Que faire des femmes moches ?

The speaker addresses a question posed by a viewer, "What to do with ugly women?", a topic previously untouched on the channel. The viewer, "Crame toi Frivol," references a previous video featuring a radical feminist who stated that men, particularly feminist men, should pay. The viewer's comment suggests that women are a "peace" and that feminism demeans women. They specifically ask what to do about the 90% of women who are not considered beautiful or are "ugly," arguing that men pay for nothing in such cases. The viewer claims that in the West, only 10% of women are very beautiful, while in Asia, this figure is 20-30%. They conclude that Asia is preferable, not only for the higher percentage of beautiful women but also because it is not feminist, allowing even a very "ugly" man to find a high-level partner without resorting to "gourgandes." The speaker acknowledges the "strange" nature of the question and wonders how, after 300,000 years of human existence, the ratio of beautiful women has become so low. They question why there are so many "ugly" women generation after generation, suggesting this is a question for specialists in Darwinian theory, evolution, and natural selection. They admit to not having researched this phenomenon with AI to understand the "strange phenomenon of the predominance of ugly women" and their differing ratios across societies. The speaker notes that while the viewer cited 10% beautiful women in Western society, his personal experience in the UK indicated a lower figure of 3%, though France might have a slightly higher ratio. He considers 10% a "fair" ratio if all women, including older women and feminists (whom he describes as "all ugly" due to their discourse, even if some could physically be beautiful), are included. The speaker then expresses concern about discussing such controversial topics, as it puts his newly created channel, "Blower Sky Résurrection," at risk. He warns that continuously tackling divisive subjects leads to channels being shut down, eventually resulting in him being permanently banned from YouTube and becoming a "digital pariah," unable to speak or communicate. He emphasizes that being a YouTuber is his livelihood, and such polemical topics endanger his professional life. Despite the risks, the speaker proceeds to address the topic. He observes that not only is it strange that there are so many "ugly" women, but he feels their number is increasing, likening it to the expansion of the universe. He ponders why "ugly" women might have a particular disposition to reproduce more than beautiful women, which he finds "strange." The speaker believes he has found a reason and uses an analogy to explain why men might not pursue the most beautiful women. He first clarifies that he doesn't consider beauty subjective, despite common belief. He then pauses to observe a bird (possibly a stork or a grey heron) nearby, describing its actions and proximity. Returning to the analogy, the speaker explains that he could eat at Michelin-starred restaurants daily but chooses not to, living a "minimalist hobo life" and rarely visiting expensive establishments. He applies this to the choice of partners, stating that "ugly" women are "less expensive." He argues that everything has a price, including women, and while everyone would prefer beautiful women, not everyone is willing to pay an "exorbitant price" for them. Instead, people choose from a "scale of beauty or ugliness," assigning values and prices. This, he asserts, is how all men operate, following the law of supply and demand. Women are prioritized, and if the speaker's preferred choices are "too expensive," he moves on to the next. He defines "ultra beautiful" women as those whose beauty is universally agreed upon by a representative sample of men. He acknowledges that individual tastes vary, citing his own preference for tall, white-skinned, voluptuous women, even older ones, while his friends might prefer small, skinny women in their twenties. However, there are also "consensual beauties" that all men, regardless of individual tastes, agree are attractive, and these women typically "cost much more." The speaker posits that beauty is the "pure expression of desire," meaning a woman is not desired because she is beautiful, but rather she is beautiful because she is desired. Desire comes first, and the perception of beauty is a consequence of that desire, essentially an attraction. He then poses a fundamental question: if a woman is twice as beautiful as another, would one pay 100 times more, or even 10 times more? The answer is likely no. Would one pay twice as much? Probably yes. 10% more? Most certainly yes, as it would feel like a good deal—twice as beautiful, twice as much desire, for only 10% more. However, in reality, a woman who is twice as beautiful often costs 5 or 10 times more, leading to a "renunciation" because while men appreciate beauty, they also want to protect their finances. Some men even set a budget for women, which influences their choices. This, the speaker concludes, explains why there are so many "ugly" women around them: beautiful women are simply too expensive to maintain, take out, or even for short-term encounters. He admits to often dismissing the most beautiful women, thinking "she's too beautiful," because he anticipates their demands will be excessive. Finally, the speaker offers a last point: finding women who are considered "ugly" by others but beautiful to oneself. He considers this "top-notch," often referring to ordinary women like waitresses or everyday women who trigger a more burning desire in him than universally recognized beauties. This is "magnificent" because such women don't see themselves as beautiful, nor do other men, yet there's an immediate "alchemical compatibility." He illustrates this with an example from Asia, where tall, voluptuous women are not considered beautiful because the prevailing beauty standard favors slender, skinny women with "stake-like" legs, emphasizing thinness. He, however, appreciates women with curves, especially "beautiful round buttocks," clarifying he's not referring to Latina stereotypes. The speaker concludes, hoping to have answered the question, and wishes the audience a good day.