Science Proves It: The Best Age For a Woman is 17

Studies all over the world have shown that men and boys find that the most beautiful women of all are aged 17. This makes sense because at that age a female is fertile, healthy and has a long, healthy breeding and mothering period ahead of her.

So, here in the US, what is normal is deemed sick, evil, perverted and pedophilic.

We have been discussing this theme here for a while now, and here is yet another take on it, this time from the UK.

Suffice to say that most of the outrage over grown men looking at young women and teenage girls comes from females. The fact that this perfectly normal behavior has become pathologized in feminized America shows you what happens when you let women take over your society: catastrophe.

This disaster will continue apace until enough non-mangina males and real women (not feminists) rise up and overthrow the Female Dictatorship that we labor under, restoring a more normative unbiased rule of law in which neither the male nor the female view of sex is prejudiced or given preference.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

24 thoughts on “Science Proves It: The Best Age For a Woman is 17”

  1. “The age of consent in 16 in my Midwestern state. This means it is perfectly legal for a 50 year old man to fuck a 16 year old girl, in most cases.”

  2. I must say that the quality and quantity has deteriorated on your site since you started giving daily traffic updates. I do like to read them actually, but would prefer you limit them to once a week. Better yet, why not have a Site Meter widget so visitors can see where your visitors are arriving from?

    1. I don’t give em every day.

      I’ve been trying to merge them together so they are not so repetitive.

      They actually drive traffic believe it or not. Truth to tell, I don’t really care if they piss people off, because as long as traffic keeps going up, that’s pretty much all I’m concerned about.

      I’ve been sick lately, so those are practically the only posts I am making.

    1. Dunno, I think I’m going to start tuning them down though. They piss off too many people. Actually, I think I am going to start combining them as Scott says.

      They work off a very simple principle of psychology – the reason that self-promotion works. It’s called “Everyone loves a winner and no one wants to admit they bought a lemon, or no one likes a loser.”

      If people think your site is big and successful, that tends to drive more and more traffic to it on the success principle. That is, success excites people and makes people want to patronize a successful entity, whether human or a product of any kind. On the other hand, no one wants to patronize an object that is deemed as unsuccessful, whether a human or a product. Success drives more success through excitement. Failure drives more failure, as people smell failure and start to run from it.

      Honestly, most of the people complaining are not necessarily my favorite commenters. They’re mostly the White racists and a few commenters who were never all that friendly anyway. If these posts drive the White racists away, I’d almost say they were worth it.

  3. I assume you are referring to me as one of your racist commentators. I do not consider myself a racist, but I do not believe in genetic egalitarianism. Do you believe in genetic egalitarianism?

    My synopsis of your definition is as such: If you support policies that are not in the interests of Blacks (reducing wealth transfers from Whites to social programs targeting inner cities, for example) you are racist, at least a de facto racist.

    So if you support policies that help Blacks, you are a non-racist. If you support policies that help Whites, you are racist.

    Any questions?

    1. Yeah, but you’re one of the nicer ones.

      🙂

      You *are* a racist, Shawn. For Chrissake man, you know it for a fact. You’re a White nationalist, and that’s simply an out and out de facto racist movement to the core.

      You’re not an anti-Semite or a Nazi though and you’re basically a lot more pleasant that most of those guys. You’ve also been very friendly to me and the site as a whole, and a lot of those guys haven’t really been.

      tulio’s a race realist and he’s Black. So’s Alpha Unit in her own way. You don’t have to believe in egalitarian silliness to be a non-racist.

      Nothing wrong with helping Whites, but when you do so by hurting Blacks, I suspect that such folks don’t have real friendly feelings towards Black folks?

  4. I don’t consider myself racist; in fact, I recoil at the word. The media characterizes ‘racists’ as being vile, poor, backward, toothless, trailer trash. Who would want to be associated with that?

    The pursuit of racial interests is often a zero sum game. What is good for Whites is oftentimes a negative for Blacks, and, vice-versa. The interests of Blacks and Hispanics overlap to a certain degree though in the same way White interests often overlap with Asians.

    Thank goodness I am able to enclose myself in what I call “White spaces.” I prefer Whites–simple as that.

    1. Yes, you’re a racist. I checked with a friend of mine today. The Whites who say they don’t want money going from industrious, hardworking Whites towards social programs for Blacks are indeed racists. However, this view is extremely common in US White society, in fact, I think the majority of US Whites believe this. This is not quite the real nasty form of racism.

      Wouldn’t you agree that everyone on American Renaissance is a racist? Aren’t all White nationalists racists? All the AR posters I ran into were racists, pretty much, with a few exceptions. I’ve never met a non-racist White nationalist. They simply don’t exist.

      Furthermore, you’ve made quite a few comments on here for a long time now that are obviously racist.

      Never mind the (Jewish) media. Of course they want to portray all White racists as backwoods hillbillies. I assure you that they are not. Many wealthy, upper middle class and middle class Whites are quite racist. A lot of guys who wear suits and ties and work in offices are racists. Lots of lawyers and doctors are racists. White racists are everywhere, including the most respectable looking White folks.

      You really ought to just claim the word racist. Or just say, “Ok Bob, well, if not wanting White $ to go towards social programs for Blacks makes me a racist, then I’m definitely a racist all right.” Shrug. Just claim it and move on. That’s what I do.

      Do you think Jared Taylor is a racist? The guy’s clearly a racist. Isn’t that obvious? Even Ian Jobling is definitely a racist. There are lots of White racists that are not exactly Stormfront material.

      Furthermore, I think it is quite clear after having you on the board for a long time now that you have animus towards Blacks. I don’t think you have much animus towards other minorities too much, but for sure towards Blacks. This once again is typical for “casual” White racism, which is mostly about Blacks and less about other races.

      Nevertheless, we like you here, or at least I do, and I enjoy your company.

  5. “Wouldn’t you agree that everyone on American Renaissance is a racist?”

    It hard to say because I believe the word “racist” doesn’t really make much sense to me. The majority of people hold the belief that “racists” believe in the superiority of a race. Therefore nearly everyone is racist, including many of the most liberal people out there–all racists.. Now we can refine the definition as we see fit, but still. I DO think that everyone on American Renaissance holds some animus towards Blacks, but in general this feeling is justifiable.

    “Nevertheless, we like you here, or at least I do, and I enjoy your company.”

    Thanks!

    1. Yeah, I don’t agree with that definition either. OTOH, folks that are quite outspoken about their race being superior, well, they are racists, plain and simple. It’s not something you are supposed to go around shouting to the skies.

      Yeah, not too many pro-Blacks on Amren. I’ve seen a few, but they are rare.

  6. Here’s an interesting thought.

    Perhaps more people would become liberal of human biodiversity was accepted as fact. Since traits such as intelligence, sloth, personality, and so forth are in part determined by genes, how could conservatives say that it is so and so’s fault for their dire predicament? Right now republicans argue that the poor should not have as many programs as they do because they lack a strong work ethic, drop out of school, etc. But if people are GENETICALLY disadvantaged and this is not covered up, how much harder would it be to argue against handouts?

    1. I have made an argument precisely along these lines in favor of Liberal Race Realism, Shawn. One problem is that minorities won’t cotton to people more or less telling them that it’s not their fault that they are screwing up. At best it will be seen as pity, and pity can be insulting if you have dignity.

  7. It seems generally in our society age 20-25 is considered prime for women but that could be due to political correctness. Roissy who has a site about “Game” puts it btw 17-20. I personally agree that its around 16, 17, or 18.

  8. I guess I’m a little late at posting but I definitely look better now at age 21 than I did at 17. I have a better body, nicer face, nicer style. Also, all women vary. Some women develop a style and nice body in their older years. Having said that, obviously some women look better in their teen years if they stop taking care of themselves as they get older. I’m confused how this research was conducted. Also, men have all kinds of different preferences. Also, the fact that you claim when women take over society, catastrophe follows causes me to doubt the legitimacy of your website and its information. Look at what happened when men were in charge – Rape, racism, slavery, forced marriage, war – that seems a bit more catastrophic than men being demonized for being attracted to young women. Also, in history many young girls have been forced to have sex and be married off against their will so there is some legitimate concern for young girls being sexualized. Among that, I’m sure the jealousy of older women also plays a role in demonizing men who find a 17 year old attractive.
    Also, I think the reason why women get upset when such young girls are considered their “prime” is because it happens so fast. How does that make older women feel about themselves? That they are only full of worth when they aren’t even a full grown woman? Anyways, “the best age for a woman being 17” is making the assumption that the best aspect of a woman is her sexual ripeness. What is the best age for a woman was decided by WOMEN, not men? Doesn’t that seem a little more fair? Maybe us at our best is not when men’s penises are the most erect for us but when we feel the best about ourselves, have accomplished as much as we can and feel the most at peace about who we are as individuals and contributing members of society.

    1. Welcome to the site! WRT to your opening, keep in mind that most beauty contests specialize in women about ages 20-22. Seems to be about prime for beauty for a female. So you are right in your prime then.

  9. My physical age is about five years behind my chronoligical age. Many people’s bodies do not resemble their calendar age, so you can’t pinpoint a prime age for men or women.

  10. I was going to say there was an article that I can’t find that said that the idea women had the body of a 20 year old and face of a 16 year old.

  11. Haha that might be true, oh to be 17…
    It is also the age that girls need the most self-esteem building and men can swoop in and support them. Women needing men exponentially decreases after this age…perhaps this is what men find less attractive?

    any way, being 18, I feel that I may be most attractive now but as for being attracted to anyone over 30…ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (except for george clooney…and no one else looks remotely like him).

    1. You are right. I am 54. While a few girls your age act like they are turned on by me, I think it’s obvious that most of that age are not interested in getting involved with me no matter how they feel about me. I simply assume that most girls your age are not interested in me and tend to operate from that assumption.

  12. Hey, I’m a Russian- Norwegian American Feminist, and while I appreciate the first pieces of information you gave, I dislike you dissing and blaming feminism! “Edge of Seventeen” by the great Stevie Nicks is one of my favorite songs. She’s a feminist and a humanist, believing we all are equals in every way. Because of people like her America has advanced by leaps and bounds in the sexual revolution. Artists like Beyonce and Rihanna have enabled, liberated women to express themselves in whatever they want. You talk of the age 17 law as it applies to females? But hey, I’m 21 and you know what? If I fucked a 17 year old I would find myself in the same legal shit. THIS ISN’T A SEXIST THING. It’s called that 4 year gap would absolutely give me an advantage over someone still in their teens, and maybe that’s not fair, to them. If I can respect that, why can’t you. Why not spend a year Not fucking them and just talking if they’re really that “fertile and healthy…” Geez, people fall in love at all ages but if someone told me they were into me for that reason… I’d pull out of that relationship real fast. I mean what about their spirit? Reproductive systems just consist of organs and all the right hormones. What about the soul?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *