>>992### Psychological Profile of the Poster
Based on the content of the post, which appears to be a screenshot from an anonymous imageboard like 4chan (given the formatting, anonymous user, thread numbering, and filename timestamp), I'll provide a comprehensive psychological analysis. This is an estimation derived from the language, themes, and structure of the rant, drawing on common patterns in online behavior, psychological research on misogyny, and similar content observed in web searches for anti-makeup diatribes. Note that without direct access to the individual, this is speculative but grounded in observable traits. I'll break it down by key categories.
#### Overall Character Traits
-
Misogynistic and Dehumanizing: The poster exhibits strong misogyny, framing women as inherently deceptive, inferior, and objectified. Terms like "whores" and references to women "putting that shit on" their faces to deceive men suggest a view of women as manipulative or sexually promiscuous. This aligns with objectification theory, where women are reduced to their appearance and utility to men. The claim that scraping off makeup reveals "significantly worse" faces than men's implies a belief in male superiority, potentially rooted in evolutionary psychology distortions (e.g., seeing makeup as "false advertising" in mate selection).
-
Aggressive and Vulgar: The language is crude and hyperbolic ("revolting shit," "soul utterly chaste," "penis retract inside of my body"), indicating poor impulse control or a deliberate shock value to provoke reactions. This could reflect antisocial traits or a desire for dominance in anonymous spaces, where accountability is low.
-
Judgmental and Entitled: The poster positions themselves as an arbiter of beauty and morality, declaring what "beautiful women" do or don't do. This suggests entitlement, possibly narcissistic, where the poster's opinions are presented as universal truths. The insistence that makeup "ruins" women and makes them less desirable implies a personal grievance, as if women owe men an "authentic" appearance.
-
Hypocritical or Self-Contradictory: While decrying makeup as toxic and unnatural, the poster ignores that many men use grooming products (e.g., skincare, hair products) without similar scrutiny. This selective outrage points to gender-based bias rather than genuine concern for health.
#### Mindset and Cognitive Patterns
-
Resentment and Projection: The rant reads as a projection of personal insecurities onto women. Phrases like "makes my soul utterly chaste and my penis retract" suggest sexual frustration or repulsion, possibly from past rejections or unfulfilled desires. This is common in "incel" (involuntary celibate) mindsets, where external factors (like makeup as "deception") are blamed for romantic failures rather than self-reflection. The poster's disgust toward made-up women could mask envy or inadequacy, projecting their own perceived flaws onto others.
-
Black-and-White Thinking: The worldview is dichotomous—makeup is "utterly revolting" with no nuance; beautiful women "don't use makeup at all"; men "ALWAYS" have nicer skin. This all-or-nothing cognition is linked to cognitive distortions in conditions like depression, anxiety, or personality disorders (e.g., borderline or narcissistic traits), where complexity is avoided in favor of simplistic judgments.
-
Conspiratorial or Anti-Modern Elements: Exaggerating makeup ingredients (e.g., "scale insects and beaver anuses")—which references real but outdated or minor components like carmine (from cochineal bugs) and castoreum (beaver-derived, rarely used today)—suggests a mindset drawn to sensationalism or pseudoscience. This could indicate paranoia about "toxins" or a broader distrust of societal norms, common in online echo chambers that amplify anti-feminist narratives.
-
Emotional Underpinnings: The intensity hints at underlying anger, loneliness, or low self-esteem. The post may serve as catharsis, venting frustrations in a safe, anonymous space. Research on online misogyny (e.g., from forums like 4chan's /pol/ or /r9k/) shows such rants often stem from perceived social exclusion, where attacking women boosts a fragile ego.
-
Possible Motivations for Posting: Attention-seeking or validation from like-minded users. In anonymous boards, such posts often aim to spark threads of agreement or debate, reinforcing the poster's biases through community echo.
#### Demographics Estimation
-
Gender: Almost certainly male, given the first-person references to "my penis" and the focus on how makeup affects male attraction/repulsion. The derogatory tone toward women further supports this.
-
Age: Likely 18-35, with a lean toward 20s. The slang ("shit on their face," "ugly-pill"), meme-like exaggeration, and familiarity with internet culture (e.g., referencing makeup ingredients that circulate in viral "fun facts") point to someone young and online-immersed. Older individuals might express similar views but with less vulgarity or more structured arguments.
-
Education Level: Moderate—high school or some college. The poster knows niche facts about makeup (e.g., insects, beaver anuses), suggesting self-taught research via the internet, but misapplies them hyperbolically without critical analysis. This could indicate autodidactic tendencies but limited formal critical thinking skills.
-
Occupation and Socioeconomic Status: Possibly unemployed, underemployed, or in a low-skill job (e.g., NEET—Not in Education, Employment, or Training). The post's timing (Sunday evening, November 30, 2025) and length suggest free time for rumination. Socioeconomically, middle to lower-middle class; resentment toward "beautiful women" might stem from feeling economically or socially outclassed.
-
Location and Cultural Background: English-speaking, likely from a Western country like the US, UK, or Canada. The Americanized slang and focus on gender norms align with North American internet culture. Possible suburban or rural setting, where social isolation amplifies online engagement.
-
Relationship Status: Single, possibly with limited romantic experience. The sexual revulsion and idealization of "natural" women suggest difficulty forming relationships, potentially due to high standards or social anxiety.
#### Societal Status and Lifestyle
-
Social Integration: Low—likely socially isolated, with primary interactions online. Anonymous posting avoids real-world accountability, common among those with poor offline social skills. May participate in male-dominated online communities (e.g., gaming, red-pill forums) that reinforce anti-women views.
-
Mental Health Indicators: Potential signs of depression (e.g., fixation on negativity), anxiety (e.g., repulsion themes), or cluster B personality traits (e.g., dramatic language). The post echoes body dysmorphia projected outward, or even erotophobia (fear of sexual matters). If chronic, this could link to broader issues like alexithymia (difficulty expressing emotions) or untreated trauma.
-
Political and Ideological Leanings: Right-leaning or alt-right adjacent, given the anti-feminist tone and emphasis on "natural" hierarchies (men > women). Echoes "red-pill" ideology, where societal "truths" about gender are uncovered. May consume content from figures like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, twisted to extremes.
-
Hobbies and Interests: Internet-heavy—memes, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience. The accompanying image (armored figure in a poppy field, possibly from a film like *Gladiator* or a game, evoking stoic masculinity) suggests interest in warrior archetypes, fantasy, or historical romanticism as an escape from modern life.
#### Potential Influences and Broader Context
-
Cultural Influences: Draws from online misogyny trends, like "no-makeup" memes or "fraudmaxxing" (accusing women of faking beauty). Web searches reveal similar sentiments in anti-makeup discussions, often tied to patriarchal pressures (e.g., men criticizing "cakefaces" while ignoring their own grooming). This post amplifies it to an extreme, possibly inspired by viral "gross facts" about cosmetics.
-
Risk Factors: If this mindset persists, it could lead to real-world harm, like harassment or isolation. However, many such posters are "keyboard warriors" who vent online but function normally offline.
-
Positive Potential: If the poster is young, this could be a phase of identity formation. Exposure to diverse views might encourage growth, though anonymous spaces often entrench biases.
In summary, this appears to be a frustrated, isolated young man projecting insecurities through misogynistic hyperbole. The rant serves as an outlet for unprocessed emotions, rooted in a distorted view of gender and beauty. If real, it highlights how online anonymity can amplify toxic mindsets.
