideous men"-- & this is also not explainable by the PUA notion of evopsych "status" pyramids etc. Subjective female desire is actually *beyond* male rational accounting.
Sometimes women are even attracted *to* the hideous in their own accounting. This is why the self-reports shouldn't be taken seriously. Revealed preference isn't discernible from self-polling. When women rate men by "attractiveness" -- they're performing-- it's not real.
It's essentially asking for women to perform the visually biased accounting of male desire-- which they can perform easily. They know they *should* think Ryan Gosling is *more attractive* than Andy Samberg-- but in real life? They wouldn't *know* unless they were *there*
This is because female desire is not visually biased-- it is *contextual* -- it cannot be "abstracted" out of a situation & "made visible." Women often say "I don't know what it is about him"-- & they're not lying when they say this.
Of course-- who needs to listen to what women think right? They're ways are so *mysterious*-- best not to listen-- instead-- trust what men *make visible* when they ostend to "understanding the mysteries."
It's funny because the whole thing is based on anxieties about "having to talk to women." Men want fuckin' cheat sheets & prepared lines-- prepared strategies-- in order to avoid an actual *communication* across the sex lines. This is what makes incels incels. They are afraid.
Yes "talking"-- this is the oral/contextual bias-- not the visual/abstract bias-- it is *always* about "talking to women"-- this is the key that the PUAs etc don't understand. It's also why one of the top rated attractive traits women report is "men who listen." lmao
Note that textual erotica-- even voices-- are sexualized for women. Men prefer the visible, the image. Women can be attracted to "ugly" men who have "attractive voices." This won't show up when you poll them with pictures.
