Dispelling Beauty Lies: The Truth About Feminine Beauty

Framing note: This is a polemical, intentionally contrarian, and at times misogynistic essay containing explicit sexual content (especially the seduction section). The summary below reports the author’s own claims and arguments; it does not endorse them. Per the essay’s afterword, it was “written in 2020 and revised and expanded from 2021-2025.”

Core thesis

• The author (J. Sanilac) claims the facts about feminine beauty are “simple and intuitive,” but public discussion is dominated by lies that especially confuse intelligent women — hurting their mating prospects, self-esteem, health, and self-improvement efforts.
• The essay promises the “straight truth” plus practical advice, bills itself as “the world’s most-banned guide to beauty and seduction,” and warns emotionally fragile readers to stop.

I. Everyone lies

• Nearly everyone has an incentive to lie about beauty: the fashion industry (tall, ultra-thin models to sell clothes), paid influencers/writers (conflicts of interest), body-positive influencers (flattery), journalists (political causes), and social-media mobs.
• Men lie out of politeness, flattery, or to signal refinement (“pretending not to notice overt sex appeal”). A cosmetic surgeon is quoted: “You can’t tell women the truth because they’ll crucify you.”
• “What makes a woman attractive?” is framed as a Milgram question — honesty is socially punished. So the author rejects surveys/professed opinions in favor of “direct evidence of men’s real preferences.”
• He argues men are the key judges of feminine beauty, that condemning the “male gaze” harms women, and reframes beauty not as self-expression but as an athletic skill (figure-skating analogy) — improvable with practice, where imperfection is normal, not a moral failing.

II. Learning from love goddesses

• Cross-cultural “love goddess” depictions, made millennia apart, consistently show an hourglass figure: small waist, larger-than-average breasts, pronounced hips, at a moderate/healthy weight.
• Counterexamples addressed: Rubens’ heavy figures were outliers; the Venus of Willendorf and similar figurines aren’t verified love goddesses; many ancient hourglass figurines exist.
• Limitations: Classical Greek statues deviate (narrow hips), attributed to a “founder effect” and artistic imitation; serious art was constrained by modesty conventions and censorship, so it can’t reliably show the ideal.

III. Imaginary women (the central method)

• Since men won’t tell the truth, the author argues the best evidence is what men choose in private: sex dolls, erotic drawings, and AI/computer-generated women.
• He distinguishes beauty ideals (a direction to aim for, not required to reach) from beauty standards (a bar you must clear).
• Doll proportions: popular sex dolls run ~37–39-24-39 (ratios ~0.61), far curvier than the average Victoria’s Secret model (32-24-34).

IV. The truth about breast size

• The topic men most often lie about. Against a professor’s claim that men prefer “average” breasts, he cites doll/anime/AI-image data suggesting the average man prefers an E/F cup or larger, with the biggest sizes disproportionately popular.
• Three “reliable conclusions”: preferences vary widely; demand for larger sizes exceeds supply; “bigger is better” in an economic sense (within his framing).

V. Common and uncommon tastes

• The consistent “common male taste”: small waist, large breasts, rounded rear, prominent hips — curvy but not overweight — strikingly different from thin fashion models.
• He argues the average real woman resembles a sex doll’s proportions more than a runway model’s, and that media systematically understate true male preferences.

VI. Market forces

• Beauty analyzed via supply and demand: undersupplied traits (small waist) confer easy mating success; oversupplied ones (obesity) don’t.
• To “beauty is subjective,” he replies that what matters is which subjects find a look attractive (flies vs. humans).
• Most advantageous trait set (per a poll): hourglass, thin, oversized breasts, bubble butt — but variety shows “there’s more than one way to be attractive.”

VII. The most important secret about faces

• Broad agreement on pretty vs. ugly exists, but each man has a specific facial type. When asked for their four most-attractive faces, respondents chose faces resembling sisters or twins (matching features/expressions/poses), often unaware of the similarity. Matching features mattered more than ancestry.
• Practical asides: men like full but not overdone lips (moderate fillers); certain emotive open-mouthed expressions carry high “sexual power.”

VIII. A note on masculine beauty

• Included for context and to discuss age gaps. Introduces “RC men” (romance-cover heroes) as the male analogue of “AI girls” — an idealized, consistent physique — arguing skeptics of AI girls should be equally skeptical of RC men.
• Cites height, upper-body strength, and penis size as main factors (corroborated “in direction if not degree” by cover art/dolls); healthy weight assumed; women tend to prefer older men.
• On build: RC men aren’t extreme bodybuilders; added muscle helps most men but is one factor; “skinny fat” is unattractive; excessive leanness has become a male error mirroring the female one. Subsections also cover women’s “dream age gaps,” a “goldilocks age gap,” hair, and dominance.

IX. “Beauty” and “hotness”

• Argues platonic “beauty” and visceral “hotness” are complementary, not in conflict — it’s best to have both, and any apparent tradeoff is just statistical chance in how models are selected.
• Attacks the modern Madonna-whore complex (the idea that virtue and high sex appeal can’t coexist), now driven by fashion/media associating low sex appeal with high status.
• Coins “puritanical voyeurism”: normal women kept dull while entertainers may be sexy — which he calls immoral. A “note for arty girls” uses a Venn diagram to argue “hot/beautiful” overlap heavily while “artistic/interesting” often don’t, and sacrificing the former for the latter usually loses male attention.

X. Correcting homework

• Female readers, asked to submit images they thought men would rate most attractive, mostly picked “sexually unthreatening” models that scored poorly — evidence, he says, of a psychological block rooted in “fragile vanity” and conflating status with beauty (“beautus”).
• He critiques submissions (short hair, flat chest, thin legs/butt, hidden waist all lower scores) and gives an “answer key”: men reward a young woman with small waist, wide hips, large breasts, rounded rear, pretty face, moderate makeup, long (≈waist-length) hair, and well-fitted clothes — a look that pleases 80–90% of men.
• After coaching, a girls’ team beat a boys’ team at picking high-rated images, showing the block can be overcome. Warns against “median bias” (assuming your taste is average).

XI. Drawing the right conclusions

• It’s okay to be imperfect: a beauty ideal must be unattainable to be useful; falling short is expected and not your fault.
• Urges remembering grace (ideals are sustainable only with forgiveness) and warns against vanity in both forms (smug over-pride and self-hatred).
• Reiterates the truth helps you target improvement efforts; offers a cartoon “visual summary” (“two hearts” instead of “hourglass”) and detailed guidance on how (and at what age) to share the article — noting more men report sharing it with daughters than with wives/girlfriends.

XII. Reality-based beauty tips (the practical advice)

• Framing: “the single most important beauty technique is actually caring.” Warns that women are trapped competing on marketer-invented standards while “egirls” and AI-girlfriend startups have “weaponized” these truths. Applying the advice could reportedly gain “three points” on a 10-scale.

Subsections:

1. Finding your best weight: weight is the most controllable factor; aim for slim-but-healthy, not minimal bodyfat (a flat, muscular stomach and skeletal look are unattractive). The ideal weight depends on your personal fat distribution; thin arms + thick thighs + small waist is the target; over-dieting shrinks bust/hips/butt first. Covers diet, exercise (glute focus), and leg/thigh shape.
2. Clothing and fashion: fit at the waist comes first (tailoring for curvy figures); dress to moderate modesty; historically women signaled class with elegant, curve-enhancing clothing rather than by dieting away curves; guidance on lingerie types/colors (“never wear nudes”), patterns, and “overrated accessories” (handbags do nothing).
3. Cosmetics and cosmetic surgery: argues breast augmentation works and is under-credited (the “gaudy graveyard” fallacy — only bad results are noticed); ~1 in 25 women have implants; advises reaching best weight first, choosing a good surgeon, going reasonably large; also covers butt surgery/fat transfer, lip fillers, nose jobs, and common makeup errors. (Includes a satirical “Universal Basic Implants” aside.)
4. Hair, skin, eyes: men prefer long hair (length matters more than color; short hair strongly disliked); blonde/red overrepresented in dolls; avoid unusual dye colors outside artistic contexts; tanning and body-hair notes.
5. Motion and posture: an attractive woman is more attractive moving; covers gait (“walk on a line” sway), bounces/sways, facial expressions, and posture — all learnable through practice/rehearsal.
6. Seduction (the largest, most explicit section): the core “misconception” is that women should be passive and wait to be dominated; instead the author argues men prefer enthusiastic, forward partners, that male “domination” (BDSM) is really submission to female fantasy, and that women should initiate. Includes detailed, graphic advice on oral/manual technique, initiation, “magic words,” positions, and adapting to male psychology. He calls proactive, frequent oral the “Last Rule of Feminine Beauty.”
7. Personality and individuality: personality has little effect on visual beauty (attractive women with bad character still rate highly — uses Ghislaine Maxwell as an example of breast size dominating perception), though personality matters for seduction; don’t use “great personality” to dodge beauty self-assessment.
8. Beauty and aging: women are more beautiful young but there’s no sudden “wall” at 30; older women should be bolder/more initiating, keep long hair (short hair ages you), rely more on curves (which age better than skin), and use makeup and mate-selection (older partners) to advantage.
9. Top seven ways to look more attractive: (1) healthy weight, (2) makeup, (3) long hair, (4) waist-fitted clothes, (5) glute strength training, (6) large breast implants (if comfortable with risk), (7) nose job if needed — plus bonus: learn to move attractively. Do them in order; ignore irrelevant details marketers push.
10. Common application mistakes: we misjudge our own beauty (mirror/selfie distortion, mood, fixation); get the belly right relative to overall figure (it shouldn’t be flat or protruding); don’t fixate on the nose/nails; personalize seduction/style; a boob job doesn’t fix unrelated problems.

XIII. Answering objections

• Rebuts ~18 objections, e.g.:
  • “You objectify women”: conflates “dehumanization” (bad) with “being perceived/acted on by a subject” (can be good); enjoying the male gaze is normal.
  • “I’m afraid of being fetishized”: a standout/exotic trait is an advantage (supply and demand) — lean into it rather than avoiding men who appreciate it.
  • “Beauty isn’t worth the trouble”: it helps attract quality mates, improves sex/relationships, and is a “final good.”
  • Others addressed include “your conclusions are obvious,” “only abnormal men agree,” “cherry-picked examples,” “it’s heteronormative,” “it’s too long,” and requests about masculine beauty / his other work.

XIV. Censorship and suppression

• Claims the article has been systematically suppressed — shadowbanned, delisted by search engines (says it was banned on Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo while pornography ranked freely), with repeatedly banned social accounts.
• Defines censorship broadly as any intervention reducing public access to information, describes “soft censorship”/shadowbanning and NGO/algorithmic manipulation, and frames his suppression as evidence the ideas are threatening to entrenched interests.

Appendix, “worst lies” review, and afterword

• Appendix (survey results): reiterates polls are unreliable but shares promotional ones (hair-length poll matching doll data; “dealbreakers” — men rarely treat single physical flaws as dealbreakers, but treat being meaningfully overweight and certain character/bed traits as such; a curiosity: men who prefer thin figures were nearly twice as likely to prefer modernist interior design).
• Review — “The Top Twenty-Two Worst Lies”: a numbered list of claims the essay rejects (e.g., “very low bodyfat is most attractive,” “a full C-cup is best,” “there’s a tradeoff between hotness and beauty,” “implants don’t matter,” “curves don’t age well,” “women hit a wall at 30,” “thigh gaps matter”).
• Afterword: frames beauty lies as driving the sexes apart while the beauty and sex industries fill the gap; argues broken female “intuitions” (from media saturation) mean only a minority can accept the truth; casts informed readers as a “secret society” who can gain an edge. Signs off with recurring satirical “evil vizier / odalisque” framing and a list of the author’s other works (Ultrahumanism, Trust Networks, “101 Ways to Be Prettier…”, etc.).