Everything modern is always worse
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (53)
sorted by:
or fake breasts, inflated lips, or plumped-up bums
Or, fake as hell, blond dye jobs.
Oh there were plenty of fake blondes in the 1970s. I was there.
I belive that is were , do the drapes match the carpet. Came from.
I didn't get to see "carpets" back then, at least in the early 70s, but I could see that eyebrows and lashes didn't match the hair. Also, there were a lot of roots showing.
Or mutants, karens, npcs, wokes
And all of them are VERY PRETTY!!!!
Are those Joey’s sisters? 😂
Ironic, considering this idyllic photo of feminine beauty of "1970s Ladies" was created using very modern AI.
Just wondering why a REAL photo of REAL women wasn't used. Kind of defeats the point.
The fact that people are praising an AI created photo on how NATURAL and NOT FAKE they are is just hilarious. Unintentionally hilarious, but hilarious just the same.
iT mUsT bE fAkE iTs aI hOnEsT!
Good Lord, the mental gymnastics this must take...
No, this is why I say it's AI:
Extreme facial similarity across all women (mode collapse: same bone structure, eyes, noses, smiles).
Uniformly flawless, airbrushed skin with no natural texture or imperfections.
Modern soft, even lighting inconsistent with 1970s film photography.
Glossy, overly voluminous hair with unnatural sheen on multiple subjects.
Overly coordinated outfits, colors, and poses (feels like a prompt rather than real period clothing).
Lack of authentic film grain, color fading, or scan artifacts.
Group photo coherence issues typical of diffusion models (similar faces + consistent lighting).
Also, no bare midriffs.
Got an extra fluffy pussy front and center tho. 🐱
Coincidence. The photo was probably taken in the early spring. No bare midriff for the photo, but this was the era of the "Swinger" dress. It was so short it came with a matching panty cover.
It's AI
What makes you say so? Is there something specific in hair or dress?
Extreme facial similarity across all women (mode collapse: same bone structure, eyes, noses, smiles).
Uniformly flawless, airbrushed skin with no natural texture or imperfections.
Modern soft, even lighting inconsistent with 1970s film photography.
Glossy, overly voluminous hair with unnatural sheen on multiple subjects.
Overly coordinated outfits, colors, and poses (feels like a prompt rather than real period clothing).
Lack of authentic film grain, color fading, or scan artifacts.
Group photo coherence issues typical of diffusion models (similar faces + consistent lighting).
Thank you. I was waiting for "these are all the same woman (face)"
No blondes?
It's an Israeli propaganda image generated with AI to show us the 'sexy liberated Iranian women' that could exist if white men would just go kill some more of their neighbors for them.
Ironic as hell considering that liberating women has virtually destroyed America.
Why bother? There are tons of photos that exist from Iran prior to the Muslim takeover. All would be in the public domain by now. They are photos of young Iranian women in Western dress.
Why bother? Because it only takes a minute or two to create a photo like this with AI, vs having to search for a real one that is as "perfect" as this is.
Laziness. That's why they bother.
Prove me wrong. Go see how long it takes you to find a comparable photo of 9 attractive women from the 1970s, that proves the point the OP is trying to make as well as this AI image did, that could be made in under 3 minutes with a free image AI.
Less than 30 seconds. Search term "Iranian co-eds 1970's"
Don't ask people to prove you wrong and certainly don't bring time into it. They'll come back with something that ignores a key element of your requested proof while still appearing victorious to lazy onlookers, and they'll lie about how long it took.
Could be, but they don't look Iranian.
And there's a big difference between liberating them from burka-covered chattel slavery and feminism, the false promise of men's material benefits without the price of men's work. And agreed: feminism is among the worst things to happen to our country.
It's how AI decided to generate them when told to generate attractive 70's Iranian women.
If the jew generating the image had pushed for more authenticity, it would have reduced or eliminated the image's sex appeal... and sex appeal is the heart & soul of this flavor of propaganda.
You likely would never have seen this image if they had gone for high authenticity because virtually no one would repost it or upvote it.
Note: To be clear, it might not be fully AI generated. The jew might have provided - to the AI - a collection of images, or a rudimentary composite, or an actual old photo... but AI did produce this image.
Why do you think they don't look Iranian? Do you know many Iranian women?
Because looking at the facial structure, and all dark brunettes, I can definitely see how they could be identified as Iranian.
It's not impossible that they are Iranian. But there's nothing to say that they are, so if a propagandist wanted it to look like "sexy Iranian women" the fact that it doesn't is poor execution.
What do you think a stereotypical Iranian woman would look like, that would instantly identify her as Iranian?
I'm just curious why you would just instantly dismiss the possibility, because you think they don't look Iranian? What exactly makes a woman look Iranian, to you?
I'd expect at least some of them to have big noses. And some to have slightly darker skin. And if it were propaganda to show they were Iranian, there might be something with Persian text or a landmark. Iran's a big country so it's not impossible that they're Iranian, but they don't look it to me, along with the homogeneity. I live near enough to L.A.'s "Tehrangeles" to have some familiarity. I'd also expect some jewelry.
Ok. Big noses, dark skin, jewelry= Iranian. Got it. Thanks.
Essentially correct. Iranian women, like most middle-eastern women, are generally some of the least attractive women on the planet, requiring gobs of makeup or surgery to not look masculine.
In fact, prior to AI, the propagandists would often use photos of Iranian beauty pageant contestants and pass them off as average Iranians. And those contestants were usually Iranians that had some foreign blood in their family (eg, European or Siberian).
As an aside, in these 'sexy-Iranian' propaganda images, the propagandists avoid Persian text because it was so strongly visually associated with 'terrorists' during the 'war on terror'. If the image has Persian text in it, they will almost always crop/shop it out.
Your point is valid. This propaganda image would usually be accompanied by text labeling them as Iranian.
In this case, it's being reused in a more subtle manner to implant a concept, or nourish a previously implanted concept.
Big hairy beavers ftw
Wish they wouldn’t use AI photos. But, I get the point.
I want the one on the far right because of the big legs.
Yeah the best one is on far right (standing). I remember in the 70s people making fun of me because my gf had a perfect booty by today’s standards. Back then was considered fat because everyone was so damn skinny
Take me down to the Paradise City where the grass is green and the girls are pretty. Ooh won't you please take my home. Yeah yeah
I’m bummed it’s AI. After looking closely, the girl on the bottom row, second from left, has a missing left forearm. 😞
I think modern women get too much of a bad name on here . Plenty of MAGA Christian women with colored hair, piercings, tattoos etc
I have no idea why we, the people who get accused of wearing tin foil hats and being in cults, gravitate towards purity culture so much when in fact most of us are incredibly counter culture in our own different ways
My wife has a nose piercing and anime tattoos. Doesn't make her less Maga or Q or Christian. I have long hair and am gender non conforming and yet I am probably one of the most awake on Q people and very much a devoted (although esoteric) Christian
I'd be pretty sad to live in a theocracy of Sarah Plain and Tall Stepford wives. Maga and Q are for everyone not just wasps..
Leviticus 19:28, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
By that logic shrimp, pork, mixed fabrics and hybrid plants are all sinful.
At least IMHO old testament "laws" gatekeep Christianity and keep a lot of people from seeking Christ
Uh. Sorry but Christianity does not support piercings and tats. Even though all the murals and stained glass show saints with tatoos lol
I can't imagine God chewing out marine vets with tattoos when they get to heaven lol
Nah, it only pertains to women, apparently.
😂
The most radical girl in that picture has on pants. My sisters didnt get to wear pants to publoc high school until 1975. She night have them.on under a skirt, or maybe they are tights.