The absolute foundation for the appeal of Feminism is in the cold reality that there isn't a top tier, iron jawed, cut, chiseled and jacked Alpha male waiting in the wings for every woman. Yes, in fact, for long-term mates, some women will have to settle for what they can attract. Of course, this is what drives the promiscuity market- top men will settle for a less attractive woman for cheap sex. However, for choosing mates, you (theoretically) only have one and this selection will reflect on you socially. You can pork a fatty in secret, but everybody is gonna see you dating one... yuck.

And, even if men are more selective with whom they date rather than whom they stick it in for fifteen minutes, they still ultimately date down- it's just the way of the world. Even if a top man manages to snag a top woman, she'll still likely have more top tier suitors than he will... and even if it manages to be even, like she's hitched up to God Chad, marriage 2.0 will guarantee that his balls are in her court.

Remember, female game is to win be disqualification. Women receive their sexual market value up front, from birth; and while, yes, they can keep fit and work on their charm, learn the craft of home making, and present as feminine- the value of these qualities has actually never been as high as it is in today's world of "women = pussy"- the bulk of what she's got to work with was acquired through genetics.

This actually benefits the vast majority of women. When combined with the reality of all men dating down to some degree, more women will be able to attain long-term mates than men.. by a lot. If you're old enough, you'll immediately understand this when you see how even the most awful women you went to high school with are getting hitched and pumping out kids. Take a look around you- even terrible women manage it; being ugly isn't the biggest hindrance for a woman if she's willing to settle for a less attractive/successful man (and there's nothing wrong with that). However, her male equivalent will not be quite so lucky.

But, of course, women want to game the system... and if you can't win fairly, you look to cheat, and women truly excel at manipulation and sophistry. So, you try to imply that liking a physically attractive woman is low-brow and unsophisticated, you mention that there are more important qualities that should somehow, magically, cause sexual attraction, like "strength," "ambition," and "independence." You shame men for liking young, fit women, all while trying to play their game as best you can... but when asked about your make-up or sexually flattering clothing, you say that you're dressing that way for you, NOT MEN.

The beauty standard is their answer for top-tier men finding attractive women attractive, and their way of attempting to talk them out of it. They know full well that women have tremendous power in the sexual market place, and that men will almost always settle for sex. Their real problem is in their fellow sisters not playing along, because, why would you if you're genuinely attractive. Beauty is natural capital, and the rich don't give their wealth away in the name of equality.

If you want proof in a woman's potential sexual market control, take a look at how the vast majority of women have gained weight as compared to what they would have been fifty years ago. Even still, they're getting sex with top men- easier than ever- and they're getting married to suckers. But, for the sexual marketplace to truly undergo an overhaul, all women have to play along and the top tier of women aren't going to sacrifice their own beauty for the sake of the rest.

The real joke of the matter is that most men don't have such a high standard for impossible perfection as they do have a pedestal they put the women they fall for on; the beauty pedestal. Lets go real basic here: male sexuality relies on boners. A man needs to be there, both physically and mentally, for sex to happen. A woman does need to be lubricated, and I may be off here, but that seems to be less of a feat than keeping it up for a girl- and there's always artificial lubricant. For a man to get hard, he needs to be in the moment and attracted to the woman he's with- if a man isn't meeting this threshold, he likely isn't interested enough to bother. With that said, a man wants to believe the woman he's with is attractive- even if it's only in that moment.

Taken to its logical conclusion, a man invested in a long-term relationship- a man in love- will want to magnify and exaggerate the beauty of his woman, where her adorable little personality quirks serve to amplify her physical beauty- this is the beauty pedestal.

This idea is as old as time- in fact, in 1732, poet Jonathan Swift (of "A Modest Proposal" fame), wrote a poem poking fun of the concept itself. That naive men truly buy into the illusion of perfection... and, in fact, it is an illusion- with the same make-up, and padded bras, and hair extensions that we have today... but men want to buy into that fantasy because it's sexy. The poem has a hilarious conclusion that women are actually made of shit... consider that eighteenth century TRP.

(and, yes, there were even women at the time writing outraged responses and accusing Swift of male impotence... Yep, shaming tactics. Some things never change).

The pedestalization of women from the same kind of naive men that Swift was mocking is such a problem that the manosphere, our very subreddit, and PUA itself all exist as a modern means of making men aware of it, like Swift was doing with his poem, and attempting to eradicate it because of the devastating affect it will have on your relationship if it fosters unchecked.

The reality of the beauty pedestal makes any whining over a "beauty standard," rather, the idea that men like attractive women, seem ludicrous... but, after all, it isn't Chad who has these girls on a pedestal, it's poor Betamax Barry... and he's icky.

Like my post? Check out my blog: www.KilltoParty.com