You are here

From ape to human – the journey in pictures

I came across an excellent resource that graphically illustrates the path taken by humans to attain their present form, and we can infer how our sense of facial attractiveness has transformed.  This in the form of a book, “The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty Two Species of Extinct Humans.”  It does a great job of putting a face on ancestral species leading to modern humans.  This book illustrates meticulous reconstructions of fossils.  An example of a Homo heidelbergenis reconstruction is shown below.

Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis
Reconstructing the face of a 350,000-year-old human. Start from left. Stage 1: A cast of a Homo heidelbergenis skull found in Atapuerca, Spain. Stage 2: After the addition of missing or damaged teeth and the reconstruction of the eye orbit. Stage 3: After the application of some deep soft tissues. Stage 4: After the application of most of the superficial soft tissues. Stage 5: The right half shows the complete deep and superficial soft tissue reconstruction, and the left half shows the complete facial reconstruction. Stage 6: After the application of skin. Stage 7: After the application of facial hair.

When looking at the illustrations, a few things should be kept in mind. 

  • In the reconstructions, the skin color is the best guess of the artist.
  • The pictures on this page should not be taken as representative examples.  Just as there is tremendous face shape diversity among modern humans, great diversity also existed among the ancestral species, but the reconstruction team can only work with the skull(s) on hand, and the reconstruction process is very tedious, making it unlikely that we will find very many examples of reconstructions.
  • The arrangement is roughly along the line of time of appearance/existence.
  • The dates list estimates of the age of the fossil (single date) or the period of the existence of the species as inferred from their remains (date range).

The great apes

The ape group currently comprises of gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

female gibbon orangutans common chimpanzee common chimpanzee
bonobo bonobo bonobo gorilla gorilla
First row from left: female gibbon, male (left) and female orangutan, two common chimpanzees. Second row from left: three bonobo chimpanzees, two gorillas.

Earliest African hominids

Hominids are creatures belonging to the human-ape family.  The earliest African hominids looked like apes.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Northern Chad; ~ 7 million years ago (mya)).

Orrorin tugenesis

Orrorin tugenesis
Orrorin tugenesis (Kenya; 6.2 – 5.65 mya; only part of the jaw/some teeth recovered).

Ardipithecus ramidus/kadabba

Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus (Ethiopia; kadabba is 5.55 – 5.18 mya, ramidus is 4.42 mya; Ramidus: some teeth, some jaw parts, incomplete skull base, a skull wall fragment). Paintings shown.

Appearance of the human lineage

These looked in between apes and humans, and walked upright.  Some had faces closer to those of apes than humans.  They have been called ape-men or man-apes.

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis (Kenya; 4.17 – 3.77mya; closer to 4.17mya).

Kenyanthropus platyops

Kenyanthropus platyops
Kenyanthropus platyops (Kenya; 3.57 – 3.4 mya; 3.4 – 2.5mya). This appears to be a painting.

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus afarensis male Australopithecus afarensis female Australopithecus afarensis juvenile
Australopithecus afarensis (Ethiopia, also possibly Kenya; 3.4 – 2.92mya). Adult male (left), adult female (middle) and child.  The adult female is the reconstruction of the famous fossil of Lucy.

Paranthropus aethiopicus

Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus aethiopicus (Ethiopia and Kenya; 2.8 – 2.3mya).

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus garhi (Central Ethiopia; 2.46mya).

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus africanus juvenile
Australopithecus africanus (Transvaal (South Africa); 3.5 – 2.5mya). Adult and baby.

Paranthropus robustus/crassidens

Paranthropus robustus
Paranthropus robustus (South Africa; 1.8 – 1mya).

Appearance of Homo (Humans)

All species names beginning with Homo are human species.  All but one human species went extinct but the surviving human species has absorbed other human species.(1, pdf)

Homo rudolfensis

Homo rudolfensis
Homo rudolfensis (Kenya; 1.9 – 1.88mya).

Homo habilis

Homo habilis male Homo habilis female
Homo habilis (Tanzania; 1.83 – 1.53mya); male (left) and female adults.

Paranthropus boisei

Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus boisei (Kenya and Ethiopia; 2.3 – 1.4 mya). An odd entry, but the arrangement is by time of appearance.

Homo ergaster

Homo ergaster Homo ergaster boy
Homo ergaster (Kenya, possibly South Africa; 1.9 – 1.49mya). An adult is shown on the left. Note that the juvenile (boy) bears some resemblance to twentieth century adult Australian aboriginals whereas the adult (man) looks much more ancestral.

Homo georgicus

Homo georgicus
Homo georgicus (Dmanisi (Georgia); 1.81 – 1.77mya).

Homo erectus

Homo erectus
Homo erectus (Indonesia; 1.9mya – 29,000 years ago).

Homo pekinensis

Homo pekinensis
Homo pekinensis (China; most are approximately 600,000 – 420,000 years old).

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis
Homo floresiensis (Flores (Indonesia); 74,000 – 12,000 years ago).

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor
Homo antecessor (Spain; ~ 700,000 years ago).

Homo rhodesiensis

Homo rhodesiensis
Homo rhodesiensis (Zambia; ~ 600,000 years ago).

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo heidelbergensis Homo heidelbergensis
Homo heidelbergensis (England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Morocco; 400,000 – 150,000 years ago).

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo neanderthalensis male Homo neanderthalensis male Homo neanderthalensis female Homo neanderthalensis female
Homo neanderthalensis (Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Iraq, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Uzbekistan; 175,000 – 27,000 years ago). Males (left two) and female. The female reconstruction is taken from a National Geographic article on Neanderthals that has been addressed previously.

Homo sapiens

These are modern humans.  The earliest appearance of modern humans depends on how strict one’s definition of modern human is.  If a high prevalence of ancestral features such as a poorly developed chin (can be found in significant frequencies among present sub-Saharan Africans and present Australian aborigines) or a single, prominent brow bone (can be found in some Australian aborigines) are included as part of modern humans, then modern humans date to 250,000 – 300,000 years ago in sub-Saharan Africa.  A stricter definition would allow a low frequency of features that are rare or absent in most if not all current human populations, and this would contract the origin of modern humans to about 150,000 – 100,000 years ago.   

150,000 years old Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 150,000 year old (the species is found in all continents except Antarctica).  The approximate resemblance is to current Australian aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans.  A way to imagine many of the earliest modern humans or borderline modern humans is to picture a sub-Saharan African or, better still, an Australian aboriginal with an overall flattened mid-facial region as seen in current Northeast Asians.

In the present, humans vary widely along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant.

Australian aborigines Australian aborigines Central Africans Asiatic woman Nikolai Valuev
20th century humans showing facial features more obviously indicative of human descent from the ancestral species. The overall highest frequency of ancestral features of the skull are found in Australian aborigines, especially in unmixed individuals of some tribes such as the Tasmanians, closely followed by sub-Saharan Africans. The most ancestral form of overall facial flatness (side view) is found among sub-Saharan African populations. Nevertheless, individuals can be found in any human population who leave no doubt about where we are coming from. Examples are not representative.

European Europeans European European
20th century humans illustrating more overall derived facial features. Examples are not representative.

Broad changes in the ape-to-human face shape transformation are shown below.

Ape and man face comparison
A sketch of basic differences between the human and the ape face.

The size of the present human face has reduced compared to ancestral humans. This process requires less deposition of bone in the face. The nuances of reduced bone deposition correspond to finer facial features.

G.J. Sawyer and Viktor Deak with some of their reconstructions of ancient humans. Adrie and Alfons Kennis with their reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman
Left: G.J. Sawyer and Viktor Deak, the two individuals largely responsible for the reconstructed faces in The Last Human, with many of their reconstructed fossils. Right: Adrie and Alfons Kennis with their reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman.

The consequences of growth retardation and shape changes resulting from other factors are shown below.

European male profile A comparison of shape change with growth in humans and chimpanzees Chimpanzee vs. human face shape
Left: A non-masculine (among men), large (6-foot-4) European male illustrating the derived form (see middle figure(2, pdf)). Both larger and less masculine skulls are more prognathic (more protuding jaws), yet note the regression of the jaw of the individual shown in the picture. If face growth is retarded during development, then one’s jaw doesn’t protrude as much even though the individual attains a large size. However, retardation of face growth cannot produce the projecting nasal bones, the projecting forehead and the well-developed chin of the illustrative example. Therefore, the ape-to-human face shape change involves both growth retardation and the development of a new face shape for humans (see figure at right(3)). This nuance is important. For instance, looking at the juvenile and adult faces of Homo ergaster and Australopithecus afarensis shown above, the juvenile faces are closer to our faces, which prompts the suggestion that human faces are neotenized faces of the ancestral species. Growth retardation is necessary but not sufficient for neoteny, and whereas growth retardation is responsible, in part, for making the jaws less protruding in humans, we can observe that the shape that has become us is a new, unique development, not the retention of an earlier development.

The direction of shift in aesthetic preferences with time roughly parallels the direction of shift in shape with time.  See more materials on preferences lying along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant.

Concluding remarks

G.J. Sawyer and Viktor Deak have put faces on our long-deceased ancestors and relatives...may their souls rest in peace.  Perhaps one day we shall join in Heaven our ancestors as well as relatives who ended up the losers of natural selection, meet them in the flesh, raised from the ashes in all their glory, with eternal life bequeathed unto them by the Gods, and, speaking a common tongue, reflect upon where we came from, what we became and what direction our descendents took in a journey that will not end till death does our species part from Earth and other locales our descendents may inhabit.

References

  1. Eswaran V, Harpending H, Rogers AR. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. J Hum Evol 2005;49(1):1-18.
  2. Lieberman DE, McBratney BM, Krovitz G. The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99(3):1134-1139.
  3. Penin X, Berge C, Baylac M. Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;118(1):50-62.
Categories: 

Comments

I was wondering: if masculinisation produces regressed jaws and men (I assume) do not have smaller teeth with increased masculinisation, does that mean that crowded teeth will tend to be rather more common in men and especially the more masculinised ones. (descend?nt, fig.2?). I have begun to realize how unusual this site is in that you allow commenters to sustain dissenting remarks - thanks!. I won't take it for granted in the future though.

Roy: The [relevant] illustration is about shape, and the citations clearly refer to shape comparisons, not size comparisons. Men have larger teeth than women (a size difference) but also larger faces than women (another size difference), on average. So having more regressed jaws shape-wise does not mean that the teeth have to be more crowded. Also note that with an increase in size there is an effect on shape also (allometry), i.e., the jaws becoming more protruding shape-wise with increasing skull size. Hence, compared to women, in men, a larger skull size makes the jaws more protruding shape-wise and masculinization makes the jaws more regressed shape-wise.

This site may be comparatively unusual in allowing free and sustained dissent or criticism, but the true oddity is with most other sites. What is the point of allowing comments by the readers when opposing viewpoints and evidence to the contrary are not welcome or poorly received?

I am confident that I can address most if not all counter-arguments and hence have no need to screen comments and remove those that I don’t like. My shortcoming is being unable to timely address counter-arguments, but a non-timely response from me should not be assumed to imply that I am unable to respond or have conceded the point(s). As long-term readers of this site should know, I can almost always take care of the criticism, and rest assured I will take care of all comments by you that I haven’t answered so far, eventually.

In addition, I cannot know everything, cannot be right all the time, and I need feedback to improve my arguments. Hence, I need critical commentary.

what does this have to do with beauty? I feel your that you have hidden agendas? Seriously, what exactly are you trying to prove with this article? The evolution of beauty? All I see is you telling us that Africans and Australian Aboriginees resemble our ancestors the monkeys more than other races? Oh wait you managed to squeeze in the Asians somewhere in there. Please explain to me in clear words what this article and display is about? I don't seem to be getting the point of it exactly?

Another of way of picturing the first fully modern humans might be to picture a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosian
not least because they have the most diverse or oldest-diverging (patrilinal) Y haplogroup and the largest genetic diversity in (matrilineally transmited) mtDNA, along with a flattened mid-facial region.
The oldest 'Black African' remains are too recent to justify implying they were around at the birth of humanity. And although this is not very scientific hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to die out in contact with civilisation. Black African have tended to flourish "In only 80 years Kenya's population has jumped from 2.9 million to 37 million"*. This may suggest that black Africans are not adapted to pre-agricultural conditions unlike pygmies who have a 'live fast, die short' strategy.

*Gunnar Heinsohn

dude you are...: There is nothing here for you to understand because what needs to be understood is written in clear, plain English. I mentioned no monkeys, let alone what you have inferred. Any human population belonging to the Homo sapiens species will be closer to any other population of Homo sapiens face-wise than to other human species or ancestral species. You said that I managed to squeeze in Asians but have you not seen the European right next to the Asian woman? Why do you keep coming back? Find something better to do than browsing this site.

Roy: Most ancestral/diverse Y and mtDNA do not imply that the bearers must also have the most ancestral facial features. Whereas the Khoi-San people have among the flattest nasal bones, their jaws are not as protruding as in many other African populations. Populations in central Africa are a better overall match for ancestral facial features than the Khoi-San. Yes, most hunter-gatherer populations have tended to die out after contact with civilization/Europeans, but these groups usually have small sizes, making them especially susceptible to die out because of lack of immunity against diseases brought in by outsiders, violence from outsiders after the outsiders were attacked by the hunter gatherers or merely out of malice, missionaries trying to Christianize the ‘savages’ and thereby destroying their culture and cohesion, etc. Sometimes the disappearance of hunter-gatherers largely coincides with contact with outsiders rather than being caused by it.

The Xhosa and Thembu of Southern Africa suffered a catastrophic loss in population size (100,000-plus dead) because of superstition in 1856-57. They believed that by killing their cattle and destroying their food, allegedly in response to a vision two of them had, they would be granted the death of the white man. All that happened was that most of them died for a stupid reason. The dark Africans are hardly better. The Afrikaners build them a First World society, they demand control, destroy it and allow the international bankers to loot the wealth created by the Afrikaners, but only the Afrikaners are blamed. If the dark Africans have flourished and greatly expanded their numbers, what has made this possible? What if the white man were to leave Africa and all aid to Africa were stopped? Even with the influence of the parasitic international bankers removed, the dark Africans are sustaining a population much larger than what they can maintain on their own.

A case has been made for Khoisan features in Grimaldi Man.

http://www/terradaily.com/reports/Magdalenian_Girl_Has_Oldest_Recorded_C...
Possibly caused by selection for a more feminine looking jaw, the time and place are right. There is no evidence at all that food changed in this period.

I don't understand. Why are the earliest ancestors (the great apes) still around today? i.e. Why are the great apes not extinct, yet all the other species of homo's and homonid's (except homo sapiens) have died out?

And do you beleive that human beings will ever acheive a state of almost perfect aesthetics? What would be required to reach a population with "perfect" aesthetics?

I am a white Australian, living in Australia and I have come accross some Australian aborigines, all in all, they have almost completely failed to adapt to western culture. They reject white people's customs and live in isolated communities in the outback in what is considered to be third world conditions. Could this be due to the fact they have "the overall highest frequency of ancestral features of the skull"? The Australian aborigines may feel out of place amongst white people which are the majority in most parts of Australia.

Alex: Many ape species are long extinct but some have survived. Apes descend from monkeys and only some of the monkey species that have ever appeared exist today. Some past species are no longer found because they transformed to newer species. And, some human species didn’t exactly disappear because some of their members were absorbed by the lineage leading to present humans. In nature, some species could persist with little outward alteration over tens of millions of years, whereas others could change rapidly or become extinct over a fraction of this period; there is tremendous variation.

‘Perfect aesthetics’ would be difficult to achieve naturally. If you look at human descent from the ancestral species, the details of what is aesthetically appealing have changed. Even if the aesthetic sense were to remain constant, many phenomena will continue to ensure plenty of people that will be found physically unattractive by many or most others: genetic mutations, developmental anomalies, sexually antagonistic selection, etc.

It is not just the Australian aborigines, but here in the U.S., all attempts to educate the West African stock on par with whites and make them comparably intellectually and economically productive have failed. Does this have anything to do with skull shape? If one were to examine a possible correlation between average IQ of a population and its average face shape, one will surely obtain a significant [ecological] correlation for the human species, but what will it mean? There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that the correlation is a coincidence without an underlying causal relationship. The second is that the correlation is entirely accounted for by a causal relationship that may be either of three types: lower intelligence results in a more overall ancestral face shape, a more overall ancestral face shape results in lower intelligence, or third party common underlying factors are simultaneously responsible for both lower intelligence and a more overall ancestral face shape. The third possibility is that the correlation is in part a coincidence and in part accounted for by a causal relationship.

In my estimation the third possibility is most likely. For instance, face shape and brain development are affected by common underlying factors, and you can see this being documented in this example of performance on subsets of intelligence tests being correlated with specific forms of variation in face shape in an European population (see fig 6). On the other hand, it is easy to come across some Africans or aborigines who have higher IQs than some Europeans notwithstanding more overall ancestral face shapes. And, there was a researcher who documented that the spatial location memory (ability to recall locations of objects in space) of Australian aborigines was on average higher than those of Europeans, and that this advantage corresponded to the relevant portion of the brain responsible being larger in the aborigines, though last I heard he was unable to find a journal willing to publish his article.

Roy: I have heard that the Grimaldi skeletons had prominent nasal bones, unlike the San of Southern Africa. Anyway, Brace documented that a sub-Saharan African element was present among the Natufians of Israel/Syria (13,000 – 10,000 years ago), some of whom moved up north. You said that there is no evidence that food changed during this period (13,000 to 15,000 years ago) in reference to impacted teeth found in the Magdalenian girl. Diet-related changes in teeth started about 250,000 years ago among humans in Europe, initially related to using heat to thaw frozen game. It would take a while for dental reduction to proceed to a point where impacted teeth are seen in significant frequencies.

"It is not just the Australian aborigines, but here in the U.S., all attempts to educate the West African stock on par with whites and make them comparably intellectually and economically productive have failed."

What in god's name does this racialist trash have to do with beauty?

fds:The passage you quoted doesn’t have anything to do with beauty, but as you can observe throughout this site, the discussion often digresses to off-topic issues, and I am usually not the person starting the off-topic discussion. You have yourself posted off-topic comments elsewhere.

You've piqued my interest with that comment about the IQ gap. Pray tell, what do you mean when ALL attempts to close the gaps have failed?

Alright, I'll steer clear of bringing up any topics related to IQ and the like. Still, if possible, can you provide me with any studies in regards to the skin color issue that I've mentioned before? Here's a further example of Peter Frost's work: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2006/12/skin-color-preference-in-sub-saharan.html

I've read time and time again of many cultures preferring lighter skin among females, but this doesn't seem to hold true at all for modern western societies. And what would you have to say in the case of males with very light skin? I've heard in a number of cases that they're disliked.

Erik, the Khoi-san are thought to be genetically the root stock of modern human populations worldwide. In all fairness, you should have shown a photo of this group.

The genetic record has recently become a lot more complete. I will leave it to you to do the searching to learn more on this (a good general non-Journal starting point is the National Geographic website, and the Prof John Hawkes blog http://johnhawks.net/weblog/ .

Africa was and is the home of multiple diverse root branches of H. Sapiens. One branch ultimately became the Khoisans, and the forefounders of this group underwent the first diaspora of modern H. Sapiens, moving and settling along the coastal Indian Sea. Further H.Sapiens groups from Kenya/Tanzania region had migrated into Asia, N. Africa and Europe bringing more diversity into Eurasia (comcomitant with back intermixing from Arabia to Kenya/Tanzania).

Apparently other antecedent branches of H. Sapiens had co-existed in Africa along with the group which later became Khoisans. The large size of the African continent and the geographic barriers of its jungles and climes helped maintain these branches as being rather independent over extended times. These other branches had different facial appearances. Later as population groups within Africa grew in population and migrated into different regions, with some taking up farming, the antecedent H. Sapiens branches mixed together and no longer exist as population isolates. This mixing of groups has left Africa with a rich genetic divcersity, and a rich diversity of appearances.

Introgression and microcephalin FAQ
Neandertal introgression, genetic-style
Introgression encore
The latest paper
A genetic legacy from archaic Homo
All wrong,
Scientists decode half of the Neanderthal genome

Neanderthals couldn't hunt over any distance or jump, The bony labyrinth of Neanderthals

Analysing the inner ear of a Neanderthal, Professor Fred Spoor, from UCL, has discovered clues to Neanderthal's agility.

The semi-circular canals of the inner ear provide us with our sense of balance, and by studying a range of animals, Spoor, has found a high correlation between the size of the canals and agility. Throughout human evolution, our canals seem to have increased in size as our agility has increased.

But Neanderthals have smaller canals than modern humans, and even earlier ancestors suggesting they were less agile.

Returning to the skeleton, Professor Trenton Holliday found an explanation for this - that the short limbs and wide pelvis of our Neanderthal would have resulted in less efficient locomotion than modern humans.

The energy costs in travelling would have been higher, and this would have been a serious evolutionary disadvantage
They were 'human' and derived but today they would belong in a zoo.

Diet-related changes in teeth started about 250,000 years ago among humans in Europe, initially related to using heat to thaw frozen game. It would take a while for dental reduction to proceed to a point where impacted teeth are seen in significant frequencies

If dental reduction means smaller teeth I'd expect to this to lessen the occurence of impacted wisdom teeth. My comment was referring to a reduction in jaw size resulting in the jaw being overcrowded with teeth so that the last teeth couldn't irrupt. Smaller jaws could have been selected for reasons this site makes clear
"The chin reduces in area and is displaced superiorly and posteriorly. The angle of the mandible is displaced toward the middle of the face, and the mandible is reduced in relative length."
What Europeans looked like before from someone cited here already
Angel (1972) noted that 14% of skeletal samples from early Neolithic Greece displayed apparently Negroid traits, in contrast to later periods.
When did Europeans become 'white'?
Black Africans have evolved too recently for any comparison with ancestral hominids to be enlightening. It is often assumed that black Africans, out of all human populations, most closely resemble our common ancestral state. After all, is not Africa the cradle of humanity? And did not modern humans spread ‘out of Africa’ some 50,000 or so years ago?

Indeed, we are all offspring of Africa. What is less true is the assumption that evolution stood still there while continuing elsewhere. Yes, some African groups do approximate ancestral Homo sapiens in their mode of subsistence, family structure, and physical appearance. These are the Khoisan and pygmy peoples. They still live by hunting and gathering, are overwhelmingly monogamous, and have light-brown skin and gracile, almost childlike bodies. Origins of black Africans

Re Hammer study "In many societies, a wife goes to live in her husband’s community after marriage. This has the effect of inflating the genetic diversity of women in any one community.../...
Finally, the burden of proof is on those who propose new methodologies, especially one that produces inconsistent results. The University of Arizona researchers themselves say as much: “Our findings of high levels of diversity on the X chromosome relative to the autosomes are in marked contrast to results of previous studies in a wide range of species including humans.” More importantly, their findings run counter to the comparative literature on human mating systems. To cite only one authority, Pebley and Mbugua (1989) note:

In non-African societies in which polygyny is, or was, socially permissible, only a relatively small fraction of the population is in polygynous marriages. Chamie's (1986) analysis of data for Arab Muslim countries between the 1950s and 1980s shows that only 5 to 12 percent of men in these countries have more than one wife. … Smith and Kunz (1976) report that less than 10 percent of nineteenth-century American Mormon husbands were polygynists. By contrast, throughout most of southern West Africa and western Central Africa, as many as 20 to 50 percent of married men have more than one wife … The frequency is somewhat lower in East and South Africa, although 15 to 30 percent of husbands are reported to be polygynists in Kenya and Tanzania.
Lo and behold Comparisons of chromosome X and the autosomes can illuminate differences in the histories of males and females as well as shed light on the forces of natural selection.
We conclude that a sex-biased process that reduced the female effective population size, or an episode of natural selection unusually affecting chromosome X, was associated with the founding of non-African populations.

This is how Africans and Papuans/Aussie Aboriginal evolved
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap26.html
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap27.html

and this is how Eurasians evolved
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap24.html

Dear Erik,
I am posting two of my pics in order to get your "expert" opinion. Is my face on the derived scale? Also about my nose...I believe you posted numbers for nasal projection such as 11, 13... What number am i? from the pics i posted. I have a "pretty smooth" forehead to nose continuity although i also have prominent brow ridges...at least thats what i think.
*Note this is a topic related post :D

Peter the Indian Peter the Indian

Oft-quoted: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" My understanding, being a trained artist, is that aesthetics is/are closely related to the concept of "Beauty". Is there scientific evidence or proof that there is a "perfect" aesthetic state or condition that would be unassailable? I've witnessed many instances where one person's concept of a "beautiful" person, scene, or object is strongly denigrated and scorned by others. Maybe we're looking at some semantics which can never lead to agreement. To be "perfect" there would have to be universal agreement on its requisites. Can we have a scientifically accurate and unassailable "perfect aesthetics"? As long as people make choices, there will be disagreement as to what has beauty, let alone being aesthetically perfect. Let's be satisfied with "excellence" and step away from the pipe dream of "perfection".

lol so he posts a picture up of Nazi propaganda photos that was trying to show how "derived" and superior the German race is. lol

But the people in it are really attractive. The girl in it looks a lot like my cousin on my German side, but my cousins face is a little more rounded off, a little less chiseled. She has a pointy chin and nose, but not THAT pointy. She's prettier.

Anyone with any basic knowledge of peer-edited research or stats would call your bluffs. Your spiel about the "attempts" to educate northern africans to be up to "par" with white people and how there are 3 possible reasons for this clearly show your ignorance. You are a bigoted loser trying to pass himself off as a maverick researcher. You are ignorant of what every stats class teaches: correlation does not imply causation dumbass. Also just because you cite random research articles while writing your hateful articles does not make them valid. Especially since you have never searched for any conflicting sources of information since they would knock down your baseless arguments in a quick second.

where did you find all these photos ?? I've been searching for hours and i can't find photos as clean and beautiful as yours !

(sorry for my english)

Erik;

"The direction of shift in aesthetic preferences with time roughly parallels the direction of shift in shape with time."

I very much agree with this statement and I don't think you could overestimate its importance. We tend to admire what is evolved, refined and developed, and we find primitive or undeveloped forms less appealing and more unattractive.

That is why most people prefer white, gracile and feminine women with refined facial features, slender bodies and fair skin.

These women look more elegant, developed and classy in comparison to others, I think, and the same thing can be said of white men.

This is of course a generalization, but I do think it very much holds true since there are not many exceptions to this unless we talk about race mixed persons who have benefitted from white admixture.

As far as I can see, the alterations to the face during plastic surgery - regardless of the patient's race or ethnicity - seem to always be made with the intent of emulating the beauty standard of the Nordic race.

lol lol lol!

Emily, your bigotry never ceases to amaze me! You post pictures of unattractive african women (and women of other ethnicities as well) and try and pass that off as the norm! That I find to be completely, and totally hilarious!

In regards to Beyonce at the Oscars, I agree, she did look out of place. Only because she is chasing after an oscar like a hungry wolf, and she is desperately trying to get there any way she can. She wasn't out of place because she looked bad thought, IMO. I am not even saying that she is the most attractive african-american woman, she most certainly is not. But to compare her to a gorilla is an unfair and untrue characterization. She in no way, shape or form resembles a monkey. You could have said that she was unattractive, that you did not appreciate the performance, that you just don't think she is pretty. Many people say that about beyonce, black and white. But you took a different path, you said she looked like a gorilla, and to me, that shows what is truly on your heart. That shows

I am not saying that nordic women aren't attractive, far from that. What I am saying is that your characterization of people of different ethnicities in comparison to your own is hateful, disgusting, and categorically untrue.

Attractive African Americans:
Garcelle
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/garcelle-beauvais/pictures/garcelle-beauvais-picture-4.jpg
Meagan Good
http://necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/meagan-good.jpg
Gabrielle Union
http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gabrielle-union-picture-1.jpg
Rochelle Aytes
http://evasitoe.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rochelle-aytes-madeas-family-reunion-los-angeles-premiere-0d0xic.jpg
Alicia Keyes
http://www.poems.net.au/images/alicia-keyes11.jpg
Unknown
http://www.easy-hairstyles.com/images/black-hairstyle3.jpg
Tammi Terrel
http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/terrelltammibio.jpg
Unknown
http://media.photobucket.com/image/beautiful%20african%20american%20women/Toocoolforschoo/FiscellaNicole3_720_TD_SS-3.jpg
Jamelia
http://www.peta.org.uk/feat/buttons/jamelia300.jpg
Unknown
http://africapage.i8.com/images/fine_black_woman.jpg

African Women:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EqPtrqKINg0/RzHy4RFZUVI/AAAAAAAAFao/gSmGzSDlpXc/s320/l_fbd85bd726de3c983030bc4df26a4b4f.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sjWtlWHshUA/R9v_vt6kNeI/AAAAAAAAJuc/DEgddjaUsiA/s320/simphiwe%2Btop.jpg

http://jamationline.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/sexy-women.jpg

http://www.realitytvworld.com/images/dbpeople/659.jpg

There are lots more where that came from!

In my opinion, the most beautiful attributes of African and African American women are their teeth, eyes and skin. They usually have beautiful straight, white teeth, clear white eyes with beautiful brown colors and soft, smooth, mistake free skin.

http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/archives/top_model_anchal.jpg

Very pretty Asian indian women.

She is masculinized in the face, but she has beautiful eyes and a killer body! I love her skin tone too!

I love this pic:

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/745/745087/americas-next-top-model-season-7-20061109020753776.jpg

Emily,

I don't understand why you and Erik believe that posting photos of African women that are wearing nothing but bones and skin skirts is going to prove anything. You can't compare a woman in Africa who has bones for jewelry, to a woman from Australia who has diamonds for jewelry. Are you that dull?

I agree with one thing. Attractiveness is shifted toward European norms. Not African norms, not Asian norms. But... I don't think people of other ethnicities are trying to emulate Europeans in terms of looks because they want to be more European, rather I think they just want to shift their features to the optimally attractive features any human being could have. These features are seen in the highest frequencies among Northern Europeans and so it is easy to assume these people want to look more Northern European, but in fact they just want to appear more attractive regardless of what ethnicity they are shifting their looks towards. Take into consideration that often times people get plastic surgery to "fix" a nose that is too wide or thick. But, they still want to keep the appearance of their ethnicity. This is one of the biggest challenges in the plastic industry. So, these people want to be more attractive, which often means shifting their looks towards European norms, however these people want to retain an element of their ethnicity as well. They want to look good, but ethnic. What does that tell you?

However, I find it hilarious that Erik believes that "fine" features won't necessarily make a Nordic man appear more feminine than a man without fine features. I find it interesting that fine features will do wonders to make a woman appear pseudo-feminine or feminine overall, but GOD forbid fine features have the same effect on Nordic men. Because, of course Nordics are without flaw and everything works in their favor no?

I also LOVE how Emily now uses the word "elegant" to prove her point. Oh, Emily, I thought elegant was a word that really meant "masculine"?

Well, actually when I used the word elegant to describe a certain type of nose I was implying there was a level of masculinization, in the sense that it wasn't an tiny dot upturned nose. Well, anything is more masculine than a nose like that. But this is what I think of when I say elegance. It = simple,graceful,refined,streamlined,black,calculated,flowing,interesting,sophisticated,tasteful,natural,not overdone, not trying too hard,valuable,strong but gentle, not cheap,classic,classy,harmonious etc.

Now, when I think of simple, streamlined, calculated, etc., I think that those are masculine features. I believe that although women should be feminine overall, masculine characteristics will enhance any woman. What man doesn't want an intelligent sophisticated woman?

What I find absolutley hilarious is how Erik calls the women on here "glamour models". There is nothing glamourous about these models. They are cheap and many times almost vulgar. They are feminine, but there is A LOT more to being an attractive woman than being feminine. A woman should be graceful,classy,simple.

Now, I want to go back to talking about the noses. No Emily, I did not CHANGE my words from romantic to elegant because I was trying to "hide" something. I use those words interchangibly because they are closley connected to eachother. What is elegant is always romantic. Period.

I want to show you that an elegant nose can be bumpy and non-Nordic and more romantic,refined,feminine, and ELEGANT than even a Nordic nose.

Compare this Latin woman's bumpy hooked nose to the tiny Swedish nose below and compare even Ekaterina's and Kay Francis' nose IN THAT SPECIFIC PHOTO to a Swedish nose and tell me which nose is more robust and which nose is more refined and elegant:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

As you can see the I have selected the photos that you post of typical Swedish women. These women have small noses. The noses are turned up. However, the noses are more robust. Just look at the structure. The cartilage of the nose appears almost thick, even though the nose may be long and straight instead of tiny and turned up. If you look at the Latin woman's nose or Ekaterina's the cartilage of the nose if very thin, not thick, and that makes the nose appear more refined and less robust. What makes the Swedish nose appear more robust than that type of nose is the fact that it appears the cartilage of the nose is stronger/thicker instead of thinner and finer. So, no I don't think those noses are the perfect "fine noses", although many times they ARE feminine or pseudo-feminine as long as the cartilage doesn't seem too robust. I'm not saying all or even the majority of Swedish women have thick nose cartilage. I am just simply stating your examples lack in proving that the average Swede's nose is more elegant, refined, or "romantic" than the type of nose I am speaking of. A bumpy hooked nose will be more masculine than a tiny upturned one, but on the other hand it will be more refined and elegant than a small tiny upturned nose that has a certain element of robustity to it. Of course the robustity is generally nothing like that of the robustity of facial features of other ethnicities. My point is not to claim that Scandinavians (not Nordics, because I am speaking of specifically Scandinavians now) have more robust noses than Latin's on average. No, my point is to prove that a bumpy hooked nose can be more refined and elegant than a Scandinavian nose. So before you post photos of millions of dark women with bumpy hooked robust noses, remember I never claimed all hooked noses were refined, but that hooked noses CAN be more refined than small dot noses in certain cases.

Moving on...

I believe someone commented on how I don't speak English well. Well please take into consideration that English is my third language, as in I learned it THIRD and for the majority of my life I was not surrounded by English speaking people on a day to day basis besides a few hours at school everyday. Not only that, but I could give a care about the overly complicated English language. The rules change every year and there is almost no logic to the language. There are just rules you have to remember. Well I like logic and a system and I find the English language lacks a "system" for the most part. I don't bother with grammar and what not. I can see how these things can enhance an argument but I don't really care so much for this site that I need to go to that extent. I come here to blow steam, to study people, to give my opinion on a thing or two, to learn. So I could care less what you have to say about my grammar. I think you'd be interested to know that most people in other countries learn more "proper" English than we do here in the states thanks to our lovely education system. The Scandinavian countries have some of the top schools and education systems. It's easy for you to criticize less educated people. In part it is my fault I haven't educated MYSELF when lack of education was the problem, however on the other hand I wasn't exposed to what you were exposed to from a young age when I didn't know any better. Those young years make a BIG difference. Anything I am good at today is thanks to what I did and learned as a child, when my neurons were going crazy connecting as they do in any child. So please do not comment on my English or my intelligence. Barberella mentioned I could not possibly be a genius although it was clear I never claimed that but was trying to make a point by using a common expression, "Genius is often misunderstood." The fact that someone can't understand something so simple is more troubling than the fact that I don't write like a "genius". I don't even try. So please bug off! Although I will call you out on your poor skills if you criticize me. Pay attention to my arguments. They are not that hard to follow and if they are illogical call me out on that because that at least is relevant. I often do lack logic. On the other hand I can be an extremely logical person as well. It depends on how much sleep I got, how I feel, etc. etc. Most of the time I just lack the patience to think things through fully or read or understand the whole picture. That is something I should be called out on, not my "English".

I'd also like to add that I am currently interested in hormones and their effects on women. I have always suspected there was a strong correlation between diet and the femininity of certain racial groups. In fact I believe diet played a crucial role in evolution. If you notice the United States and the Northern countries have the highest risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer is directly related to high estrogen levels. The countries that have a low rate believe it or not are the Scandinavian countries. But is this surprising? These countries are often more liberal and embrace vegetarian and low meat diets very easily. Think about it. If you come from a country that eats dairy products and steak opposed to a country that eats bugs, who would have higher hormone levels? Now I always suspected that Scandinavian women were slightly less feminine than other Nordic women. It's not that they don't have big breasts and hourglass figures. It's that they in my opinion have a slightly different form of femininity perhaps due more to genes than actual hormone levels. It's not surprising that these women eat less meat. Although, even the Scandinavian countries had a high dairy and meat diet for generations and generations. Northern countries were washing their food down with hormones for a long time! I'd actually like to add in here that it is testosterone levels that actually caused us human beings to become more gracile over time. I recently skimmed over an article claiming it is not surprising women are becoming slightly more masculine, as this has been the trend for quite some time. However, women with finer structures and hourglass figures are being selected to make up for that. So they still appear feminine but have the benefits of testosterone. I'll try to find that article if I can...

I also would like to add that either Emily or Barberella made fun of my idea that more masculine women tend to have men, feminine women tend to have females, and that inbetween had well males and females. "Everyone knows that it is the male's chromosome that determines the sex of the child" was something like what was said in criticism of me. Well, I refuse to accept outdated science. What we know often has inaccuracies and is missing big pieces of the puzzle. I have observed within my own family that this is the trend. My extended family that is. The most feminie women in my family have all females. The most masculine have all males. Interestingly enough, there are no mixed children in MY generation of my family. Meaning that all our families are made of entriley male or female siblings. I believed this to be slightly more than a coincidence. I noticed what I noticed and I think my family is doing something to bring this about with the mates we select. Also, the girls in our family are very boyish and rowdy at a young age, while the boys seem more social. On the onset of puberty the girls become almost opposite. More reserved, gentle, very motherly, and most importantly their physical characteristics change dramatically. No more chicken legs, big breasts, good hips. I am probably the most "masculine" in personality compared to anyone in my family. The boys also change. They become quiet, and they shoot up really tall. It's a strange phenomenon how these guys go from short to extremely tall in a little bit of time. They have really masculine voices and look extremely masculine. YOu would've never guessed. On the other hand we all retain characteristics. Almost every girl in my family is good at math for example and other "masculine" areas.

Therefore there is so little about hormones we understand. Hormones are complicated and mysterious. Here is the article. In this article the author too notices a connection between hormone levels and the sex of the child. Although this proves true for rats, (a more masculine female rat will have boys or MORE boys) it does not prove true for humans. However, even the author states there is so much we don't know about hormones and there is so much to figure out. Humans are also more complicated than rats as well. Here is the article. This is a scientific article. Before you make fun of my ideas maybe you should see if any respectable scientist is actually trying to figure out teh same thing, despite what "science' tells us already. Science is constantly evolving, and old ideas are constantly being challenged, refigured, or built upon... Oh this article also claims that the highest levels of testosterone produced in a female, are produced in the ovaries... Hmm... would never guess that! Oh the things we still don't know!

http://books.google.com/books?id=xbhW3qAEGYQC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=women,+testosterone,+evolution&source=bl&ots=fNxhOyrwOg&sig=KUh72IGd_5LuIraydBADptB959c&hl=en&ei=GHuoSobfH8WpnQecyrmXBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=women%2C%20testosterone%2C%20evolution&f=false

The attractiveness of blacks is directly linked to their being able to approach the norm of the white Nordic standard of beauty.

In other words, they seem less unappealing when they look more similar to whites than to their own original race. The more black and less white the more unappealing, as a rule.

The fact is that the black race is the most primitive one - being closest to our primate ancestors - the least evolved one, the coarsest one, and also the most masculine. That is why it is also considered the least attractive one, just as Erik explains, since evolvement and appeal go hand in hand.

My photos show ordinary blacks, not models with white admixture, or tons of plastic surgery and skin whitener. That is why you find them unappealing. On average the black race IS unappealing to non-blacks for the reasons stated in this entry.

By the way, since when is Beyonce considered not attractive? My photos of her at the Oscars are the official ones appearing in every search and in every news publication, so I hardly chose obscure ones that no one used.

She obviously seems unattractive when you compare her to white showgirls, that's all, and this in spite of not even being 100% black! That's why you will more likely see her on stage with these types of women;

Instead of these;

Ordinary, real blacks, probably not suitable as examples of blacks;

White admixture, and sometimes asian admixture, will improve the looks of blacks. Photos of black models and stars who have white genes and plastic surgery only help prove my case in that ordinary, normal true blacks are inadequate as examples of blacks, never mind that the other ones are unrepresentative.

Asians use the same tactic. They always ignore the vast masses and focus on half-asian models, or surgically altered ones, who don't represent most asians at all.

Oh, my, you still don't get it, do you? I have always suspected that you want to turn almost malformed, too large or simply unappealing noses into something that is "elegant" and "refined", and now you prove it.

No, Ekaterina's nose is not elegant and refined. It has an unattractive shape. Unattractive form is not the same thing as elegance or refinement.

This is elegance to godis. To me it is just an unattractive nose that does nothing for her face.

Scandinavian noses are the standard that everyone tries to emulate, as Erik's well-visited entry about the fine Nordic nose shows.

There are straight noses here, and there are slightly upturned ones, and the thing they have in common is that their form is appealing and feminine, in contrast to godis's "elegant" noses, which is really just a code word for "lack of attractive shape", it seems.

Hooked, bumby, too large and very long noses are not elegant and refined, they are unattractive noses renamed as something they are not. Elegance and attractiveness should not be in opposition to each other.

Calling Scandinavian noses robust and use my photos to "prove" that is hilarious since it flies in the face of what people actually see. Scandinavian noses are very rarely robust. Where you see robustness others see delicate and feminine noses, whether straight or upturned at the tip.

I don't know what kind of noses you are used to, but I can make an educated guess since you are Romanian (home of the huge, droopy and hooked noses). That is probably why you have a beef with slightly upturned, cute and feminine noses.

Kay Francis has a nose that is too large and unappealing. You simply cannot use someone as an example of an elegant nose if it looks unattractive from the most important angle - the front;

Swedish noses;

The girls on the left are ethnically Swedish;

Godis is now trying to pass off Scandinavian noses as being upturned, but robust! In your dreams Godis!

Godis, you ramble and ramble and there is no end to it! I have a family member who is a geneticist, educated at MIT. I asked him how certain we are that the male sperm carries the genetic material that is responsible for determining the sex of human offspring? Not suprisingly, he said that we are absolutely certain. Why you cling to these radical notions, that this is "outdated science", must be because sound data and evidence must not fit into your twisted logic.

Your comments are humorous. Not only can you not assess what you see, it appears you don't understand what you read either.

By the way, what the hell is a "romantic" nose? I understand the root word being "roman", but to me, it sounds like a gentile way of saying large.

Sorry, Ekaterina's nose isn't elegant. It is her worst feature.

To me, with regards to describing the nose, "elegant" is the same as gracile, refined, or even "cute" if you will. "Romantic" is a euphemism for prominant, is it not? Let's just call it what it is.

Here is what I believe is elegant, refined or "cute":

Cute Irish Blondes

Irish_girl

Swedish girl

Sweet Mary

Amy

This appears simple to grasp, but it is more difficult for some, obviously.

Godis;

"Emily,

I don't understand why you and Erik believe that posting photos of African women that are wearing nothing but bones and skin skirts is going to prove anything."

The black race is seen in its purest form in Africa - not in the US. Their attire has nothing to do with anthropology.

More photos of blacks. I was accused of posting unattractive photos, which bothers me since it isn't true. Pure blacks really do look like the ones I posted.

The net is full of photos of African blacks (the true blacks) looking just like them. Most pure blacks look REALLY ethnic and primitive (for lack of a better word), and this is not to be mean in any way. It is just the truth.

I think I see Beyonce's legs there. Do blacks put on weight easily? I get that impression when I browse photos, but I'm in no way an expert on that.

As for feminine and elegant noses here are more examples of Swedish girls. By the way, those are very fine photos you posted, Barberella. :)

First a head-shot of Ekaterina. I don't think her nose looks thin and elegant from the front either. It is just unattractive and very droopy.

Swedish girls:

The one on the left is atypical for a Nordic, but has probably a refined and elegant nose according to some:

And here Natalie Wood, a gorgeous actress. Oh my, what a short, unelegant and unrefined nose! Gasp..it is upturned, too! Horrible. Thank god for Romanian refined and elegant noses. ;)

Terrible "robust" and meaty nose Marilyn got there. I can't believe she made it in Hollywood with that thing.

She should have had a more "elegant and refined" nose, such as Eastern European Kurkova. Her large, hooked, thin and droopy nose is the epitome of femininity, just like her face.

to the other Emily

to prove the norm of black beauty you have choose pics of pure black women, many blacks in the US are mixed, and many of the examples you used have white admixture in them.

Now i hate to admit it but Emily (the racist) is right that most people regardless of race find white features most attractive, this true is look at Alicia Keys, Halle Berry and TV actress Tamara Taylor.

You people need to lay off with the "racist" nonsense. Preferring the white race in terms of looks is not racist, it is a matter of taste. Just as you have a right to your preferences, so have others. I know, it is hard for you to grasp, probably.

Crying racist is getting old and fewer and fewer are jumping on cue as soon as you shout it anymore, since you have abused the word too often. It is losing its potency.

It is not anyone's fault that you are unattractive compared to whites. Blame evolution. If you cannot face that without labeling people racist I suggest you choose another site that is more politically correct and less honest. This site deals with physical appearance. Try to understand that.

I have been wondering why these bitter trolls come here over and over in spite of the fact that they will not get what they want from this site.

Deep down they know the truth is being presented here, and even though they hate that truth, and no matter how infuriating it may be, the truth is also very much a potent draw.

After all, being fed political correctness and lies can't be that exciting and also somewhat humiliating, I imagine. It must also be annoying that not all white people can be manipulated and told to act like puppets on a string. No wonder you vent your aggressions and hatred here.

Emily everybody in this site knows you're a racist, you don't hide very well. It's ok that you a preference for the white race, but don't insult my intelligence but trying to say that you are not a racist, a non-racist wouldn't use the language you use, and it has nothing to do with political correctness, what you written in previous post is racist there no context that says different.

Since there are two Emily's now, what should will call you? Emily A?

To dex:

I purposely posted pics of African Woman and African American women. Even though African American women are more mixed, I still feel that we should be included in the conversation.

To Emily:

People attack you, not because they say within themselves, "Oh no! My Politically correct values are being threatened! What will I do?" It has nothing to do with that. It is the way you say things that indicates your racist leanings. You can just say things, and that would be fine. For instance, comparing Asians to children with downs syndrome, the way you attacked East Asians, the way you talked about Romanians, etc. Those negative things you said, all point to racism.

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, seeing as how English is not your native tongue, I thought that maybe you were saying things that maybe didn't translate well. But your repeated attacks against specific peoples are troublesome and distressing. I am not a troll, I have been following this site for a while now because there are somethings I agree with, some that I don't.

To Godis:

Isn't the sex of a child determined by the man's sperm?

"For instance, comparing Asians to children with downs syndrome, the way you attacked East Asians, the way you talked about Romanians, etc. Those negative things you said, all point to racism"

How is the truth racism? So objective truth regarding physical appearance is racism, as long as it is not what you want to hear? I see..very credible argument.

"I purposely posted pics of African Woman and African American women. Even though African American women are more mixed, I still feel that we should be included in the conversation."

Not as examples of pure blacks. That is dishonesty, and even though dishonesty doesn't bother you, it ruins any credibility when it comes to anthropological facts regarding the appearance of the black race.

Just to clarify my point; there are suitable examples of pure blacks in the US too. However, showing photos of racially mixed people who look almost hispanic instead of black, or of people who have had plastic surgery or other procedures that serve the purpose of hiding and diminishing black racial traits are totally unsuitable as examples of blacks, obviously. This excludes most models and movie stars.

All we need to do is find photos of African or African American women who are truly black in order to examine what blacks look like, so posting pictures in order to misrepresent the truth is rather silly. This goes for Asians as well.

Du har noen seriøse problemer. Utrolig hva folk bruker tiden sin på spørr du meg. Snakk med en psykolog. Et godt ment råd.

"The fact is that the black race is the most primitive one - being closest to our primate ancestors - the least evolved one, the coarsest one, and also the most masculine. That is why it is also considered the least attractive one, just as Erik explains, since evolvement and appeal go hand in hand."

Even if we were positive this statement was 100% true, it was so cruel and cold I shed a tear. It truly makes me wonder... What if I were born black? What if Emily had been born black? Would she be able to type these very words?

I have to say Emily that I feel sorry for Swedes in general, because my overall impression of them is not the one you give me with your comments. They are generally open minded and more sensitive to the feelings of others. Thank God I don't base my idea of them on one person, YOU.

"You people need to lay off with the "racist" nonsense. Preferring the white race in terms of looks is not racist, it is a matter of taste. Just as you have a right to your preferences, so have others. I know, it is hard for you to grasp, probably.

Crying racist is getting old and fewer and fewer are jumping on cue as soon as you shout it anymore, since you have abused the word too often. It is losing its potency.

It is not anyone's fault that you are unattractive compared to whites. Blame evolution. If you cannot face that without labeling people racist I suggest you choose another site that is more politically correct and less honest. This site deals with physical appearance. Try to understand that."

I hope one day you will have to grasp the feeling of inferiority.It seems as if you have never felt inferior to someone in your life. Perhaps it will humble you.

Although I am Christian, the idea of multiple lives DOES appeal to me at this time. Although I don't believe one should be punished in their *next life, I wish in your next life you would be born one of the most "primitive" human beings to walk the Earth. Although, your primitive mindset and ideas actually seem to make you come close to such a human being.

I am very disappointed because I don't really believe you are the way you seem on here. I don't know why you act like this, I only wish you would stop. I am sure you really don't have that much hatred or those exact opinions on other races. I feel you are just aggravated, which is not anyone's fault but your own for letting others aggravate you that way. I myself have fallen into the trap of acting opposite of human when aggravated, but at least I can understand my mistake and try to move on.

Emily,

"The black race is seen in its purest form in Africa - not in the US. Their attire has nothing to do with anthropology"

I was using an analogy. The analogy was that you cannot compare a rich well nourished educated woman who has professional photos taken of her and dyes her hair to a woman whose skin is constantly exposed to the sun, who has no hair, who has no education, and who most likely has a horrible diet that is either not nourishing enough or high in fat. I compared diamonds to bones to make it simpler, creating an analogy. I don't know if you truly cannot understand this because even if you were being sarcastic I would not catch on since you are such an outrageous individual in the first place.

Besides, even if you just wanted to compare the bone structure you have to realize that things such as diet have a large effect on that.

Emily( the other one)

"Isn't the sex of a child determined by the man's sperm?"

I understand this, but we don't know enough to say that is the only factor in determining a child's sex. It is probably more complicated. For example, maybe a female fetus will struggle to survive in the environment a high testosterone mother provides. Therefore a woman like that is significantly more likely to have males, because a male fetus can survive in that environment. I am not saying this is so, or that this even makes sense. I am saying that hypothetically, something like that could effect the sex of a child and it could be related to hormones. I am simply stating an observation that myself and others, some noted scientists, have noticed, and that there may be an explanation behind this and we should keep an open mind and look into it, rather than close the books and halt studying it because we believe we know it all already.

Godis, pity is not an argument. Personal attacks, saying I am such a terrible person, is not an argument. Try to use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. Surprise me. ;)

No one says you should use downtrodden or malnourished people as examples.
There are many wealthy blacks I could use. What's your point? Black is black, whether well-off or ordinary. If anything, ordinary well-nourished blacks are more genuine since they won't have altered (plastic surgery)their physical appearance, the way a wealthy black woman can do, so your argument works against you.

Well-off Swedish integration minister with her roots in Congo, Nyamko Sabuni;

Other wealthy blacks;

More blacks;

I think Erik's assessment is very correct. Physical appeal and attractiveness are linked to physical evolvement. Where there is less evolvement there is less appeal.

There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile with less prominent noses, thinner lips, smaller teeth, less protruding jaw, lighter skin and less wolly, wild hair. In other words, those who have more muted black traits, instead approaching the evolved Nordic white ideal, will seem more attractive than those with pronounced and heavy black racial traits, I think.

Godis, pity is not an argument. Personal attacks, saying I am such a terrible person, is not an argument. Try to use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. Surprise me. ;)

Emily, I don't have to argue that you are a horrible person. The majority of people that read your crap can see that for themselves. Except for Barberella, which is like your long lost twin or you. Even a person from Sweden, called Line, doesn't believe you are from Sweden, because Swedes in general don't think like you... The majority of them know they are good looking, and they let their features speak for themselves. They don't need to convince with words, their physical body's do the convincing.

The only reason I argue with you is because I cannot stand the fact that such an ignorant person exists on this planet. You're comments are right down there with anything a red neck or kkk member has said.

"Surprise me;)"

Haha. You're funny. You are the one that resorts to personal attacks as often or more than me. Beyonce is a primate, Ekaterina is a dog, Romanians are all gypsies, Indians crap anywhere and everywhere, Asian babies all appear to have downsyndrome. Ok.

I don't have to prove to anyone with any argument that you are a horrible person. I wasn't trying to argue anything. I was simply trying to tell you that your comment pains me as a human being. I am not simply shocked anymore, but really scared.

You know you really aren't like this, so please stop being like this on here.

Don't let your fears,ego, and pain transform you into the monster you are becoming. You are better than that. I can truly say I believe that.

Hey Emily. I am fascinated by you. Are you real? I sometimes think no real person could possibly say the things you do. Maybe you’re just trying to get people worked up. If so, well done because it seems to be working.
If you are real, you might be interested in reading the following. You seem genuinely surprised and indignant when people refer to you as racist or bigoted. So I have compiled a sample of some of the things you have said. Some are just a bit insensitive, while others are downright offensive. And I’m sorry, but they do paint a negative picture of you, in my opinion.
So, Emily, real or not, here are just a few of your best bits. Enjoy!

Emily on black people:

On average the black race IS unappealing to non-blacks for the reasons stated in this entry.

The fact is that the black race is the most primitive one - being closest to our primate ancestors - the least evolved one, the coarsest one, and also the most masculine.

I'm jealous of primate behinds? LOL
It is not anyone's fault that you are unattractive compared to whites. Blame evolution.

Emily on Eastern Asians:

Some Asians do somewhat resemble Neanderthals.

Asian yellowish-white skin that doesn't show any sign of blood look like a serpent's belly. Dead - not alive.

Most look like hell, actually,

Her facial features look disproportionate and she seems to have the mental capacity of a 7-year-old. (about Asian in photo.)

The majority of people here don't like underdeveloped dwarfs with mongoloid traits, looking like pubescent girls when they are 25.

The mongoloid look is not attractive, it is disgusting and is in fact very much associated with a disease here.

Emily on other ethnicities:

The Indians are not attractive to most Europeans

Cheapness, vulgarity and latin primate style can be found anywhere.

Southern European women look much more coarse …than Nordic women do. Since they are shorter and shubbier to begin with they … can look matronly and very coarse early on.

Emily on the perfection of the Nordic race:

The truth is that the beautiful nordic woman is THE ideal that everyone envies.

Face it..you cannot have what we have..no need to hate us for it. That's not our fault.

Emily on race mixing:

They want our genes to improve THEIR looks, since they don't like their mongoloid traits any more than you do

The fact remains, who on earth wants to look like Asian mongoloids if they can help it? No wonder they want to race mix with us.

This is what race mixing is truly all about. Destroying the white race so that others can benefit.

It destroys a race that has recessive genes, and by that definiton, it is genocide.

Emily on Beyonce:
an ape in a dress is still an ape

Emily on Kim Kardashian:
This vile creature with one of the most masculine, coarse and unfeminine faces I have EVER seen in my life … looks like a transvestite…a gorilla has more grace and femininity than this.

She is chubby with short legs, fat thighs, a ridiculous and ugly behind, and I suspect fake breast.

Emily: comment to another poster:
you are Romanian (home of the huge, droopy and hooked noses).

Emily: comment to another poster:
Yes, laugh all you want to, Asian troll. That's all you are good for.

Emily: comment to another poster:
An asian/latin half-breed with fake blonde hair (wannabe Nordic) full of envy.

Emily: comment to another poster:
You just cannot stand your own Asian mongoloid looks, can you? Well, we whites don't want it either so keep it, please.

I would also like to point out, Emily, you often say that something is the truth, or fact, without offering evidence. When you do try to support your opinion with evidence, it almost invariably turns out to be some sort of subjective experience, not substantiated by research. For example:

"To say that openly is being racist, of course. I prefer to say it since it is the truth.

"Since I'm Swedish I can say that … Swedes aren't vain.

"I have lived in Italy and I can personally testify to that being not true at all. On the contrary, the impression I had was that…"

In essence, Emily, what you are saying is “I know that my opinion is true because I believe it myself”.

Similarly, pictures you found on Google are very interesting but they don’t really cut it as evidence for your claims, in any scientific sense.

You also often claim to speak for other people, for example:

"Having a physical preference is not racist - it is personal taste, and it happens to be shared by most men."

"This is of course my opinion, but I think it is shared by most Western men."

Emily, I think it’s better if you just say that it’s your opinion, instead of trying to speak for others. You certainly don’t speak for the majority of people that I know. The men I know would never compare someone’s skin colour with a “serpent’s belly” (and a dead serpent at that) or their backside with that of a “primate”. But then, I would not choose to be friends with someone who did that.

You also chide other posters for their prejudice, rudeness, malice, etc. I find this ironic, given the many quotations I have posted above. You have said to others, for example:
"No wonder you vent your aggressions and hatred here."
and
"The negativity seen in your words now have a subtle, but nasty and malicious tone"

I think you should read back some of your own comments, including those posted above, and ask yourself, honestly, in the cold light of day do not some of your own words appear aggressive? hateful? nasty? malicious? (I missed out subtle, because I don’t think that description applies in your case.)

Anyway, by your own account, you have been blessed with amazing looks. So here’s hoping life teaches you humility, grace and human compassion. Because they, too, are very beautiful things.

xx

"The men I know would never compare someone’s skin colour with a “serpent’s belly” (and a dead serpent at that)"

Are you saying you don't know Emily is a woman's name?

Nice job, putting my words totally out of context. Very low brow and foul tactic used by propagandists who want to misrepresent something by taking snippets out of its context.

I have also made many positive statements, and of course these were not shown, and neither were the often vile and nasty comments that were directed at me prior to the statements you quoted.

Each time I respond in such a way I have been provoced BEFORE. White people's skin is sometimes referred to as "pig skin", as some here would know, and therefore I said that asian skin reminds me of snake skin.

By that I stress that whites should not tolerate such remarks and turn the other cheek. However, on this site it actually IS permitted to use analogies since we discuss looks, and why something is unappealing can be explained by the associations it gives us.

Non-whites always pretend to be shocked when whites act the very same way they themselves act. I think that is pretty pathetic. They use one standard for themselves and another for whites, apparently.

Another example of your deceptively taking out of context my words is the Beyonce "a gorilla in a dress is still a gorilla", a direct analogy I made to the proverb your uncivilized president used when alluding to Palin, a white woman, when he quipped "You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig".

Clearly a blatant racist message, pledging his loyalty to blacks at the expense of whites (I thought he should represent all Americans), directed at black voters in the context it was used. And boy, did they get the message. It was embarrassingly loud and clear. Palin had just days before used the word lipstick in a speech or commercial, so that word was on everyone's minds, and at that time directly associated with her. What he in fact told people is that he is not a gentleman.

The white race is recessive, and right now under attack through the race mixing that is slowly engulfing it. I love and want to protect my race, and it has become clear that this is not seen as something worthwhile by other races, who are more interested in gaining from white admixture.

The photos of pure blacks here prove why blacks feel the need to mix with whites in order to become physically less primitive, coarse and more evolved. This will of course be at whites' expence, as photos of Heidi Klum and her biologically almost black children with Seal will tell you.

"Emily, I think it’s better if you just say that it’s your opinion, instead of trying to speak for others."

Since you took my statements out of context it is impossible to answer that. You are incredibly deceptive in your tactics. Generally, my views on beauty and femininity are shared by a large majority of white people, who also think their race is far beyond the others in beauty and femininity. They may not be as brave as I am and say that out loud since they see what happens when you do.

This very entry also explains why this is true. Whites are the most evolved, and therefore deemed the most attractive. The asian race and the black race have a physical robustness and a lack of development that work against them. They both need white admixture to improve their looks, generally speaking. Whites don't. That is what sets us apart, and, I think, also the thing that makes us hated and envied.

Mongoloid traits are unattractive to many. Why is it that the word mongoloid describe both a race and a desease? Because they look similar, naturally.

A shocking thing to say? Well, the truth is what it is. I'm full of prejudice for saying that, right? Well, if you have eyes you will see why that word refers to these two things. In explaining WHY you don't feel something to be attractive you sometimes need to find out why that is.

In this case a desease makes whites look like asian-like. There are only two ways for whites to look like that. Either you mix with an asian, OR you have that desease. It is not attractive, and one of the reasons whites find those traits so unappealing. The asians who are attractive will have more muted mongoloid race traits and approach the standard for the Nordic white race. This must be humiliating, but before you start hating, remember it is not our fault. Blame instead evolution and nature that didn't make us equals in terms of looks.

I meant to write disease, not desease. I wrote this in the morning so I wasn't really awake yet. :)

A photo of Michelle Obama that explains why primitive and coarse features are unattractive;

Her teeth look almost animal-like rather than human, as does her entire look.

Heidi Klum with her two biological sons. This is the destiny of white people who mix with blacks. Their genetic identity is swallowed up by another race.

The girl is Heidi's child with a white man, the other is her son by black man seal;

It is hardly in the best interest of whites as a race to mix with blacks.

And here a photo of Halle Berry with her mom Judith Ann Hawkins, who was referred to as an "African-American" woman by one poster here. Well, not entirely the truth, I think.

Kardashian, a woman with very coarse and masculine features even though probably extensively "worked on" in plastic surgery. Yes, vulgarity and masculinity is nasty and revolting to me, and the exact opposite of femininity and grace.

With five tones of make-up on, making her look like a transvestite;

Compare her to Grace Kelly;

Or Naomi Watts;

or just three ordinary white girls;

Liza,

For some reason I have not seen your comment. I just want to say that I love how you were able to make a point in such a respectful manner. Yes, you were criticizing someone, but you did it without name calling, being sarcastic, or having a mean undertone! I really wish I could accomplish that, its what I'm trying to do.

I just want you to know that I have great respect for people like you. I agree with what you said and I am glad that there is a person like you out in this cold mean world:)

Couldn't help myself. Just have to adress this one thing. The question is not directly aimed at Emily, anyone can answer it. But I have to use this quote:

"The white race is recessive, and right now under attack through the race mixing that is slowly engulfing it. I love and want to protect my race, and it has become clear that this is not seen as something worthwhile by other races, who are more interested in gaining from white admixture."

I don't understand this. The white race is under attack through race mixing...

Can someone please tell me how white people are being attacked? Are people of other races and even sub-races raping the white out of white people?

I don't understand. I always thought that the white people that mixed did so willingly...and if the argument goes that only white "losers" mix with people of other races... than why do you want those "losers'" genes presereved anyways?

Can someone, preferrably a white person who feels the same as Emily please answer my questions? I just have a hard time understanding how it is solely non-white/non-nordic people's fault that Nordic people are mating with non-Nordic people. It is in no way those very Nordic's fault, but the fault of the non-Nordic? Although sex is a two way thing. Right?

What am I missing here? Can someone PLEASE educate me...

No one says they are not doing it willingly, or that whites are being attacked, you troll. I said the race is under attack. The race is being weakened by whites themselves, who are told that race mixing is the best thing since sliced bread, so they obviously contribute to its own decline. Media propaganda and our decadent "anything goes" culture directly contribute to this. People are impressionable, especially to non-stop propaganda, and race mixing is promoted and seen everywhere. By the way, stop making yourself dumber than you are. You are doing just fine as it is.

Race mixing is so evil! Look at these examples of the 'white race' being destroyed!

http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/thandie_newton_kids.jpg

Complete utter destruction! GENOCIDE!

http://knockedupcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/garcelle-and-twins.jpg

Those blues must be contacts!

Oh no, watch out! Every body shield your eyes! This is another example of what happens when white people are duped into race mixing by us gene-hungry non-nordics!

http://www.multipleheritage.co.uk/images/projects/uploads/1233688852.jpg

Genes are being destroyed oh no! Oh No!

You're absolutely right Emily! You have got to use your Nordic super-powers to fight the evils of race mixing! Are your race-mixing senses tingling! Mine are! look at this despicable couple!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00695/SNN3101AAA-380_695375a.jpg

The black guy is smiling cuz he is thinking "yes! YES! Sweet, Sweet White genes! My master plan to eradicate the white race is working!"

I hope your senses are keen enough to tell when black people get together, all we talk about is how we can mix our genes with white people!

Don't click this link Emily, it might burn your beautiful blue eyes out of your head!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2765554906_9abcaf5cc5_o.jpg

White race is being annihilated by selfish negroes and asians! you better work to fix it!

This guy has the nerve to think he can be with a white woman!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/18/article-1120963-0318763E000005DC-588_468x344.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/18/article-1120963-0318763E000005DC-588_468x344.jpg

You better run for the hills Emily, I hear the footsteps of a black man coming to steal your genes!

Seriously Emily, get a grip!

http://www.mynewhair.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/13-christina-aguilera.jpg

This is thinking, "Man! Why the hell didn't my mom marry a nordic! I'd be like, so totally hot right now! My life sucks royally since I am not a nordic! What was she thinking mixing with someone from ecuador! Nothing good came out of that!"

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2009/08/christina-aguilera-black-eye-son.jpg

Little boy thinking, " mommy why is daddy jewish? Why did you go out with him? You know he is only trying to get at your genes."

You are hilarious Emily

http://st.blog.cz/x/xaguilerka.blog.cz/obrazky/10712348.jpg

Ugly mix of irish genes and latin genes! Ugh! I cannot stand race mixing!

Stop posting pictures of children please.Children need to be protected not have their pictures on sites like this to be scrutinised are they attractive or not.
Remember,this site is only about opinions so keep it to adults photos.Children should be left out of this

Hey. Thanks for your reply Emily. I don’t know about brave, but you’re certainly outspoken.

My lowbrow tactics:

It’s true that I took your words out of context. It wasn’t my intention to be underhand. They were your words after all, and I just thought that if you take a fresh look at them, you might understand why some people assume that you are racist, since this seems to annoy you. My point was to demonstrate how people might form this impression on the basis of your words, and in my defence I was up front about that from the start. I agree that nothing you say gives others the right to be obnoxious towards you. And by the same token nothing they say gives you the right to be obnoxious either, which you sometimes are. Personally I think a lot of your comments are unacceptable regardless of context.
My uncivilised president?
Obama is not my president as I’m not from the USA, although I remember the lipstick-on-pig comment, and how the media response seemed overblown, since it’s a common idiom that means “you can’t dress something up as something it’s not”, and he was talking about Republican party rhetoric. He also said that "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change’, it's still gonna stink after eight years.” So maybe he was trying to say that John McCain, and by association all white people, smell like fish? (Forgive my facetiousness, but I hope you see my point.) His words did echo Sarah Palin’s. She had said that the difference between a hockey mum and a pitbull is lipstick, thus comparing herself with a pitbull, the implication being that she is a fighter. Luckily people saw what she was getting at and didn’t claim discrimination against hockey mums.
I think people can take offense too easily and be overly zealous with the word “racism” and that seems to be something you and I both agree on. So maybe by the same logic we shouldn’t assume that Obama’s remarks were racist. A cheap shot at Sarah Palin, maybe, but it’s a bit far fetched to brand him a racist on the basis of those comments. His words were more moderate than many of your own, and you definitely don’t like it when people use that word about you. Having one standard for yourself and another for everyone else is wrong, as you have said on more than one occasion.

Putting things mildly:

I agree with you in principle that there is nothing wrong with having a preferred look or “type”. (My own physical preference is for Johnny Depp lookalikes.) But the statement “I find myself attracted to white men and not to other ethnicities” is very different from the statement “The majority of people here don't like underdeveloped dwarfs with mongoloid traits, looking like pubescent girls when they are 25”. The first is a neutral statement of fact. The second is subjective, negative and insulting. This is why I think it is better that when you say offensive things like that, you just say that this is your opinion and steer clear of phrases like “the majority of people”. You certainly do not represent the “majority of people” that I know when you express yourself in that way. Similarly if you say that something is “deemed” to be true, as in your previous comment, I think you really ought to provide evidence. (“Deemed” by whom? How do you know?). The same with phrases like “generally speaking”, “the truth is” or “the fact is”. Unless the statement is objectively verifiable, it is more straightforward just to say “My opinion is” or “my impression is” and leave it at that.
Incidentally, the word “mongoloid” has been used historically as a term of abuse, so if you don’t want people saying you’re racist, you might want to give that term a wide berth.

It is my understanding that we no longer call people with Down syndrome “mongoloids”, partly because, as I say, that word has become a term of abuse, but also because it is incorrect, as the facial characteristics that are trademark of Down’s are not the same as the features of East Asians. Down made that connection on the basis of epicanthal folds alone, which tells me more about socio-historical attitudes to race and difference than it does about physiognomy. I feel glad we now live in a more progressive, less ignorant age.

Perceptions of beauty:

So anyway, I’m based in Africa right now, and I’m surrounded by, to use your terminology, “pure blacks”. In my town, white skin is tied to a whole range of assumptions about status and character, which clouds the beauty issue somewhat. So perhaps little children are the most reliable judges, since they haven’t yet learned to make these evaluative associations, and they just do what comes naturally. And what comes naturally when they see me for the first time, is usually to run away in tears! As far as they are concerned my appearance is not just unattractive but downright weird. Luckily most have got used to me by now. So I subscribe to the theory that what we find aesthetically pleasing depends somewhat on our instinct, but a lot on what we’ve learned and got used to.
Most Europeans grow up in their home country surrounded largely by other Europeans, and during crucial stages of their development, as they are building a sense of identity and belonging, working out what they find “normal” or “attractive”, it is other Europeans that they are exposed to. Conversely, ask a group of schoolgirls in Kyoto whether they prefer Japanese heartthrob Hideaka Takizawa or US sex symbol Brad Pitt. I think I can guess whose picture they have lovingly glued into their exercise books. It’s not Brad, even though in my opinion he wins hands down.
A good analogy, perhaps, is with food. My neighbours here eat crickets. I don’t like them at all (crickets that is. My neighbours are fine). As far as I’m concerned, insects are not for eating. It would be meaningless to try to prove objectively that they taste bad, because taste is not objective. I can’t say with any authority that it’s not normal to like crickets, only that I don’t find it normal, and that they probably wouldn’t sell in an English supermarket. My neighbours like them well enough and find my distaste for them decidedly odd. It would be absurd to try and rationalise my preference by writing detailed critiques, comparing them with poisonous scorpions, and proclaiming the intrinsic superiority of the perfectly formed prawn. I just don’t like eating crickets. End of story.

In other words our tastes stem from impulse, not intellect. If an African man finds my pale skin unattractive, fine. That’s just the way he feels. But if he then tries to reason that I’m unattractive because I resemble a pig, I’ll feel offended.
Similarly there is no need to rationalise your dislike of non-white looks by making incongruous and unflattering references to snakes and primates and disease. You can just say “this is my preference” and “research indicates that this is most white people’s preference” and leave it at that. Unless, of course, you have objective data to substantiate any reasons you give. True that this website attempts to rationalise perceptions of beauty, but it does so by showing us verifiable facts, research, statistics, discoveries from academic fields such as evolutionary psychology and genetics. It makes no claim without providing such evidence to support it. The arguments put forward are therefore persuasive, if challenging. I think a similarly disciplined approach on your part would help you make a more compelling case and, importantly, help put an end to those pesky accusations of racism.

xx

By the way, credit where it’s due. Reading your comments I would swear you were a native English speaker. I might not like some of the things you say, but the ability to speak and write so eloquently in more than one language is something I deeply admire.

Godis, that was a very generous comment and I was flattered when I read it, thank you. Although you might not think so highly of me if you could see the state I get into when I lose my house keys in the morning!
If you’re interested in analysing your own way of putting your arguments, the following web-page is a very brief analysis of ways we use language to express ourselves, and how different ways of saying things are helpful in different contexts. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e04.htm If you find that piques your interest, I can try to find some pages that are a bit more comprehensive.
A bit off-topic, but I think as someone who enjoys learning about yourself, and people in general, you might enjoy a book called “Emotional Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman, or “How the Mind Works” by Steven Pinker. Pinker touches on some of the issues here like evolution, genetics, why we find certain features beautiful, but he discusses a lot more besides. Goleman is more concerned with character, why human beings evolved to have strong emotional reactions and how we can use our intellect to deal with them productively. While both books are accessible, they are also academic, so although they have very different styles, both writers know how to make their case effectively using neutral language. It’s helpful to study how they convey strong and firmly held beliefs, but in a moderate, well-argued way.

Liza,

I could answer your post in detail, but you see, I believe that someone has to have at least some small kind of basic decency and integrity in order for me to spend my time doing that.

I also don't believe you for one second when you say you didn't intend to be underhand. That was exactly what you intended. You are intelligent, and you knew what you were doing. The thing is, such nasty and deceitful behavior always backfires because the one doing it loses the respect of others. You might not always like my views on the issues here - or my choice of words when I am annoyed and provoced - but I would never do something like that to somebody else in order to give a twisted and untrue image of them.

If you dislike my comments I suggest you don't read them instead of spending your time going through everything I say, picking out the most negative parts totally out of context. You, by the way, have proven yourself to be the last person to give others advice on how to conduct themselves, or how to write. I would worry more about yourself if I were you.

Liza,

Thank you! You've basically nailed some of my interests. I will look into those!

I know that wasn't directed to me but that was really helpful...haha

Hey Emily.

Like you, I think personal insults are a poor substitute for rational debate:
“Try to use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.” (your advice to another poster, above on this page)

So, consider the following rational argument:

When you quoted Barack Obama and then claimed that his words were racist, there are two possible reasons why you did so: either you were deliberately misrepresenting what he said to make it seem racist when really it wasn’t, or you genuinely thought his comments were racist and were trying to explain why.
Similarly, when I quoted you and then claimed that your words were offensive and unbecoming, either I was deliberately misrepresenting what you said to make it look that way when really it wasn’t, or that was genuinely my view, and I was trying to explain why.
I assure you that the latter is true. I genuinely thought (and still think) your words were self-evidently indefensible, regardless of context, and I think they paint a negative picture of you. I have been completely honest about that and I have shown why.

We have both used quotations to support our point. So either we are both as bad and deceitful as each other, or (as I believe) we were both within our rights to use quotation in the way we did.

I compiled a sample of your most offensive statements because I think that if you repeatedly make discourteous remarks about other ethnicities, and about other people on the basis of their ethnicities, using terms with racist connotations, it’s really not surprising if someone comes along and assumes that you are a racist. I think I have been quite clear about that. Stating that your words were judicious in context is fine, but it is only convincing if you can demonstrate clearly that the circumstances under which you said them justifies their offensive nature – i.e. which specific remarks provoked you, and why your response was appropriate. This is something you have yet to do. You may feel that it was unfair of me to put the onus on you to justify the offensive things you said. I feel that I was right to do so, because I think if you cannot defend them you should refrain from saying them.

You have said a lot of controversial things, and in my last comment, I tried to respond to some of them intelligently and fairly in the hope of entering into sensible discussion. So far, I note that you have failed to address any of my points and instead cast numerous aspersions about my character.

In response, I simply repeat your own words, with which I very much agree:
“saying I’m such a terrible person is not an argument. Try to use arguments...
Surprise me.”

Charloviex:
That's brilliant, thanks for the comment. They are such good books!
xx

Lack of evolvement manifests itself in different ways. There is the underdeveloped asian body type, which is so typical for that race. A very large head compared to the body, very small hips and breasts, often followed by short legs, make many asians look childish and not like fully developed adults. They will often appeal to western men who like the girlish look of adolescent girls, or younger.

The asian adult face with its flat profile, sunken nose bridge and round, mongoloid traits often look similar to that of children. The distinction between child and adult is less pronounced.

Another effect of what resembles poor development into adult maturity is the feminine-looking men. Very rounded, soft facial features in men are not masculine and instead look child-like.

Child;

Adult;

Poorly developed nose bridge, strangely malformed eyelids, huge puffy and childish cheeks and a very flat profile make the asian race look less evolved, and therefore also less attractive and appealing. This goes for both body and face. The asians who look more attractive will better approach the white standard of beauty and have more muted mongoloid traits.

The underdeveloped and immature-looking facial traits are often unsatisfactory to asians themselves, and plastic surgery photos show which general look is desired. A more adult-looking, masculine face.;

Before;

After;

Yet another effect of the strange lack of distinction between child- and adulthood is that the genders approach each other in looks. Oftentimes neither one of them look maturely feminine or masculine, but instead often rather androgynous.

Emily,
I just discovered this site in the past week. Since then, I've encountered some very intriguing arguments here, but also some incredibly shoddy scholarship coupled with what seems to be a lack of regard for appropriate methodology. Therefore, I apologize for singling you out, but having just read through your post on Asian aesthetics, I'm profoundly disturbed.

When you use language such as "poorly developed" or "less evolved," you tacitly establish a standard of "well developed" and "more evolved" that relies on some sort of example you are envisioning for both. What might that example be? Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians? Anglos? Hispanics? Nordic peoples? Inuits? Ethiopians?

In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments. As Geoffrey Miller writes in The Mating Mind, Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection, NOT from lack of evolution or "poor development." The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?

Finally, on a personal rather than academic note, you seem to have a real problem with Asians. Why is that, do you think?

Liza,

Thanks for the advice. I like that you gave me scholarly stuff, that is always a plus! I will read it Thanks!

Emily,

Epicanthal eye lids are an evolutionary advantage and thus part of EVOLUTION meaning they are EVOLVED! These are good for keeping dust sand and anything else out of the eyes. That is their purpose.

And seriously, AGAIN! AGAIN you post photos of CHILDREN! Sick. I don't think I can come back on here if it goes on...

And what do you have against Asians?

I am personally not attracted to Asian men, but if you ask me the people I am most attracted to are those that have features close to mine. I fall into that, " You are attracted to those who look like you" category, with similar face shape, nose shape, etc. For example I like thin noses on men because I have a thin nose and I want to pass it on. So, I'm not attracted to ASIAN men or men of other races, but I can still appreciate what makes them attractive. Just because YOU aren't attracted to something doesn't mean they are not attractive. Everyone has their reason for being attracted to different things.

Take this into consideration. Everyone likes different foods. Some like sweet foods, some like spicy. Your taste for food is the result of evolution as well. You evolved to like the food you like. Therefore, just because you like cheesy or spicy foods, doesn't mean EVERYONE does. Just as everyone has different tastes in foods, sometimes for reasons unkown, everybody has different tastes in people. Therefore, even though most people may be attracted to Nordics, just like most people like the food pizza, not everyone will be attracted to Nordics, or not everyone will want a Nordic to be their first choice. Just like everyone may like pizza, some people may like other foods more than pizza, even though they still like pizza. GET IT?

Besides, I happen to think epicanthal folds are beautiful. I'd also like to add that I have seen pure Nordics with epicanthal eye folds. I think Finns have epicanthal eyelids in the highest frequency among Nordics, then Swedes. However, I have seen GERMANS with epicanthal eyelids. And, I have seen these in the Northern part of Germany, and in less frequencies in the South. I have been to Germany so I KNOW what I am talking about. We have epicanthal folds in my family on my Romanian side as well, probably from slight Hungarian admixture, as we all know Hungarians originally came from Asia. I find them attractive, and my cousin whom has them is probably the most wanted girl in my town. However, her epicanthal eyelids very different than the Asian ones, but epicanthal nonethless. Kind of like this:

Photobucket

And yes, we do have blue eyes in my family, on my Romanian side. Not in high frequencies, but still they are there...

Hey Emily.

Your lack of response to my arguments indicates that you are not a fan of logic and reason. I can understand that, they are pretty soulless things. Dr Spock is logical, but difficult to have a pint with. Subjectivity and the way you feel is more important to you and I respect that, I really do.

So with this in mind, please read the following personal opinions and tell me:
Would you consider coming to Cameroon?

The place:
It is such a beautiful country. In the south it has beaches to match any you have ever seen, magnificent waterfalls that cascade down into the sea, and freshly-caught barbecued prawns the like I have never tasted before. Further north, there are national parks where you can trek in the rainforest and see chimpanzees and gorillas and a vast array of birdlife. Or you can head into the mountains, climb Mount Cameroon, enjoy the scenery and the most amazing volcanic landscape. You can take the train up north, buying freshly picked fruits and nuts through the train window at every stop (sold by villagers from trays they carry expertly on their heads). Then you can take the bus to the extreme north, watching as the scenery changes before your eyes from lush forest, to scrubland, to desert. During the journey there will be hippos and, if you’re lucky, baboons too. Once up north you could visit the Waza national park, with the chance to see elephants and lions and giraffes. You could visit a nationally renowned sorcerer who will tell your fortune. Perhaps he will predict love for you. Maybe even love of the interracial kind (shock horror!).

The people:
Along the way, you would meet beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women. And gorgeous, athletic men. But more importantly, you would be humbled by the generosity of people who will give readily what little they have, just to make you that little bit more comfortable. Adorable children playing on the roadside with bits of rubbish and string would see you and smile and wave, and it would melt your heart.

The logistics:
If you want to come, I will help you. I will make sure you have pleasant places to stay and are looked after and never feel lost or vulnerable.

What you would learn:
If you met my neighbours, you would ask yourself, why do these people, who are so good, and intelligent, and hardworking (and – well, just like me really)… Why do they live in such destitution? Why do they not have access to even the most basic healthcare? Why do good people suffer needlessly every day from preventable illness? And how do they still find the strength to face each day with grace and good humour?

You might even ask, "How did I get so lucky as to live in Sweden?" and "What can I do to help?"

You would return home, and read back the things you have written, and you would recognise their callous inhumanity. You would resolve never to use offensive, racist terms, ever again. And you would remember that, while it is interesting to reflect on the nature of beauty, it is vital never to confuse objective reflection with personal prejudice.

Haelsningar!

Liza
xx

Shocked But Not Surprised;

"Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians?"

Perhaps you should have read Erik's entry here before asking me questions.

"In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments."

Well, in that case they need glasses, perhaps.

"Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection"

LOL So that is why the double eye lid surgery is so popular in Asia, and why their idols often look Eurasian, and most often have had that operation. It gives the eye a hugely unattractive form.

"The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?"

Actually, I think they support them very well. If you are Asian they might appear less androgynous but to westerners they do seem very non-feminine and non-masculine, respectively. It's not impossible to identify their gender but the gender difference is simply much smaller than in other races. It is a lack of evolvement into adulthood, as if something is unfinished.

And before you start arguing that Asian women are feminine; it requires a fully developed, feminine body in order to be feminine. Asian females are generally terribly underdeveloped and look like pubescent girls. That is why they often play on the Lolita look - regardless of the many distasteful associations it brings to mind, apparently.

Tiny bodies with over-sized heads, straight bodies without much hips or breasts, and often with childlike qualities, do not cut it, I'm afraid. A vast majority of them look like that. The monotonous hair- and eye colour doesn't help, the black colour as usual being hard and masculine.

Emily : the large head asian people are cleaver people. most sciecetists have got large head as well.
anyway I'd like you to look at these links. The square jaw, large head or board face mean you developed correctly and healthy.
Look at this pages and you will understand more about it:
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/facial-development.html
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html
however, I have notice the asian from japan tend to have weak jaw and narrow head than the other east asian like chinese and korean and I find the feminine-looking east asian women are feminier than the feminine-looking caucasian women. but the best looking women for me are the eastern europeans or southern europeans with the sharp features.

chinese girl.jap girl.japanese gals

Emily,

I agree with your comment sometimes but these comments are wrong.

The same could be said for people of all nationalities.
There are swedes like that too

Androgynous look swedes

swedish band
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Feminine swedish men

Guy on right

Image

Image

Image

Image
Image

Image

There are masculine swedish men too
Image

Not all Asian women have that type of "undeveloped" body/look.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

The japanese have the same kind of physical problems as other people of the mongoloid race.

Over-sized heads, non-existant bodies with flat chests and buttocks, tiny stature, flat noses with sunken nose bridge, unattractive mongoloid eye form with one eyelid, strange teeth, puffy, swollen cheeks, unattractive greenish-yellowish skin tone, monotonous black hair and eyes etc.

Actually, many of my examples have been of Japanese women since they are considered some of the most attractive of the Asians. As my photos show much of that is untrue, and if you take real people instead of the plastic surgery altered ones, or half-Asian models in the usual studio setting and artificial light, you will see that.

By the way, since most Asian women have no trace of feminine, developed curves I suspect that most of the models we see have breast implants. Ordinary Asian women's candid shots tell me that most of them have very little to no breasts.

Arrested development looks like arrested evolution. That which is poorly evolved - or that looks unfinished and undeveloped - is unattractive, I think. That is why Asians so often go to the plastic surgeon in order to look more mature and more feminine and masculine respectively, and less androgynous. This will make them look less mongoloid and more caucasian, which is not a coincidence.

Japanese;

Mary;

"The same could be said for people of all nationalities.
There are swedes like that too

Androgynous look swedes"

There will be androgynous-looking people in every population, Mary. The difference is that they are not representative for the population - they are exceptions.

In Asia these kinds of androgynous and underdeveloped people are the norm, the standard. That is what the mongoloid race typically looks like, simply put.

bookworm wrote:

Emily : the large head asian people are cleaver people. most sciecetists have got large head as well.

and most scientists and genius happen to be caucasian and white.

look at this perfect contrast between a swedish woman and a asian one

Notice how the face of the asian is disproportionally bigger when compared to the swedish face

let alone the flat and undeveloped overall traits.

A typical nordic and swedish man

Another great contrast between a swedish and a asian. Again notice the disproportion of the asian face

Typical nordic face: youthful and totally developed

A person don't have to be undeveloped to look youthfully

Where it reads SHIN, I meant CHIN

To paraphrase Godis, Barberella is just some sort of evil twin of Emily, or is Emily...isn't this tired yet, Godis? You know damn well she and I are not the same. Political incorrectness is unpopular, but I refuse to engage in any of the White Guilt that runs so ramant here in the US. I refuse to partake in the guilt that says that Whites are the root of all evil. Historically, there has been a many great things instituted by Whites (here as well as abroad) that has opressed non-whites and for that I am saddened. However, none of them were commited by my family,who were in Europe at the time. My German/Danish grandfather emigrated to the US and fought in WWII FOR THE AMERICANS!! The intolerable backlash of "reverse racsism"(whatever that means)is clearly the case today. Black, Latin and Asian comedians (amongst others) can take an hour on stage in nationally televised "specials" and do nothing but amuse themselves by making fun of whites. If a White comedian were to do the same, they'd be exiled! I'm not a rascist, but I do have a problem with the double standard that permeates our culture today, and make no apologies for standing up for my race, people and their heritage. I also find absolutely NOTHING wrong with expressing pride in the like either. However, my(or anyone else that does so, especiay if they're whites) expression of this pride, as well the expression of my attraction to the looks of whites over that of other races makes me not proud, but racsist. That is wrong. What this says is that there still needs to be "special" rules in place for others, and that is FAR from equality.

As far as looks go, I can say that I've seen attractive people in all races, but find the frequency of those most attractive to be of Nordic, Teutonic and Keltic descent. That is my preference. I'm entitled to it. If I(or any other white) said I'd preferred the looks of black men or Latin men, not a single one of you would take issue. I have always admired the brutal honesty of some who post here (namely Emily), because she doesn't allow white guilt/political correctness to cloud her views and opinions, and that is intellectual honesty, something quite a few people could learn about here. So she feels that blacks share features with primitive ancestors? She is entitled to say so, without the incessant accusations that she is rascist. Are Godis' opinions wrong? Are (Other) Emily's opinions wrong? They're just opinions, and we all have a right to them, without harrassment by those who disagree. The term "rascist" is so tired. Godis feels that Emily deserves to be called a terrible person, but I've seen some of the WORST behavior exhibited on this site by GODIS, HERSELF...yet she always has an excuse...whatever.

And to bookworm: showing photos of Asian actresses and models will never prove your point. Of course we expect models and actresses to be more attractive. When others' show average populations of a certain ethnic group, they are showing an HONEST depiction of that group.

Just this past weekend, my boyfriend and I went to a foreign film festival and saw a Korean horror movie where the nude scene no doubt made the audience wonder if the actress in the scenes was even 18, she was 27. It is known that Asians, while having more neotonous facial features (in both sexes) also have least feminine body proportions of all. There is ample evidence of this. Asian women who are curvy and feminine without the help of plastic sugery, are the exception, not the rule.

"and most scientists and genius happen to be caucasian and white"

Why would you even go there? Currently the most intelligent man on Earth is Asian. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan stumph every other country on the PISA test. The one Caucasian country among them? Finland, interestingly the one Caucasian race with features most similar to mongloid ones as noticed by many here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

In the 4s and 5s you start getting countries like New Zealand, and Canada. Besides that, the top places are dominated by Asian countries and of course Finland... Are these tests accurate? I don't know. Do they matter? It depends on how much the smart people in those countries are accomplishing. If they are doing nothing with their brain, the value of their intelligence is lost...

But it seems that the BIG ASIAN heads may have an advantage...Swedes are actually known for their larges heads, I have found articles with measurements included on this but have lost them since, however if you don't believe just look at the photos Emily posts. Look at the size of all of their heads. I believe they score pretty well on the PISA tests as well...

Although, I don't know if it truly is their head size or perhaps their culture. Maybe they are pushed to do well, while other countries, the United States for example, does not push its students far enough...

"The term "rascist" is so tired. Godis feels that Emily deserves to be called a terrible person, but I've seen some of the WORST behavior exhibited on this site by GODIS, HERSELF...yet she always has an excuse...whatever."

Yes, I have such horrible behavior. Do I have to repeat what EMILY says? Honestly, you admire Emily for being brutally honest but you put me down for my "behavior". Ok. You make a lot of sense Barberella. Emily degrades whole populations of people referring to them in vulgar ways, not only does she attack their appearance using horrible terminology, but she attacks their way of life as well. She also literally posts photos of children and makes fun of them. But I am the one with bad behavior, and Emily should be applauded for her brutal honesty, right? Well, bravo Emily and bravo Barberella for standing up for her! BRAVO! clap clap clap...

It's funny how Emily totally dismisses the femininity of Reon Kadena. I don't think this woman is underdeveloped:

reon kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon also has a lovely face. Whether it deviates towards European norms than the average Asian face or not, doesn't matter. Her face is lovely. Period.

Now, I think it would Emily just soo happy after I post these photos. This CAUCASIAN Nordic woman is in my opinion very very feminine. She is a tad bit on the heavy side, and I believe she would be MORE feminine if she lost like 20lbs, but nonetheless this woman is probably on many men's minds:

Christina Hendricks Pictures, Images and Photos

Christina Hendricks Pictures, Images and Photos

Christina Hendricks Pictures, Images and Photos

Christina Hendricks Pictures, Images and Photos

Christina Hendricks Pictures, Images and Photos

The only problem with Christina is that she appears a bit too matronly at times. However this problem would be easily solved with weight loss. A curvy woman will still be curvy a few pounds lighter. In Christina's cases 20lbs lighter. Christina has had no plastic surgery though. There is some speculation on her breasts, which wouldn't be surprising. Her breasts would be very saggy without a bra or augmentation. However, none of this would have been necessary if she lost weight.

So THAT is an extremely feminine woman. Although I think to a certain extent some men may find her too feminine to be attractive. Watching her run for example would be humorous. So, some men may value some athleticism in their women.

So are you happy Emily, a feminine NORDIC woman!

Here is Christina at a smaller size. I thinks she looks just stunning:

Christina Hendricks Mad Men Pictures, Images and Photos

And here is better a photo of Reon's face, since the one wouldnt display. Isn't she cute?

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Another thing I admire about Christina Hendricks is that she is CLASSY and SOPHISTICATED.

"Whether it deviates towards European norms than the average Asian face or not, doesn't matter. Her face is lovely."

Yes, it matters very much since the entire argument in this blog is that a shift towards the more evolved white standard of beauty is what makes someone more appealing, not only to whites but to other races and ethnicities as well. You think it is lovely since it looks more white and less mongoloid, which, of course, is my entire point.

By the way, Reon Kadena...is this as good as it gets? That's truly sad.

23 year-old Reon has an underdeveloped, tiny body with the usual problems seen in that race. She is not feminine at all since she lacks the development into adulthood needed in order to display femininity. Pubescent girlishness with fake breasts is not femininity. Let's separate apples and oranges, shall we.

Reon is the ultimate proof that adult, mature femininity is practically non-existing in Asians, since this is probably as good as it gets after plastic surgery and heavy retouching and photoshopping (hard to find true candid shots of her, just like with any other Asian model. Gee, wonder why)

She appeals to men who like pubescent girls who are not yet fully developed women. Arrested development is not feminine, it is lack of evolvement.

I don't believe her breasts are real as they are unnatural for her straight and childlike body, and in many photos they don't appear natural.

Asian plastic surgeons are used to working with the non-existing curves of Asian women and are also well-known for the more natural looks they can achieve. Her breasts hardly do much to alter the impression of a non-finished, pubescent body with a giant head on top.

Fake or not they look like breasts on a child, and serve as an excuse to get turned on by a child's body. In that case, just throw in some fake breasts on a 12-year-old white girl and we will see the exact same result, and the same creepiness.

Her face does shift towards a less mongoloid form, and with much help from plastic surgery, probably. Reon is nice evidence of my statement that the Asian mongoloid form is unattractive to Asians themselves, who prefer a face with less mongoloid traits, shifting towards the white norm.

These models that Asians idolize hardly represent what most Asians look like. Less mongoloid-looking = more beautiful to Asians.

Real breasts? LOL Femininity? If you think so and are white, you have problems.

A child's body on a woman's face. Creepy.

When they fixed her breasts they forgot the backside.

Put on fake breasts and feel free to be turned on by children;

By the way, why is it that Asian teeth seem to have such a hard time fitting within their jaw? They are often not in a straight line, as if the jaw is too small to support the correct number of teeth. Their heads are very large so there should be no problem, but maybe the teeth are too large for the heads or jaws. I don't know.

This is the typical chest of the Japanese women..without the breast implants, that is.

And the backside;

Asian women are unfeminine and often even androgynous. They look like children with giant heads.

The greenish-yellowish "snake belly skin" colour is very unattractive. Their white skin has an unclean look to it. It also lacks life since there is very little blood colouring it. They need a tan.

In whites you usually see some blood colouring the skin, making it appear alive and healthy.

Swedish girls;

Here you go. Reon without the fake breasts. She looks like a 13-year-old girl in need of braces. Feminine? Only if you like minors.

As a person, a human being, I am utterly appalled by Emily, and Barbella.

First off, Emily, you must be looking at different pictures then me, because Reon is really pretty I think. Any way, you are a pathetic person, and it is sad that you have such anathema towards people of other nationalities. Now, before your head starts spinning off into another dimension, please read very carefully--your English is really good, but you have failed to see this point: no one is chastising you because you prefer Nordic-women's looks to other women's looks. I don't care that you prefer swedish girl to any other type of girl. That is fine, that is your perogative, great for you. Godis has professed the same thing, prefer the looks of caucasians over other groups. That is totally cool. The problem is that you The same thing goes for you barbella. Cool beans! My problem with you is that you are so vile and evil and hateful about what you say. It is disgusting. I don't care how blonde your hair is, or how blue your eyes are, or how feminine you are, you are a disgusting person. I don't wish for you to rot in hell, I wish for you to open your eyes and your heart to others, and become a not so disgusting person.

And Barbella, black/other comedians do make fun of white people a lot. But they make fun of themselves and other ethnicities too. I have even seen white comedian make fun of black people. It is not that uncommon. Being from the US like you, I have heard white people make fun of black people, and I find it funny. I am not offended. A lot of white comedians make fun of some of the names that black people come up with, hair styles, etc. And its funny it isn't a big deal. And you are right, Emily's and others have a right to their own opinions. That is fine, but Emily takes it to a level that is beyond just have pride in one's own ethnic group. She puts down others in the process and that is not right. I mean, it is cool that you are proud of where you came from, everyone should be proud of their heritage. But don't step on others in the process!

Any way, I don't believe in evolution, so this page doesn't even really phase me or make me rethink any of the positions I have taken. It is just more unscientific drivel.

Why would you even go there? Currently the most intelligent man on Earth is Asian. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan stumph every other country on the PISA test. The one Caucasian country among them? Finland, interestingly the one Caucasian race with features most similar to mongloid ones as noticed by many here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

In the 4s and 5s you start getting countries like New Zealand, and Canada. Besides that, the top places are dominated by Asian countries and of course Finland... Are these tests accurate? I don't know. Do they matter? It depends on how much the smart people in those countries are accomplishing. If they are doing nothing with their brain, the value of their intelligence is lost...

And most genius and relevant science still happen to be by white caucasians.

But it seems that the BIG ASIAN heads may have an advantage...Swedes are actually known for their larges heads, I have found articles with measurements included on this but have lost them since, however if you don't believe just look at the photos Emily posts. Look at the size of all of their heads. I believe they score pretty well on the PISA tests as well...

Actually swedes have heads which are proportional to the size of their bodies (like any european). On another hand, asians have heads disproportionally big to their body size. Swedes are proportional: when their bodies are big, their heads are big; when their bodies are smaller, their heads are smaller too. In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.

Asian resembler hydrocephaly

Besides, you are looking at photos without a reference to compare.

The photo below speak to itself

see how the head of the swedish woman is much smaller and better proportionate than the asian head is.

First Godis stood for indians

Now she stands for japaneses

Who is next?

Interestingly she follows the same school of some angry southern europeans which are envious of nordics. She always bring up theories like: nordics are mongoliform; southern europeans, arabs and indians are more caucasian than nordics; nordics have noses which are robust; southern europeans and arabs are pure, while nordics are inbreed.

What have you read, girl?

Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer?

She always use the same tactic as well:

If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too

If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too

If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too

Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people.

Emily,

Through this entire debate you insist that other people use "facts" to substantiate their arguments when all you have done so far is express your opinion and post fairly worthless and biased photographs to express your extremely limited and ignorant perceptions of other ethnic groups. You may request that other people take you seriously and allow you to express yourself, but you must realise that your behaviour is unbecoming.

I will make no assumptions to tell you what you should think or what you should find attractive. However, your crusade against the appearance of men and women from other ethnic backgrounds disgusts me. So, some white individuals find asian, black, hispanic, etc. women and men attractive. Great. Good for them. Those people are celebrating what they think is attractive and being positive. You are just being hateful and otherwise spreading ridiculous, closed-minded, and downright offensive opinions.

The fact that you continue to persist in these arguments, mounting more and more insults against huge swaths of people who have never done anything wrong to you, tells me that you are a sad, pathetic, and insecure human being. To me, you are the sort of person with a slanted view of the world and a bizarre need to validate herself by putting down others. While some of the women you posted images of might not be attractive to you, you must understand that a person who spends their time insulting others for something they cannot help because they were born a certain ethnicity is much much uglier.

Furthermore, you have derailed what was an interesting article featuring interesting images pertaining to evolution into an ugly debate whereupon people will continue to tell you how wrong and ignorant you are.

"She always use the same tactic as well:

If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too

If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too

If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too

Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people."

lol Yes, that's true, actually. She does. I see that now.

Her problem is that she's not exactly convincing. I think she is of some kind of mixed ethnicity/race herself. At least she clearly identifies with them, and she is hostile and critical ONLY of Scandinavians. No one else. She really only sees a problem with Scandinavians in terms of looks, and I now see that indeed she tries to project the physical problems of others onto Scandinavians.

I think these photos are very interesting. They show the disproportionate head size of the asians compared to the Swedish girls. The Swedish girls should really have larger heads since they are probably taller. It also shows how terribly unappealing the mongoloid eye form is, and why asians themselves so often correct it with plastic surgery.

I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.

People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas. Deformed eyes are clearly not needed. Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes. I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea. A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed.

I keep saying I need to stop coming here, but today I couldn't resist. We have Emily showing some more her hilarious fallacious thinking that's been torn apart before, some of it even on this site.

In regards to Emily endlessly prattling on about how asians are physically undeveloped (true to an extent), let's go look at a little link on this right.

Right to the left, wherever you go.

http://femininebeauty.info/improving-looks

Look at this page. It's pretty big. It's devoted to how one can alter their body structure- in terms of fat distribution, muscle mass, whatever- by all sorts of dietary and physical fitness activities.

I mean, I shouldn't even have to cite this. It's kind of really, really, really obvious to anyone. Maybe I could cite a boatload of heritability studies on physical traits.

The hyper-under development seen among a number of east asians is probably of little appeal to most people, regardless of cultural influences. But I'm going to repeat myself again.

THESE PHYSICAL FEATURES ARE HEAVILY TRANSIENT.

As another example, maybe I could dig up literally mountaints of photos of obese white women. Even swedes.

Why do people like this exist so prominently? Why, because east asians have better diets, and as another aspect of genetics (also a VERY TRANSIENT ONE), whites have more uneven fat distribution than asians, causing them to look worse when overweight.

Want alot of examples of androgynous and undeveloped white women?

Um, right on this site: http://femininebeauty.info/top-fashion-models
http://femininebeauty.info/sexy-fashion-models

More transience and large-scale physical variability.

Here's another one, from this site: http://www.femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/physique

While Erik goes on about white women having more feminine bodies than non-white women (I'm not as well-read on the literature, but I believe it's broader than Erik indicates, especially with some prominent evidence going against the whole "hour-glass ideal" having risen up recently), he also bespeaks of....

Wait for it. VARIANCE IN PREFERENCES.

" Compared to European men, the Hadza prefer higher WHRs in front view, but lower WHRs in side view, which is consistent with the anatomical differences between European and African women (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Drawings used to compare profile WHR preferences between European and Hadza men.(14) A, stimuli presented to Hadza men; B, stimuli presented to European men. When asked to rate preferred figure with respect to attractiveness, healthiness and wife-material, on all three counts, the most common first-choice preferred WHR was 0.6 for Hadza men and 0.65 for European men. “Between 17% and 32% of the Hadza selected 0.55 first on one of the three criteria, whereas not a single [white] man in the United States selected 0.55 on any question.”(14)

Therefore, some population differences in aesthetic preferences lie along the lines of anatomical differences between populations, as also shown previously for the shape of the nasal bones in Europeans, which make it difficult to specify exacting aesthetic criteria to compare attractiveness across populations."

Can't forget the khoisan who, in spite of their burst in population numbers and more extensive contact with western culture and media, still consider steatopygia to be generally more attractive.

Oh, and this: http://www.newser.com/story/19361/ivory-coast-crazy-for-big-butts.html

Whoa. People in the Ivory Coast going for buttocks enhancements. This being a... recent development.

Maybe I could also go and look up Erik's writings on how cultural influences by way of the androgynous high fashion models has increased frequences of bulimia and anorexia.

Like I said, even if white women have objectively more "feminine" body structures on average, this would still remain heavily variable, and isn't that important for one simple reason:

IT'S VERY TRANSIENT.

I doubt you'll be understanding that anytime soon. Maybe it's because you're dense and arrogant as fuck.

And again, and again, and again- regardless of body structure, it is unbelievably blatant east asian women have more gracile facial structure, owing to their considerably lower testosterone levels. This doesn't translate to across the board greater beauty or femininity or whatever, but it's pretty obvious that the single greatest correlate of facial femininity is testosterone levels. This can lead to androgynous men more often though, along with undeveloped women. In the case of whites, who are somewhat in between blacks and east asians, they're more prone to average looking facial femininity.

But hey. Testosterone levels are quite transient.

Emily also mentions how teeth look "crowded" in asian mouths. This could be due to how east asians average teeth in between the extremities of human phenotypcical expression- between the small, derived teeth typical of caucasoid populations as a whole and the massive teeth of black africans and aborigines. Thus, the larger teeth among them more likely to show crowding in smaller mouths. That's not really a feature you can pin specifically on any ethnic group, considering how highly variable both structures are, and how east asians are more likely to be more balanced in such a regard, but also show extremities in either direction that balance it out.

Here's a table on tooth size by population: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4720/toothsize.gif

From: Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.

See, Emily, isn't this interesting? You're freakishly biased in favor of nordics. I doubt you'd like to tell us how small teeth in a large mouth would end up looking heavily gapped and uneven anytime soon, too. I'm unsure of how mouth size can be rated on a scale of derivation, though, and tooth size as well, though extremely large teeth are probably interpreted as masculine. (but, certain primtive traits are also strong components of masculine beauty.)

That also brings to mind your comments about Michelle Obama, and picking a really poor photo of her. Personally, I don't find Michelle attractive, but to me, that's due to how her face is an uneven mix of masculine and feminine facial features. Correct for that and she'd be attractive. I think her nose is just fine, too.

And, in regards to "callmewhateveryouwant" (Emily also echos this line of reasoning):

"In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.

Asian resembler hydrocephaly"

Another nordic fetishist to pop up here. Yes, east asians do typically have heads that would fit taller bodies, but...

Oh, let's look at another fun part of this site: http://www.femininebeauty.info/head-length-height-attractiveness

This study only looked at the ratings on manipulations of Da Vinci's work and not on anything else. But, think of it this way:

A woman with smaller jaws, cheekbones and a narrower face would look better on a proportionately smaller body. (IE, european woman) A woman with larger jaws, cheekbones, and a wider face would look better on a proportionately taller body. (IE, an asian woman)

They both create problems, but it's quite telling how neither of you admit the same damn thing would hold true of nordics. I like how you compare asians to hydrocephalics (more comparisons of asians to people with genetic disorders), when someone could go ahead and compare whites to microcephalics. (the extremely small brain size results in extremely small jaws and cheekbones)

"What have you read, girl?

Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer? "

I think it's especially telling for YOU to bring these people into this discussion. Dienekes Pontikos is a Greek pseudo-anthropologist with nationalistic and medicentric tendencies, who has an obsession with Carleton Coon's hilariously outdated racial classifications, and who's work frequently attracts racialists, white nationalists etc. across the board. MedHammer isn't even an actual person and is just a parody of hyper ethnocentric southern europeans.

It's also incredibly telling how you'd make such an idiotic comment like "most scientists being" white. While it's true that most scientific achievements and inventions are due to whites, it's so unbelievably STUPID to say most scientists as a whole are white. I shouldn't even have to go into detail on something that moronic. That's like something I'd see on VNN or Stormfront.

Just a few more closing remarks. Emily on black women:

"There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile"

Largely related to testosterone.

" with less prominent noses,"

Nordics, and caucasoids as a whole, also have their own ethnic extremities in terms of nasal structure. Caucasoids, regardless of where you go, in spite of the angle of their noses, frequently have thin, long, tall bridged noses. Although nasal length varies considerably in Europe, and is more common among middle eastern populations and the like, this seems to be a trait wholly unrelated to desert or tundra climates and is a very typical expression of extreme caucasoid nasal types. In contrast to heavily flattened noses. But, more research needs to be done in that area. Still doesn't discount whites having their own ethnic nasal extremities. (all the various ethnicities of europe are quite closely related, too, you should know. Moreso than most other groups on earth. I like how you once claimed romanians have such "ugly noses" due to their roma blood, in spite of there being profoundly little mixing between both populations and Roma... being only 3% of the population.

"thinner lips,"

Black african populations, in spite of larger lips being considered more "feminine", are more prone to basic extremities, in the range of massive lips compared to very small lips with europeans, true. But I've noticed that many colder adapted populations have certain lip forms that, in spite of being the same size as africans, look much worse even at the same size, probably owing to a certain form. No, I've noticed this far too often. Maybe it's balanced out.

" smaller teeth,"

Not much research as of now to properly put alot of this on a scale of derivation, and again, highly variable and a component of masculine beauty.
" less protruding jaw,"

There's no evidence that rates jaw protrustion and beauty on an objective scale. None.

"less wolly, wild hair."

HAH. Hair structure is the single most variable aspect of physical beauty among humans around. Have you EVER seen the sort of hair styles indigenous africans sport? It's truly alien to typical western hair styles.

http://nubianhairsupplies.homestead.com/hair-styles-in-africa.html

Even though alot of them do sport hair that comes down more, it's of incredibly different form and structure compared to european hair, and, although outward hair is frequently considered more feminine on women, it's not just downward hair, it's OUTWARD from the head. Just look at these people, and the woman with the massive afro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadendoa

By the way, those black girls at the end of your post generally have some good looking noses. Not as fond about the rest of their faces, though.

Oh, and another thing on blacks: http://femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/face-gracilization

Go down towards the bottom on the illustrations of structures around the eyes and its population variance. Look at how africans have the most derived and feminine forms on many orbital structures. They even have the smallest brow ridges, in spite of their high testosterone levels, wherein testosterone is known to increase brow ridge size. This says similar things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#In_modern_humans

"Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches".[2] Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges".[2] Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge".[2] Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges.[2]"

Caucasoids including whites.

I've seen this myself, actually. I've noticed how whites typically have quite large or moderate sized browridges, especially in relation to blacks and east asians. The blacks with the large brows are, the majority of the time, the ones with sizable white admixture.

Not a single ethnic group holds a monopoly on derived physical features. I mean, this site even shows that aborigines/melanesians have the most projecting midfacial profiles. And it's virtually impossible to find a single individual in modern times who's derived on every single scale, or primitive on every single scale, too.

This also shows whites, and caucasoids as a whole, also frequently posess a primitive trait that adds to masculinity.

I've forgotten how fun it can be to tear Emily apart.

Oh, I just noticed Emily's baseless, sick little comments about epicanthic folds.

"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas."

Yeah, YOU DON'T. It's thought to be both an adaption to extreme arctic conditions and extreme desert conditions. It's extremely common amongst khoisan blacks of southern africa, and as a lesser known fact it's also common amongst Sudanese blacks. You know, some of those unevolved people, who also happen to have very dark skin.

Here's a prominent example: http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2672/2321889620ee8bbd1151.jpg

"I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn."

Are you out of your fucking mind? Do you realize how hilariously contradictory you are in this regard? It's true that the lineage leading up to us humans has resulted in more derived features, in large part due to changing social stratification, greater reliance on technology, changes in diet etc. but within the broad phenotypical expression of our species, even highly primitive cranio-facial traits don't serve their more "primitive" uses and only do so when they have strong muscles or bone density or whatever to back them up.

Consider east asians and their massive jaws and cheeks, yet their mesognathous (between prognathous and orthognathous) jaws and small brow ridges, or caucasoids and their small jaws, cheekbones etc. yet their highly developed brow ridges. To put it simply, the vast majority, if not all of the differences that could be implicated in biting and chewing force on uncooked meat and tough plant fibers- such as prognathous jaws or large cheekbones- are entirely irrelevant to their strength. Such strength can only be accounted for by tougher muscles and denser bones.

Back on the main point, though, humans have become profoundly more neotenic leading up to their current state, albeit neoteny and pedomorphism can't account for all aspects of female attraction.

To put it simply, Emily, even though neoteny is only a part of the puzzle to female attraction, it certainly IS less primitive than non-neotenic traits. Smaller, lighter bones, reduced muscle mass and other more neotenic physical traits, approaching the ones seen amongst children and infants, ARE more derived. Non-human primates and hominids had, and do have profoundly denser bones and greater and more powerful muscle mass than humans. If you want to take it to extremes, humans in the far, far future could very well looked less developed than they are now. They'd probably be much, much taller and definitely have much larger brains, but they'd also be physically far less developed, frailer, weaker etc. Humans have become "less developed", but at the same time "less primitive".

You're confounding the two far too much. But epicanthic folds can't be rated on such a broad scale. They're neotenic, but they don't fit on a scale of derivation. Nothing about them is "less evolved". Erik hasn't said they are either, albeit he's shown a bias towards the idea of east asians liking them less.

As has been mentioned MANY other times on this site, there's almost NO evidence to show east asians showed a preference for eyes lacking epicanthic folds prior to extensive western contact, and east asians, in fact, showed a preference for differing shapes of the epicanthic fold- not reduced ones.

Even today, many, many east asians only get partial reductions of the epicanthic fold, not full-blown ones.

"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.

Deformed eyes are clearly not needed."

Yeah Emily, that makes alot of sense. One "deformed" physical trait present in one type of the thousands of genetic disorders that plague humans somehow managed to proliferate among about 2 billion people worldwide.

Yeah, explain how that happens, you sick little girl. As has also been said before, relatively flattened nasal bridges are also a neotenic trait- something that's more common amongst east asians and africans- but I doubt you people would ever rank that as a more neotenic, and thus "more feminine" trait, along with epicanthic folds. But you love to embrace light skin and light hair and eyes as such and excluding almost everything that falls outside of them, and like to act as if broad neoteny only applies to them in terms of objective beauty, because, oops, whites, particularly nordics, have those at the highest frequency.

One more thing to interject about "undeveloped" physical traits- it's blatantly obvious that very few men, outside of sexual fetishists, like hyper-undeveloped women. But those women, with their extremely soft and childlike facial features and body structure, are technically more derived from an evolutionary standpoint.

Basically, humans, while frequently preferring some structures that are more derived in form, and many more derived in gracility on women, don't much like ultra-pedomorphic ones, because it bespeaks of undevelopment from a standpoint of maturation, but NOT evolution.

" Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes."

..........Examples? The prominence of the epicanthic folds does NOT effect the field of vision.

"I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea."

And yet humans have become much less physically developed in our lineage. Sounds like a bad idea to me too.

"A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed."

That's not apart of any aspect of human evolution, because it can't be ranked on a scale of derivation in the least.

This also brings to mind how Erik and others push off how sexual selection accounts for the more derived features of caucasoids, particularly nordics. It seems true that colder climates exert greater sexual selection for female beauty in a hunter-gatherer context, but this is so unbelievably broad and so likely to have dissipated in subsequent generations that it's really hard to make statements about these things.

Plus, could someone explain why caucasoids, even nordics, have such substantially larger browridges than africans and east asians, which is pretty much universally regarded as a more masculine trait? And why europeans, and nordic men especially by proxy aren't highly feminine as well? Along with general facial masculinity? (that can be largely explained in terms of dietary differences when it comes to europeans and east asians, IE, testosterone)

My last paragraph shouldn't have the use of the word "plus"- it was just in regards to how crude some of these sexual selection theories about humans are.

Other Emily: I live in a large Mid-west city where it is ok for black people to make fun of other races TO THEIR FACES, and then go running to the NAACP if someone dared to do the same to them. Sorry, but asking for special treatment, by insisting that double standards remain, IS NOT equality. I'm un-PC, and I don't give a damn if it offends your fragile sensibilities. Maybe you laugh at white comedians making fun of blacks, but most blacks don't, they balk at such behavior. They've demonized a certain very offensive racial epithet, but say it themselves ad nauseum. If I don't care for this, I may state it if I wish. And you're right, joining a discussion on a topic that you don't believe in is absurd.

Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue. You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable. Whether whites hold a "primitive" trait that adds to masculinity, doesn't mean much when overall, they are still by far more refined, and thus more feminine. Picking apart the facial bones of persons of different ethnicities to try to dispell things that anyone with eyes can see is a waste of your time and everyone else's. And all this just to "trash" Emily. While Emily states her opinions, perhaps she's more of an artistic, visual or literary type and prefers to state her comments using photos that are very easy to interpret, as opposed to scientific articles that may be interpreted differently by whomever is reading them, just as her photos are interpreted differently by different people. Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation. You are doing the same thing you accuse her of doing: trying to convince people that your opinion, based on your presented information (in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret) is absolute and RIGHT and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!! And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me.

If you're white, V.C., I'd be shocked. You have such a vehement hatred of them, taking all this time to cite countless sources on why white women are inferior to women of other races. I can't remember if you'd ever stated your ethnic background, your comments are endless, and at times, pointless, so forgive me for glossing over them.

For the record, and Blonde, Swedish Emily knows this, I don't agree with every single point proposed by her. It's just that I don't take it personal when someone has a different point of view. I see other races saying offensive things about whites, the same type of things Emily says about them, but it's not a big deal, no one gets unnerved by this, it's perfectly acceptable. Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women. Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously. Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass.

These comments just get more stalker-like, I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC. You are trying SO HARD to convince me and everyone else that, "No, these Nordics ARE NOT more feminine, see, look at ALL these articles!!"

OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive. Many detractors have come here and tried to convince Erik, Emily and now myself that what we see and interpret as attractive is somehow askew and should be re-evaluated because it dares not be PC.

Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain). For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them. Anthropology, and it's data, is debated and re-evaluated on a regular basis. What you are presenting here is not earth shattering or ground breaking, they are merely articles that support your opinions.

Your excessive foul language is symptomatic of your emotional outrage and is the fuel for all of these incessant counter arguments. This is not evident of a scientific mind, but of a disturbed one.

Emily,

You really pissed me off there. Just because I can find beauty in other ethnicities, to you it means I am not who I am. Please. You can tell from my photos how white I look. I am in no way mixed. In fact, I have asked people to tell me what they think I am. The first thing that rolls off their tongue is GERMAN! I have blonde hair and big round hazel eyes, I have extremely pale skin, a thin straight nose, small lips. The only thing un-Nordic about me for Christ's sake is that I am pretty short, at 5'31/2/5'4ish. That is not typical among the "true" Nordics, because they are generally a very tall people. I also believe my face is too rounded to be Nordic. I have a small rounded chin, but it is not very pointy as I often see in Nordic women. But I believe my chin to be more feminine and I believe it to give me a more gracile look, because it is more delicate.

I am not a mixed individual. You like to claim these things. I remember when you claimed I was a gypsy, although my pictures of my facial bone structure certainly do not resemble an ethnically Indian-white mixed type of person. It actually is pretty close to an average NORDIC face.

The problem is that you cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people on the planet. I disagree with you that they are, this is why I argue against the whole Scandinavians are the most attractive theory all the time. I point out the inconsistincies. I simply believe that OTHER Nordics are more attractive, and that OTHER Nordics such as the Keltic Irish people or Nordic German people are more deserving of the title. I have stated OVER and OVER and OVER again that I can see that Nordic women are on average more feminine and attractive. However, I feel that if you compare Scandinavian women to German or Irish women, their features will be less fine and they will be less feminine on average. Simple as that. It is nothing personal or nothing against Scandinavians. I still find Scandinavians to be more attractive than other ethnicities on average, but I don't think they are at the top of the attractiveness scale. They come after Germans and Irish in my opinion. Simple as that.

I also think that an individual asessment is more important. Afterall, my cousin has very Latin looks with dark hair in curly ringlets and olive skin. She is gorgeous and everyone in town knows it, and everyone in town wants her. It's kind of annoying actually. But she is just as pretty as any Nordic. Now her features are deviated towards Nordic ones, but her coloring is not and you can still tell she is clearly Latin! She looks better than most "Nordic" women around here. Including me. And I can admit that, I don't have ego issues... I can accept the fact I am not the most attractive woman on the planet. Besides, I believe I have much more to offer than attractiveness and I am quite content with the way I look.

It's not that I can't bear the thought that Scandinavians are more attractive than other races. I simply find beauty in all things. I can find flaws in any race. You cannot find ANY flaws in Scandinavians. YOU, EMILY, cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people... You are the one that has agendas. I simply state what I see. I can say I disagree that Scandinavians are the most attractive people. What is wrong with that? Why can't I disagree without being accused of being biased because I am "mixed". Why?

Barberella,

Your argument against V.C. was pathetic. He/She has some very good points.

You claim that every article that supports V.C. was picked to do so. However, Emily and Erik do the same things. Emily picks only the photos that support her claims, and Erik picks only articles that support his claims. So for every article or photo supports them, there is one that dispells their point as well.

At least V.C. mentioned FACTS about testosterone levels and the shapes of facial features. At least V.C. pointed out the pros and cons of every races facial features. V.C. pointed out that every race has primitive masculine features and derived feminine features.

Emily believes Swedes to be perfect. She doesn't point out any of their flaws, while she doesn't point out that other races, although they may be less feminine ON AVERAGE, do have some good features, and in some areas better than Nordics. North East Asians for example have better brow ridges than Nordics, but Emily will never admit this. Instead she will call them underdeveloped and retarded.

Seriously.

I think V.C. has some good points.

And it is not as if you Barberella, or Emily don't ever have good points. Many many times you have very good points. But you both, especially Emily, take it to the extreme. You both are extremely one sided, failing to see any other point of view. You have a very linear outlook on everything.

It's as if someone gave you a straw, and you only see the world through that straw. You can't see anything outside of that little tube, that straight little tube that points in the SAME direction. You see other people see everything around them, they look left right and back not just in front...

I like Reon's face. It is so smooth and pretty. I like the face, I like her eyes, her nose and her lips. I think she is very pretty. The fact that she is Asian doesn't take away from the fact that she is pretty. Is she the greatest woman on the planet? Well... who is the greatest woman on the planet?

Is she prettier than Christina Hendricks? No. But I like both of them equally. I think they both bring different things to the table. I like variety. I refuse to live in a world without it... Would I want to look like Christina or Reon? No, because I like to look like myself regardless of how attractive or unattractive I am, it is me, and I like me, because it is me. Will I try to improve my looks? Yes, to the best of my abilties, but I don't frett over imperfections I can't change and I don't go to extremes to cover them. I like to be honest in my appearance for the most part... I think anyone that comes on this site shouldn't feel bad about themselves. Remember you are what you are. Improve what you can,(to an extent, don't get 50 surgeries, I wouldn't ever even get 1), and accept what you can. And find something about yourself you LOVE!

I'm goin to say it again. Reon has a lovely face:

Reon!! Pictures, Images and Photos

reon kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

reon kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Even with mest up teeth she has a pretty face:

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Here a photo of her mest up teeth: lol:

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

Reon Kadena Pictures, Images and Photos

V.C.:

I actually have to say that while I agree that more derived features point towards evolution, I find that after a certain point features that are TOO derived are unattractive. Being a woman I am attracted to more masculine men and I don't like men with baby faces. I know many girls do, but I don't. I like a guy with a strong jaw, a strong nose. I like dark brown hair and green or brown eyes. I just feel like if men evolved to be derived and to look like children than they would be more unattractive. At least to me. I hope evolution doesn't go that way. Similarly, I feel women shouldn't look to derived either. I feel that a woman should be feminine, but everyone agrees, too feminine, and she starts to become unattractive. I strongly believe in balance.
The most attractive male would be mostly masculine, but with some features that slightly deviate away from masculine
The most attractive female would be mostly feminine, but with some features that slightly deviate away from feminine.

Balance my friends. Balance!

If you want photos of an attractive WHITE girl. Here are some of Kay Panabaker. I think she has the lovliest face!

She is only 19 so it would be nice if there were no negative comments in case she comes across this. Although I don't think there is anything negative to say. She has a gorgeous face:

kay Panabaker Pictures, Images and Photos

Kay Panabaker Pictures, Images and Photos

Kay Panabaker Pictures, Images and Photos

Kay Panabaker as Dorothy Coulton Pictures, Images and Photos

Nicole Kidman, a classic beauty:

Nicole Kidman Pictures, Images and Photos

nicole Kidman Pictures, Images and Photos

Nicole Kidman Pictures, Images and Photos

Nicole Kidman Pictures, Images and Photos

nicole kidman Pictures, Images and Photos

Kay Panabaker looks so much like her sister Danielle, she could almost be her twin.

Godis

The most attractive female would be mostly feminine, but with some features that slightly deviate away from feminine.

I agree with your statement, I think taht Josie Maran is mostly feminine but has some masculine features yet she's a lot more attractive than some of the women in this site's attractive section, balance works in her favor.

Barberella;

"Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue. You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable."

They know I write the truth, and that's really the only reason they feel the need to constantly try to censure me. Had I not hit the mark no one would have bothered, but since I tell the truth about the looks and lack of femininity and evolvement of those races, and since that truth is not to their advantage, they think they are somehow justified in sinking to the level of personal attacks.

That's really all they got. The arguments are simply not on their side, so why argue the issues, argue the poster, who is a terrible person for stating the truth.

You can post as many photos of Reon as you like godis, with all the retouch and the professional lighting, and her fake breasts in plain view. We all know what she looks like by now, a 23-year-old woman, supposedly, who looks like 13 with fake breasts, and everyone sees she has no body and a giant head with mongoloid features that partly ruin it.

She is supposed to be the best of the best, mind you, and all we get...as usual... is a child's body, a giant head, uneven teeth, breast implants, unattractive black mongoloid eyes that are a little more open due to plastic surgery.

Reon is excellent proof of what I say; the mongoloid race is painfully underdeveloped and unfeminine, "grown" women look like pubescent girls, and they need breast implants to give at least some illusion of adult femininity.

When they have breast implants they look like... pubescent girls with breast implants, since those breasts don't fit a totally underdeveloped and tiny body.

Put fake breasts on a 12-year-old white girl and you see the same result and the same creepiness. No wonder asian women are a white pedophile's dream.

Asian adult bodies;

Reon..same underdeveloped body. But hey, you can always cater to white pedophiles. Just put on fake breasts and you are good to go.

Adult asian females continued;

Giant asian heads...

The other girls are Swedish and in all likelihood taller;

Deformed eyes that often even impairs vision. Did evolution take a U-turn in the mongoloid race? Where did the adult, mature bodies go? Did evolution only bother with the heads that somehow continued to grow instead? Giant heads are the result, disproportionate to their tiny, underdeveloped bodies.

Here ya go, typical Swedish Beauty

TYPICAL SWEDISH BEAUTYjap girl.

UGLY ASIAN!

jap girl.

Nice picture with the fake innocent look they like to work. How old is she, 10 or 23? ;)

Professional photos of asians cannot be trusted. Thank god for photoshop say the asians;

Asian women..not the fake models and the retouched professional photos but the reality;

Androgynous men and women, unfeminine and unmasculine, the genders look alike.

Reon again..nice fake breasts lol She is so classy, isn't she? Work that pubescent body with the fake tits, baby.

Emily,

You are the one that attacks people. Not I. You attack whole races of people with your mockery and deragatory comments. Look at your post above. You call those "arguments"? Those are not arguments. I find it hilarious that you and Barberella try to convince people that V.C. has lame arguments, when at least V.C. uses scientific terms and scientific facts to back up what he/she is claiming. Referring to Asian women as pedophile attracters is not scientific or accurate or a good point. I suggest you stop criticizing people for personally attacking you and for having weak arguments when you attack them and do not even have arguments.

It is not necessary to bring up pedophiles to prove anything. Therefore it is an attack. It weakens the argument you don't even have, and it makes you look like a hippocrite for your criticisms of everyone else.

I am not trying to be mean. I am just trying to make the point that:

A) You rarely have arguments, solid ones are non-existant
B) You personally attack people and not just individuals, but whole races as well with your deragatory and mocking words
C) You are clearly biased and have a very linear outlook on everything

I am a white female but it is no threat to me that there are many beautiful women out there, some of other races. I have no problem with whole races of people. It doesn't matter what your race is, you are either a beautiful individual or an unattractive one, or somewhere in between(where most people lie).

It doesn't matter if a girl is a pure blood Nordic with blue eyes and blonde hair. If she is a unfeminine and unattractive individual, the fact that her race on average is attractive does nothing for her.

Similarly, if a Romanian girl is feminine and attractive, it doesn't matter that her race on average is not attractive. She is an attractive individual.

It is simple as that. I don't see why there are race wars. I have in my 20yrs. witnessed attractive women from all races. It doesn't matter if I see more attractive white girls or more attractive Asian girls. In fact, although the white females here are more attractive on average, there is an Asian girl in my classes that is extremely beautiful. I've always admired her beauty and I have even asked her what she uses on her face because it is so creamy and soft in appearance. Despite the fact that all those white girls are more attractive than Asian women on average, this Asian woman specifically is more attractive than all those white girls. So it doesn't matter.

I live in an area primarily made of pure Northern Germans that settled here a while back. I have never seen such a high frequency of blue eyed blondes until I moved here. I have a very good idea what these Nordic women look like. They are very attractive and feminine on average.

Here's some UGLY asians and coarse latinas for you.

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageAishwarya Raichinese celebrity

It is also interesting to me how Emily often contradicts herself. Here is a minor example:

In an effort to prove that Asians have larger heads(which in fact they do, but she does such a poor job of arguing this), Emily posts a photo of an Asian next to a Nordic. Unconciously, with this photos she shows exactly the opposite of what she has been trying to argue. That Nordics have good teeth and Asians have oversized teeth that don't fit in their mouths. Well, look at this photo posted by the superior Nordic Emily. Tell me now. Who has the big yellow oversized teeth and who has teeth that actually fit in her mouth?

Photobucket

I can't wait for her to claim I have hideous teeth, because it's something else I can laugh at and say, "She wishes!" too. I'm going to brag here, but my teeth are probably my best feature. They are naturally very white, not bleached white, but very white. They are perfectly shaped, they actually look fake. People have asked me if I bleach them, I do not. People have asked me if I have veneers. I asked my orthodontist why my teeth are so white. He says that different people have different shades of tooth color, just like skin color. Mine just happens to be very white:)

Christina looks like a cow , and has the typical pancake butt nordic women have, pancake butt and big lactating-esque boobs looks fugly.
Nordics can have pretty faces , tho sometimes uninteresting,but bodies are not their best asset.

The girl on the right is hardly representative for Swedes when it comes to teeth as we have extremely good teeth, the one on the left looks like millions of Asians. That's the difference. :)

The pedophile argument is a valid one, since it is the truth. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, dear, but that's the way it is. Pubescent, tiny and underdeveloped bodies normally do attract pedophiles who prefer them to adult women with curvy, feminine bodies. That is why white pedophiles flock to Asia. Deny that if you want to, everybody knows it's the truth anyway.

And the worst part is the fact that asian women know this and deliberately play on that. The Lolita look is heavily promoted and used, and for a reason. I have no respect for people who try to draw the attention of these sick men, just so they can make money.

They are encouraging sick behaviour in a calculating manner, and it incredibly common in Asia. The net is flooded by that kind of photos, geared at men who want pre-pubescent or pubescent girls. No wonder the pedophiles go to Asia in search of these girls. They practically invite them in.

Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder.

This is one person's account of the teeth of the Japanese, for example;

"Japanese teeth are to Asia as British teeth are to Europe.Braces are very uncommon here and people rarely go to the dentist. Crooked teeth are seen as cute here, and the Western version of crooked teeth has nothing on the Japanese version of crooked teeth. You know the shark exhibits they have in aquariums? You know how sharks have two or three rows of teeth behind their regular teeth? Yes, you do. In Japan, wildly crooked teeth, especially when the front teeth overlap or when there's an extra tooth or two growing out of the upper gums, are called Yaeba.

They even have a name for it?! LOL

Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow.

The sad thing is that these photos are representative for asians, they are not the exceptions. Their teeth very often really are bad. When you need to invent a word for bad teeth you really have some problems, I think.

"The girl on the right is hardly representative for Swedes when it comes to teeth as we have extremely good teeth, the one on the left looks like millions of Asians. That's the difference. :)"

Really? She isn't representative of Swedes when it comes to teeth? Well, if she isn't representative of the perfect Swede why did you use her as an example? Why do you cherry pick photos? Do you need one photo to prove Swedes have better teeth, then another to prove they have better heads, then yet another one to prove they have better noses? BTW: This woman already has wrinkles, has an odd bulbous nose, and what appears to be chin acne. Is she representative of Swedes in that way? Do they too have those features? Hmmm... You posted her up because her head was smaller in that photo. Very interesting really. If she isn't representative of Swedes in that way, then don't post her photo up. It is very contradictory. I mean since you are clearly very good at finding photos, and since you claim the average Swede looks the way they look, you should have no problem finding photos of a Swede that is representative of the typical Swede in every way and you should be able to compare them.

"The pedophile argument is a valid one, since it is the truth. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, dear, but that's the way it is. Pubescent, tiny and underdeveloped bodies normally do attract pedophiles who prefer them to adult women with curvy, feminine bodies. That is why white pedophiles flock to Asia. Deny that if you want to, everybody knows it's the truth anyway"

Oh wait wait, the truth doesn't matter to ME? I think that is something you should say to yourself, because Emily, the truth does not matter to you. You see things the way you want to see them, not me. If this theory of yours is "the truth" than why don't you post some facts to back it up. What percentage of pedophiles flock to Asia compared to other countries? Now now make sure these are "pedophiles". You can't claim that any man that likes a grown Asian woman is a pedophile, if you are willing to supply these statistics to back up your argument than you must be sure these are valid pedophiles...

And I find it interesting how the "innocent" look is so prized by Nordic women. Their baby blonde hair and baby blue eyes are sooo innocent. Their light skin and small tiny noses and small little delicate faces, sooo innocent.

Now, that is all a bad thing huh? To have small features? Because Nordic women are perfect. Latin women are VULGAR to you because they are not innocent looking enough(how she comes up with this is beyond me). Asian women are disgusting because they appear too innocent, too much like children. But Nordic women are just perfection.

You know what? Evolution shouldn't even go on. It's over guys! We have perfection! Nordics. We should just wait for the rest of the world to die out. Here is the plan, everybody else in the world stop having kids! Stop it! You are not worthy to have children you have horrible genes! And do not even think about mixing with pure Nordics. You will destroy a perfect line! Now, after everyone dies out Nordics can have Earth all to themselves. Ok? Nordics will also come up with a cure for cancer and aids, and after that everything will be perfect and everyone will be in heaven on Earth! YAY! It's a perfect plan. Perfect...

the Visitor above=Godis

I don't understand how someone can be so intolerable of other people. Even my blue eyed blonde perfect Nordic friend can admit she has imperfections, and this girl is gorgeous. And she is German, not Scandinavian, but Nordic nonetheless. But of course, these days Germans aren't even Nordic, they have a "dinaric" element, somebody claimed. Pretty soon Emily will claim only Swedes are the true Nordics.

Dex,

Yes I agree. Josie Maran is very attractive.

Josie Maran Pictures, Images and Photos

I fade up with many racist comments on this site. don't you have anything else better to be proud of? rather than the beautiful appearance you have got? and you get it from your parents not from your own abilities? does the people like this being called the superior human?.....this site only makes the idiom "no brains blonde joke comes to truth!" the people like emily, visitor, erik and some people on here should get it? blonds are not more sexually attractive, just more scarce, 5% of all women on our planet. So if 10% of the gentlemen prefer blondes, they have a problem. my dad is sciencetist he told me if the blonde is a healthy characteristic, this world must be full of these people... but it doesn't?.... so please? don't make the overall people feel down with your opinion. I have seen beautiful people people of all ethnicity. when I have got enough time for this, I will scan a pictures of the beautiful non-white women to post on this site.

Godis : I totally agree with you on the picture emily posted asian girl vs. nordic girl.the asian girl is clearly fatter than the nordic girl so her face appeared larger. when I got enough time I will post a pic of some of the beautiful japanese, filipina, thai and black girls on here. anyway, I'm living in netherland. I curious if erik was the dutch because he has got holland as his lastname, but its also possible he would be the irish-american? I'm sure would be sad if he was the dutch.

bookworm/ i'm not annoymous

Some horribly ugly non nordics!

Aishwarya RaiDeepikaselena gomezImageMinisha lambahImagechinese

Barbarella"

"Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue."

Pray tell, what makes it so self-aggradizing and insufferable?

"You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable."

I'll admit that yes, Emily angers me. But why shouldn't I be? This site is a rarity. It's one of the most cohesive and extensive analysis of the evolution of human female beauty, it's objective correlates, and examination of population variance in cranio-facial structures that contribute to human beauty. Considering how this so heavily intersects with identity politics and the nature-nurture debate, it's of great interest. But, there's still consdiderable flaws with it, and not enough clarification in many regards. It's a subject that doesn't have enough proper study, especially in Erik's delineation of women in modern fashion and beauty pageants. (albeit I think his taste in "feminine women" is poor.)

The fact there's an extremist like Emily vomiting up her ultra-elitist nordic fetishism in site with so much grey area is significant.

Plus, I think it also begs the question of Emily's mental stability on how she's so hilariously desperate to prove the perfection and idealism of the women of her tiny little ethnic group, and shit all over billions upon billions of other people worldwide, who she will never meet, without any real evidence to back her up- outside of her photos of swedish women from night clubs, many of them with tans, many of them with bad tans, whom she happens to think attractive, and posting these photos over and over and over again, and...

Goddamn. Hasn't this been shown well enough? Even Erik, who's been very suspiciously silent on Emily, has criticized this.

"Whether whites hold a "primitive" trait that adds to masculinity, doesn't mean much when overall, they are still by far more refined, and thus more feminine."

Um, yeah, it is. Protuding, prominent, rugged browridges are a virtually universal correlate of masculinity. They have more refined facial features in most other areas than say, black africans or australian aborigines, but certainly not compared to east asians.

It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races. See this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Features

If whites were so much more feminine, why aren't white men, by proxy, more feminine as well? To produce women, you must have feminine looking men. It's a very basic aspect of inheritance, here.

Oops, I mean, Nordic whites, the pinnacle of human beauty and femininity, unlike those manly slavs and romanians.

"Picking apart the facial bones of persons of different ethnicities to try to dispell things that anyone with eyes can see is a waste of your time and everyone else's."

Um. Many people unaware of physical anthropology terms and population variance in such traits aren't going to be aware of the underpinnings of alot of these traits. How many lay men are that familiar with things like midfacial flatness? The more I've read into this subject, the more aware I've become of these traits among humans.

I've become more aware that yes indeed, whites have bigger browridges than east asians and unmixed blacks. That's what a mountain of physical anthropological evidence says. And someone with eyes.

"And all this just to "trash" Emily."

No, to show how hilariously wrong someone spreading gross scientific misinformation and injecting her own nationalist politics and crude ideals of racial purity into a poorly explored area of scientific inquiry.

"While Emily states her opinions, perhaps she's more of an artistic, visual or literary type and prefers to state her comments using photos that are very easy to interpret, as opposed to scientific articles that may be interpreted differently by whomever is reading them, just as her photos are interpreted differently by different people."

Um. What the hell is this? You're saying casual photos are more concrete than indepth scientific articles published by real physical anthropologists, who also adhere to the idea physical traits implicated in derivations from more primitive forms? But then you say her photos can be "interpreted differently by different people." Like the physical anthropology articles.

Ok. That's kind of really stupid and contradictory. But whatever.

"Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation."

Yeah, they do, and there's a near-consensus on what constitutes derived traits among humans. How implicated many of them are in feminine beauty is a matter of debate- I mean, some of them, like browridge size/protrusion and infraglabbelar notch depth, have strong consensus- but from what I can tell, most of them are neutral. These aren't just "my interepretations"- they are literally what the evidence says. I quote and agree with Erik in many regards. I often quote and show much of the information on his webpage.

But wait, maybe it really is my own opinions that protruding browridges are a universally masculine trait.

"You are doing the same thing you accuse her of doing: trying to convince people that your opinion, based on your presented information (in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret) is absolute and RIGHT"

Um, no, it's called informed debate. I'm showing what the scientific evidence really says and how grossly wrong she is on so many things. Emily has tried to defend her trash many times by saying that this an objective site devoted to feminine beauty, and that her thinking falls in line with it. She's trying to debate herself. Even though her evidence is atrocious, inane, scientifically unsound, and her attitude and outlook towards it is morally bankrupt. What's wrong with trying to show someone, and many other observers and commentators that this is false?

If she finds nordic women the most attractive, that's all fine and well, but it's a completely different matter when she shoves this down everyone else's throat.

"(in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret)"

Yeah. Some. This literature being concrete examinations of physical and psychological underpinnings of female beauty. As opposed to lots and lots of casual photos that get reposted all the time with the same moronic thinking.

Since you love photos so much, though, let me try it. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of it, but broad neoteny is inapplicable to a full-scale assessment of human beauty, and some cranio-facial traits are implicated in gracility in the least. An example of this would be jaw size and cheekbone size. To give you an idea, look at all of these japanese women:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7674/1163491889240ef6.jpg
(the inclusion of Donald Rumsfeld is obviously a joke)
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7223/1234053310634.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/696/1234056469553.jpg

I don't think all of these women are particularly attractive, or highly feminine, and I also notice alot of crowded teeth amongst them. But can you, with all honesty, say that they look "masculine" or "primitive" with their large jaws and cheekbones? Would they took better with them?

Plus, alot of them have typical asian looking noses, and most of them look fine with them.

"and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!!"

I never said this. I said Emily is like this because of her extreme views, which are incredibly baseless, and her attitude and outlook on these things is deplorable.

"And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me."

I never said I was an expert on hair. Isn't it self-evident that hair structure and style are perhaps the most relativistic aspects of human beauty? Well, maybe not to a nordic fetishist like Emily who reviles anything not blonde or red. But are you now? Do tell me why all these african women are sporting such bizzare, incredibly varied, and, in comparison to european hair styles, truly alien. Even when they lengthen their hair in a downward manner, why is it virtually always in the forms of complex and strange braids and dreadlocks? Why aren't they fashioning their hair to be less wooly, in fact? Why aren't they using artificial dyes and colors to make them blonde or approaching typical nordic hair colors?

In regards to that last tidbit, how many non-western cultures can you name that have ever done this?

I myself can't.

"If you're white, V.C., I'd be shocked. You have such a vehement hatred of them, taking all this time to cite countless sources on why white women are inferior to women of other races."

lmfao, get a goddamn grip. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER SAID white women are grossly inferior, or inferior at all, to women of other races. All I've been pointing out is how foolish it is to treat nordic women as the incomparable ideal female beauty. I wouldn't be going on and admitting- which SOMEONE CAN EYES WITH SEE!!!- that black women are much more masculine, on average, than white women, that the greater femininity of east asians makes them more prone to unattractive forms of hyper-femininity etc. But the difference here is that I recognize some very basic things:

-Most of the variation in facial feminity is due to testosterone differences, which is a largely transient trait.
-Much of the variation in below the neck feminity is also due to heavily transient physical traits, and is of considerably more subjectivity than above the neck traits.

Emily doesn't seem to recognize this in the least, despite how it's essentialy been bored into her skull by now with how much its shown and emphasized and backed up.

Oh, and yes, horrors of horrors, I'm white. I'm american. I'm of northern and western european descent. I just happen not to be disgustingly narrow and close minded and let my nationalistic politics cloud my judgement. We all have our personal reservations in debates like these, but some people are obviously more pronounced than others.

"I can't remember if you'd ever stated your ethnic background, your comments are endless, and at times, pointless, so forgive me for glossing over them."

I think I have. I don't remember. I don't see how my comments are "pointless" when Emily finds the time to come back to this site and stir up a shitstorm with the same repetitive and faulty reasoning every chance she gets, and how you and her constantly argue with Godis about far more trivial matters.

On another note, I honestly prefer east asian women to white women, at the moment. Not wholly in terms of averages, though. I don't have indexes or extensive experience to come up with a good picture of what a typical east asian woman looks like. But, say, in terms of comparisons of "attractive" white women to "attractive" east asian women, I find east asian women to be much, much more attractive. (for example, I find very few of the "attractive women" Erik parades around on this site to be, um, attractive.) I personally find most white women to be very plain or average. And I live in a majority white area.

But, these are just my opinions. I believe some of it's objective, though, such as the greater facial feminity of east asian women and their much smaller brow ridges, but I don't think of this as much importance because it, again, is largely related to testosterone, and correcting for such a difference would leave white men worse off.

I also don't have much of a marked preference, but I think black hair and reddish-brown or strawberry blonde hair is the most attractive. I also like dark green eyes the most.

That brings to mind how I, awhile back, remarked on how the extraordinarly high frequency of light hair among dark-skinned aborigines and melanesians is shining proof of how light hair won't "die out" due to race mixing and how it's probably due to their alleles for light hair being much different.

Yet, even though the light hair alleles seen among white, middle easterners, north africans, central asians etc. seems to be relatively easily diluted by even moderately dark skin, I falsely implicated light eyes with that as well.

I was wrong. I've seen far too many dark skinned american blacks and dark skinned south asians with light eyes for this to be true. Light eyes will never die out with the wonders of genetic engineering. Eye color is probably one of the easiest traits to propogate amongst humans with genetic engineering.

And yet the racial nationalists like Emily, who think they know genetics, seem to overlook this all too easily.

One other thing- I've defended whites. I've pointed out how people who knock on whites for aging poorly compared to other races don't realize this is largely unrelated to skin color and due to a whole host of other variable genetic factors. (note how well east asians age compared to whites, in spite of often similarly colored average skin tone and lower testosterone levels.) Or how excess body hair among whites is considerably related to testosterone, that variable trait again, and can also be an aspect of masculine beauty.

"For the record, and Blonde, Swedish Emily knows this, I don't agree with every single point proposed by her. It's just that I don't take it personal when someone has a different point of view."

I don't either, but I get offended when I see extremism. Don't you?

"I see other races saying offensive things about whites, the same type of things Emily says about them, but it's not a big deal, no one gets unnerved by this, it's perfectly acceptable."

Stop exagerating things. Read my comments to you and Emily's sickening hypocrisy on the Maria McBane article, for example. There's been non-whites that have said things just as bad as Emily, but not a single one on this site has been so extensive in their vitriolic views as her. Nobody else comes close.

"Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women."

Nothing I've said states white women are "insurmountably inferior". That's an extreme position, extreme like Emily. But oh, you're getting offended by extremism! But isn't that just people STATING THEIR OPINIONS, in your view?

"Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously."

In face of everything I've said, it's pure gold you'd say I'm like this. Read more carefully, unless you really think I like offending whites.

"Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass."

After distorting me so hilariously, you'll go around and defend Emily's extreme reluctance to admit the flaws of nordics/whites, admit ethnic extremities among nordics/whites, and endlessly trash on non-white and non-nordic women without even remotely decent evidence, without a shred of intellectual honesty, or human decency, or...

I'm getting abit tired of repeating how awful Emily is and how disgusting it is for you to defend her views and try to pass them off as "sound". In face of all this, I don't even think there's anywhere in the human body that can fit your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness.

"These comments just get more stalker-like,"

What do you call you and Emily's debates with Godis, again?

"I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC."

I don't think so. I don't think I'll ever change Emily's mind. I think my comments serve better as educational to people reading into this subject. It also works as good intellectual exercise.

"You are trying SO HARD to convince me and everyone else that, "No, these Nordics ARE NOT more feminine, see, look at ALL these articles!!""

I never said that the nordic women you're constantly waving around "aren't feminine". I'm just saying that...

Ok, not repeating myself.

"OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive."

Ok. Maybe alot of the nordic women you and Emily spam are highly feminine. Maybe you two have different standards of femininity. Whatever. I find few of them appealing. The thing is that, we're now going into relativism. Female beauty has many objective components, but, it's still quite broad in many areas, and is open to different perceptions based on one's own personal tastes. The point still stands that in general cranio-facial structure... white women aren't as feminine as east asian women.

"Many detractors have come here and tried to convince Erik, Emily and now myself that what we see and interpret as attractive is somehow askew and should be re-evaluated"

AGAIN. Erik's evidence and theories presented DO NOT support Emily's nordic fetishism and your narrow, though not as extreme, perceptions of female beauty. I got alot of that data on brow ridge size from this site. I quoted Erik directly saying that black african women generally have much more feminine structures around the orbits than other populations, yet features below that are, on average, heavily masculine. Erik is pretty nutty, but his views are very doubtful as extreme as Emily's, in spite of he's been incredibly silent, and in ways very positive about her.

Even though I do agree with many of Erik's ideas, I see many of them as flawed- his ideas of the strength of sexual selection and how this implicates in the beauty of nordics, his inconcistency to admit the high femininity of white/nordic women would mean white/nordic men are also highly feminine, his ranking of nasal structure on a scale of derivation, him implicating general jaw and cheekbone size in femininity. Things like that. I've elaborated well enough on many of these.

"because it dares not be PC."

I love how PC is so frequently invoked by all sorts of non-liberal extremists and many regular conservatives to act as if they're the ones truly persecuted for sometimes saying something unbelievably false, basless, or insulting to one's very humanity.

I'm not a liberal. I'm incredibly open minded politically and philosophically. I know what real "political correctness" and extreme cultural sensitivity looks like. I despise cultural relativism/multiculturalism. But goddamn it all if I'm not tired of people like YOU sweeping criticisms of your extreme beliefs as "PC", as if YOU'RE the ones really under attack.

"Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain)."

How am I pseudo-intellectual? I find Erik's incredibly monotonous and overtly erudite tone to be pseudo-intellectual in ways. And boring.

"For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them."

That's really funny, because I've been citing alot that do support him.

"Anthropology, and it's data, is debated and re-evaluated on a regular basis. What you are presenting here is not earth shattering or ground breaking, they are merely articles that support your opinions."

Not gonna go over the objective consensus on many forms of facial femininity and derivation again.

"Your excessive foul language is symptomatic of your emotional outrage and is the fuel for all of these incessant counter arguments. This is not evident of a scientific mind, but of a disturbed one."

Oh no! I swear at people who act like scumbags! I show emotion in some of my posts! (wait, who doesn't here?) I'm obviously a disturbed mind compared to Emily.

Ugh.

I just looked over Emily's comments. My god, I've never seen her this desperate.

I ask anyone with even a shred of scientific, political, philosophical, whatever objectivity to look at all of my comments, the various other more informed detractors of the nordic fetishist outlook, and compare it to... Emily. Emily's still ranting on about the deformed bodies of asians and calling epicanthic folds an "unevolved" trait and the same tired crap over and over again.

Look at them and tell me with all honesty who has the best evidence, and who is the most intellectualy honest.

I hope this debate, right here, and elswhere, stands as a shining example of the crippling flaws of how having such a narrow-minded sense of beauty is. I mean, common sense kind of goes against this. I've said it in regards to skin color- Emily and the like really revile anything that isn't nordic white. How likely is it, how much biological sense does it make for humans to have evolved where are preferences exclude about 95% or more of the skin color variation among humans? Not even taking into account a whole host of other physical traits?

A couple of other things. I've said before that, while it seems true at first glance that certain traits among ethnic groups shifted somewhat towards european, particularly nordic ideals are more attractive, this completely acts as if whites and nordics don't have their own ethnic cranio-facial extremities.

I mean, most of this is focused among the nose. To repeat:

"Nordics, and caucasoids as a whole, also have their own ethnic extremities in terms of nasal structure. Caucasoids, regardless of where you go, in spite of the angle of their noses, frequently have thin, long, tall bridged noses. Although nasal length varies considerably in Europe, and is more common among middle eastern populations and the like, this seems to be a trait wholly unrelated to desert or tundra climates and is a very typical expression of extreme caucasoid nasal types. In contrast to heavily flattened noses. But, more research needs to be done in that area. Still doesn't discount whites having their own ethnic nasal extremities. (all the various ethnicities of europe are quite closely related, too, you should know."

Thus, overtly projecting noses could be a universal trait of climates prone to producing caucasoid nasal types. Same for large noses in general. (like the ones often seen among many arab populations) Many europeans also have convex noses (better known as "hook noses"), albeit at a lower frequency than middle eastern, north african, and indian populations, which I think is quite closely linked to certain desert and arid adaptions. But, the overlap is probably just due to gross physical smilarity.

Plus, many europeans, particularly northern europeans, have lightly concave noses (the opposite of a convex/"hook nose", sometimes known as a "scoop" nose), albeit heavily concave ones are a rarity. But I pretty much only see them in whites or ethnic groups with similar nasal structures. That could be treated as an ethnic extremity of whites, and nordics in particular, albeit it's not that well expressed. I've seen noses like these a number of times, though. They've been posted on this site. But I'm not in the mood to go fishing them out. To get a better idea of all this, you'd probably have to look at an index of how nose types correlate with climactic conditions and are best suited to them, and what kinds of extreme features this can produce etc. and see how well implicated this is in human beauty. I don't know of any studies like that, though, but there's enough evidence out there to get a proper picture.

It seems like caucasoid nasal structures are more prone to extremities in the forms of extreme or asymmetrical bridge angles, overt projection and size, and overall extreme angularity of the nose, while the noses of tropical populations and arctic populations (IE, east asians) are more prone to extremities in nasal bridges being too broad, thick, or wide, noses in general being too flat, nostrils being too broad, flared, wide, etc. and noses in general being too thick.

Maybe caucasoids as a whole have fewer ethnic nasal structures than other populations. Considering how we haven't seen the full bulk of human variation expressed, it might not even be nordics or caucasoids who have the least nasal extremities.
It's abit idealistic to act as if all populations have equal amounts of nasal extremities, but it's not an impossibility. With my time in my readings into physical anthropology and beauty and race, I've amassed alot of data and galleries on traits like this, and goddamn if it hasn't broadened my horizons.

As another poster on this site once said, all ethnic groups look better shifted away from their ethnic extremities. Maybe some groups have fewer extreme traits than others, but why would this be a big deal? It'd be a far, far cry from something like Emily's nordic fetishism.

A couple of closing remarks- I will say that certain aspects of facial flatness are, well, really unattractive. Even though east asians have the flattest midfacial profiles, ones with incredibly flat faces are quite uncommon, and while it says the extremity on the primitive side of things is probably frequently disliked, the bulk of it isn't.

Another trait that's been discussed on Erik's "beauty pageants" series called fronto-orbital flatness is implicated in the flat faces of mongoloids, but it shows considerable population variance and I have no idea if it can be rated on a scale of derivation.

There's another primitive trait I've heard to be quite common among caucasoids called "midfacial prognathism", an outward projection of the midface- not related to midfacial flatness, though. It's also apparently common among neanderthals, albeit they didn't follow the linear evolution that lead to humans and went down a different path.
Googling it doesn't turn up much, though. (try it yourself) I'm not sure how valid it is, or how well studied it is, but from what I've seen, it doesn't seem like it can be rated much, if at all, in terms of physical beauty or masculinity.

Also- look up this entry: http://www.femininebeauty.info/eyebrow-aesthetics
It's quite obvious that all facial shapes are prone to extremities. One can point out asians with almost perfectly circular faces, yet then one can point out whites with overtly tall, narrow, or long faces. Better known as the "horse-face" look.
And finally, before I finish, I refreshed the page and saw Emily's desperate little comments about the teeth of asians.

"Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder."

As I've said before, this is probably related to them having a bell curve variation of teeth and mouth sizes that don't well fit each other, but it's incredibly variable, and again and again, large teeth might be a component of masculine beauty. (you can't have feminine women without feminine men) Among other things.

"They even have a name for it?! LOL"

We have names for it too, fool. One is "buck teeth".

"Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow."

That person details how it's strongly related to poor dental care and a disregard of dental care. Which is endemic to many non-american first world nations. Hard to call evolution treating them poorly. You seem to ignore how they mention the awful teeth of the british, too. (closely related to nordics, OH NO.)

Plus, alot of japanese treat that as attractive. I fail to see how that's related to "pedophilia", or any other pathological sexual views you like to pin on people who find asians attractive. Maybe physical ratings of certain aspects of tooth formation is more variable than alot of us believe, but as an american, I'm just fine with my teeth.

Oh, this is really telling too: http://gabuchan.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/dentist-in-japan/

People per dentist by country: http://gabuchan.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/dentist-chart-japan.jpg

Whoa. Japan has very few dentists in proportion to it's population. But look closer.
SWEDEN HAS FEWER DENTISTS PER CAPITA THAN ENGLAND.

Man, that's hilarious. In regards to that, an actual academic citaiton, I seriously doubt Swedes have teeth as good as you lead us to believe. I have good reason to believe that too, considering how depraved you are. That'd be truly remarkable considering how europeans generally have bad teeth. Even if they miraculously do have such great teeth, it'd be largely environmental in origin, as tooth formation is has many non-genetic components.

For a shining example of this, read up on "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", a classic landmark, and widely influential book on dental anthropology:
http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html

http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Price/dp/0916764206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253916744&sr=8-1

So, I'm done for now.

Oh, one last thing:

An ethnic trait can be best defined as a continuum of physical traits that follow a distribution in proportion to population averages. A population that averages unattractive, ethnic nose types, for example, are merely on the poor end of their range of regular ethnic variation.

That's also very well illustrated by facial shape, again.

To put it simply, you can't just look at one ethnic group with good average facial features and proclaim these are "proper ethnic traits".

Princess Haya of Dubei.

Image

Thai celebrity.Image

Indian celebrity karisma kapoor.

india5

Image

Indian.

Indian

Indian girl.

Indian

Black biracial.

Rashida Jones Black-White biracial.

Uzbek
Uzbek

Thai-Dutch biracial ( the one with blonde hair on the left)

Thai-Danish biracial.

Dutch-Thai biracial.

ImageDutch-Thai biracial.

Ok. I can't pass this one up.

Emily in regards to Reon:

"Reon again..nice fake breasts lol She is so classy, isn't she? Work that pubescent body with the fake tits, baby."

Man, Emily sure does have an objective, scientific, and honest mind going for her.

You can just refer back to my writings on the transience and relativity of body structure.

Plus, even though I agree Reon's body isn't very good, I think she has a great face.

to I'm a racist : you sounded very moron, by the way....how old are you? go to die, huh? the small group people like you are not deserve for this world. -the majority of people in this earth has got black hair and brown eyes. the blonde people are the mutation just get it in your stupid head. I don't care if the white race is going to be death... let the nature decide it? and for the people who posted a pic of african woman with the large boooty vs. african-american celebrity. you are stupid, those africans are cool they could adapt their bodies to stay in such a cruel environment unlike you going to be rotten and die on the chair behind the pc. I hate the nazi people like you.

Your comments sound pretty "nazi" in regards to whites, "I'm nont annoymous."

Your comments sound pretty "nazi" in regards to whites, "I'm nont annoymous."

"It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races."

You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile. They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking.

They are androgynous, unfeminine and unmasculine, tiny, underdeveloped, have huge and coarse heads with unappealing eyes, puffy and huge cheeks, flat profiles, teeth that don't fit their jaws, eyes they cannot see with properly, and just generally look like an experiment gone bad.

They are horribly unattractive. Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed. They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not. Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.

Refined and gracile? I think not.

"You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile."

I guess the physical anthropologists are delusional, too.

"They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking."

That's because you're a sick little girl who reviles the idea of her tiny little subrace being at the center of everything. Emily, there's about 15,000+ genetic disorders that exist among humans. How did just a few physical traits sometimes present in one genetic disorder become so prevalent among them? Tell me how. Please, tell me how.

"They are androgynous,"

The men to a large degree, yes. But basic laws of inheritance requires a generally feminine man to create a feminine woman. This is basic stuff.

"unfeminine and unmasculine,"

These are both two polar opposite traits. And then you go back and forth calling them hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine or whatever. Make up your fucking mind.

" tiny, underdeveloped, "

You exagerate it, and it's a transient physical trait.

Oh, you don't need to get it through your head. You continue to show how desperate and hateful and twisted you are. You're fun.

"have huge and coarse heads"

Body size to head size. Also, what do you mean by "coarse"?

"unappealing eyes,"

They had no problem with that prior to substantial western contact. Show me any evidence that suggests they've always reviled their eyes, or they all get extreme eyelid reductions.

" puffy and huge cheeks,"

Head to body size, again. Maybe they do have excess fat in their cheeks, but whites also lose their facial fat much earlier than east asians, contributing to earlier wrinkling and more severe wrinkling.

But hey, I'm sane and unbiased enough to recognize these are heavily transient physical traits. You aren't in the least.

"flat profiles,"

Only in extremities, and those aren't anywhere near as common as you want to believe.

"teeth that don't fit their jaws"

Strongly related to transient factors and non-genetic ones. Hey Emily, can you back to me up on the teeth of the Swedes again? How can they be so perfect when they have fewer doctors than England?

"eyes they cannot see with properly,"

Still no proof of this batshit assertion.

"and just generally look like an experiment gone bad."

Hear that everybody? Emily thinks asians look like "experiments gone bad." Man, that's sure not hateful or hideously biased or spiteful or misanthropic in the least. Right Barbarella?

"They are horribly unattractive."

Your opinion. Go swoon over the tanned mannequins from night clubs you think are the pinnacle of human beauty and evolution some more.

...No, I don't think nordics look like tanned mannequins. That's just what some of the ones Emily likes to pass off as shining examples of nordic beauty look like TO ME, though.

"Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed."

What's so deformed about them, Emily? I've gone over extensiveley how humans have became profoundly less physically adept and developed throughout our evolution, and look grossly "deformed" compared to other primates.

This is such basic evolutionary science, Emily. And rememeber that the presence of epicanthic folds is a very broad neotenic trait and cannot be rated on a true scale of evolution or derivation.

"They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not."

Not all sufferers of downs syndrome have epicanthic folds, and they, the vast majority of the time, are only small epicanthic folds.

Why are a few of the traits present sometime in sufferers of just one genetic disorder of such significance to you? How do these become a common trait in about 2 billion people worldwide?

This sounds alot like what primitive psychologists and scientists said about downs syndrome patients about a century ago- they looked that way because they had "mongol genes", because the mongolians of the middle ages were such a destructive people.

Of course, that's a ridiculous, primitive belief. But you sure sound alot like them.

"Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.

Refined and gracile? I think not."

Again, tell that to basic evolutionary science. Or make up your mind. Or tell us why nordic men aren't so feminine if their men are. I don't know.

And now we have 2 relatively low quality photos of what seem to be people in a crowd in Korea making a whole variety of facial expressions. Wow, wonderful evidence.

This is Emily, everybody. When her ideology of nordic fetishism is torn apart, she'll break down and start spewing bile that sounds like something out of Stormfront or a white nationalist or a white supremacist forum. She has nothing to show for herself. Nothing but her own interpretations of photos. No consistency. No intellectual honesty. No scientific or anthropological evidence.

Just an insane little girl who hates almost everyone outside of her tiny little subrace.

But, what someone still defend her?

You're an awful person, Emily.

Oh, hey, Emily. Since whites age so much faster compared to other races, maybe I can compare them to people with progeria. You know, that genetic disorder that makes people age extraordinarily early and fast, both biologically and physically. It also makes their noses develop extremely quickly and project outward more, kind of like caucasoids. See: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=progeria&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&start=0

Or, maybe I can compare them to albinos.

Something's wrong with whites, I believe.

Wait, no, I don't believe this. Because I can recognize largely transient physical traits when I see them and don't make broad sweeping judgements of value about them or some depraved shit like implicating the similarity of this one genetic disorder to some ethnic traits as indicative of their "evolutionary advancement".

That's because I'm intellectualy honest, consistent, have a decent understanding of anthropology, and have a good sense of empathy and an appreciation of a common humanity.

You don't seem to have any of those.

I also wonder if Erik will criticize her. Maybe he's too busy penning more screeds on the pathologies of homosexuals, with extensive scientific writings on enemas and homosexual literary terms, or reading up on the latest racialist literature, or hounding porn sites for bland women he thinks are universally considered gorgeous, or catching up on the latest developments in the search for 9/11 Truth.

Perhaps I was wrong about epicanthic folds being present only in down's snydrome sufferer's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold#Medical

Still doesn't change how it's a broad neotenic trait not indicative of evolutionary advancement, and how one can find many ethnic traits to be present in certain genetic disorders.

I mean come on, this is the stuff of early physican anthropologists.

JudgetoBeauty:

That is horrible to say about Christina. I understand how you may think she looks a bit matronly. This is largely due to her weight. When Christina is at a more feminine weight, she will look even curvier (smaller waist) and her breasts won't appear so large and matronly, but they will still appear large compared to her body in general. This is attractive. Yes, she can probably benefit from a slight breast reduction, although breasts are feminine, there is a certain point where they become unattractive if they are extremely large especially compared to the body. Hyperfemininity is unattractive. However, overall Christina is very attractive and doesn't need much to help her looks except perhaps some weight loss and maybe a breast reduction. Her nose too isn't perfect and slightly robust in a sense, it just slightly deviates from ideal. Her face also isn't extremely feminine, or perhaps even above average in regards to femininity. But that doesn't matter because overall Christina is extremely attractive and I feel she has a certain unique beauty few women have.

VioletCorpus:

First of all I want to say something about this:

"You're an awful person, Emily"

I too have called Emily a terrible person. I now really regret it. I feel this is probably the worst insult. We are attacking Emily's character. I feel it is just to do so because Emily has said some horrible things about individuals and whole populations. She has also criticized more than my looks on here. However, I just feel that saying she is a horrible person is pretty bad too. I'm not trying to lecture you, I just don't want you to regret it like I do. I have said it multiple times recently and for some reason I feel this strong guilt about it. =I actually think that Emily isn't really a horrible person. She just ACTS that way on here for whatever reason. I don't understand Emily but I feel I should still be sympathetic to her in some ways. I understand her anger for example about how white people cannot say anything negative about other races. I agree to a certain extent. So Emily has some GOOD points sometimes. I am not standing up for her, I don't even know why I am writing this. Maybe I feel that everyone gangs up on Emily and I feel somewhat guilty for that because I have done it soo much. I don't know. But she does resort to personal attacks more than any of us do. That is just a fact and it makes her appear like a hippocrite for criticizing others for doing it.

Either way, I have more questions for you:

1)Are you a male or female? Don't feel obliged to answer but I'm curious. For some reason I keep getting the impression you are a male. I don't know why. I don't think your personality or writing style is masculine, I just for some reason read everything you write as if it is coming from a male. See I can easily tell Emily is female, because she is so CATTY! And no male would argue: YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!!! over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

2) How do you write and argue so well? How did you learn it? If anyone on here can inspire me to improve (dramatically) my writing and argument skills it would be you. I am impressed by you!

3) I believe I read that woolly hair is one of your preferences or likes on people. This is not attractive to the general European population from my understanding, and not even to Westernized Africans (African Americans). I can't say anything for Africans not exposed to the Western world. I know I just have made some claims without any scientific facts to back it up. However, this is my impression. Is this your natural preference or has some social experience or a certain person inspired this? I am just curious. Also, do you think that if a large population or say 3/4 of the world believes some feature is beautiful, does that mean it is automatically an evolutionary advantage? For example, most people probably do like blue eyes over brown. I personally don't care THAT much for blue eyes. But, for some reasons Europeans and even non-Europeans love them. Do you think blue eyed people have more evolved eyes for example or evolved in general? I personally don't believe this, but I am wondering what you think about universally admired features and what that means.

I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?

4)Do you read a lot?

Maybe you're right. I've called Emily many names, too, though. She just exhibits an extremism that unbelievably revolts me, that makes me feel as though a person who says such monsterous things about people outside of her ethnic group deserves little respect. Well, they don't, but I guess that is going abit too far. I've gotten to the point where I almost find Emily comical.

Still, when it comes to debate, this is something I probably do need to work on. I just find it hard to carry on such a bland and erudite tone at times, especially when confronted with things like this. Emily should expect to be "ganged up on" when she's attacking so many billions of people.

I don't know if I want to say sorry, or even if I should, and I don't know if I should feel guilt either. I'll refrain from extreme personal attacks like that from now on, though. If she does return.

In regards to your questions-

1) Yes, I'm male, I've said that today when Barbarella asked me if I'm white and hysterically claimed I hate whites.

2) It's just the way I am to a degree, but it's helpful to be well read on the literature on these subjects.

3) In regards to wooly hair, or whatever you'd like to term, it's quite relative. I mean, wooly hair is an extreme tropical adaption, and unlike the straight hair seen amongst europeans, asians etc. it grows outward and not downward. Hair that grows out is considered near-universally attractive, but the key here is growing OUT. I don't know of many anthropological studies on preferences in hair structure, but I pointed out some links showing the unbelievable diversity and variation amongst indigenous african hair styles. They're flat out alien to the ones you typically see among cold-adapted populations. I think it's just common sense that hair structure is probably the most relativistic aspect of human beauty.

In terms of form, in contrasting straight hair and wooly hair, I don't see how, at all, this can have an objective component.

When you mention eyes, what you say about "blue eyes" being more evolved reminds me of something. Non-human primates have dark sceleras, in contrast to the white ones of humans, and this is thought to be an aspect of human evolution, allowing us to pick up better on social cues- IE, the eyes contrasting better with the scelera.

And lighter eyes, with blue eyes especially it seems, the pupil contrasts more greatly with the iris. The pupil is black. The light eye is, er, lighter.

I get it from here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/10/17/dont_it_make_my_blue_eyes_brown/

"But even as blue eyes give way to brown, lighter eyes will maintain a certain allure, said Carolyn Kaufman, who teaches evolutionary psychology at Otterbein College in Ohio. When people see something pleasurable, their eyes dilate, Kaufman said. Dilated pupils signal happiness and are, in turn, considered attractive. Since they are easier to see on lighter eyes, they have a natural appeal."

This idea has some big flaws, though. This ignores how lighting conditions can strongly effect the apperance of the pupil and iris, it's coloration and contrasts etc. and thus, different eye colors will look better under different conditions. Plus, the anthropological and psychological evidence indicates a huge variance in preference for eye color, not to mention how people will have strongly variable preferences in how the presence of the iris factors into their perceptions of beauty.

Besides, in regards to that study, wouldn't it be light blue eyes that show the greatest contrast to the pupils? Hell, I think grey eyes show the greatest contrast.

Like I said, I prefer dark green eyes and this idea never really came up to me. It seems deeply faulty when you consider things like light conditions, individual preferences, this study's narrow perception etc.

But that doesn't make blue eyes "more evolved". Under that narrow line of thinking, it's the dark sceleras of primates that set them apart, not their general eye color.

I can't find the study anywhere either- it might just be an opinion piece from that one evolutionary psychologist.

"I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?"

Not really. What do you really mean by evolutionarily superior? How many great scientists, white or otherwise, were deeply attractive and thus represnted an innate sexual allure? Even now?

Physical traits are incredibly shallow, but they have much significance for the world due to our psychological wiring.

4) Yes.

Yeah, I have to go now. I can't find anything about Carolyn Kaufman and a study on eye color outside of that article being reposted and quoted. I did find this, though: http://www.colormatters.com/BBArchive/bubdarc3-vision.html#Anchor-Does-35326

"Mary
The eye color can change depending on the light. For example, yellow light can make blue eyes look green. Since the quality of light changes throughout the day, ones eye color may appear to change."

From a huge site on color perception.

I myself have light brown eyes. I've never cared much about that, although I would prefer to have dark green eyes, or perhaps some kind of exotic color.

Really, look up colored contact lenses and their appeal. Eye color preferences seem extremely broad as well, with factors such as exociticism coming into play, heterochromia, multicolored eyes etc. The more I think of it, and look into it, the more that article seemed to be quoting a meager opinion piece from just one evolutionary psychologist.

Like I said, to me, the pupil shows greater contrast on grey eyes.

And from here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/self-esteem

"Submitted by Erik on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:20.
Mogs: Brown eyes appear warmer than blue eyes, solely because of the coloring. Artists will agree as they are better tuned to warmer vs. cooler colors, and this is the right way of looking at the issue than soft vs. hard. You are correct that the best way to compare eye colors is to match the women for femininity/shape or else there is a major bias."

In the words of Erik. I'd say he's more qualified what with his sizable archive of realistic feminine art subject, albeit I find that stuff so gaudy. But, I don't think brown eyes are inherently "warmer". I don't think theres any innate preference for any eye color.

I mean, some of these colors don't even appear in humans, yet I'd be deeply drawn to some of them if I were to see someone sporting them:

http://photos.weddingbycolor.com/p/000/007/487/m/33833/p/thumbnail/101302.jpg
(these ones look very artificial, though)
http://www.uneekdesignz.com/images/contacts2.jpg
https://www.coastalcontacts.com/imageresources/product/pro_97166s.gif

Image

Image
beautiful somalian

Image

beautiful somalian women.

ImageBeautiful Black girl.

to say black gene is prominent is wrong.
look at this celebrity, rashida jone. she looks fully white as much as the other asian biracial I have posted.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Imageand the people who

and look at peggy jones ( the white mom of rashida, when she was young) rashida looks like her white mom than her black dad?

white Mom.
Image

the other beautiful black women.

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
src="/sites/default/files/imagepicker/others//3791987834_0a5910cbb4_o_1.jpg" alt="Image" />

the one with board nose looks attractive as well. at least, I sure she looks better than many racist people on this site.

Image

Image

Emily : I think the person who is completely down syndrome is you lol even couldn't tell the different between the normal human and the down syndrome. you are just plain jealous of those asian girls. you know what? why erik doesn't answer anything against my post? because he knows it is true that those asians are prettier and feminier than the women in his site. and he is the reseacher, he knows what I been posted is true. - all scandinavians have got mongloid blood at least 5 percent. especially, the Finishs. highest percent of blonde hair poppulation in this earth have got quarter of their genetic the same way of what japanese and all mongoloid caring... There are plenty of charts, including other people too. Not only Finns.

Closest biological "relatives" to Finns are Swedes and Russians. While most modern European populations have mishmash distribution of Y-chromosomal haplogroups (take Sweden for example; R1b 25%, R1a 24%, I1 40%, N1c 10%), Finns basically have only 2, N1c 60%, I1 40%. Northwest Russians have also plenty of N1c and Sweden I1. Finns are exactly what one would assume from geographical point of view. I dont think it would be correct to label Finns as half Swede, half Russian. These haplogroups and biological affinities go way more back in time than our modern ethnicities.
this doesn't appeared in any other Caucasoid like Southern europeans, arabs or indians. why do those asians have got flat butts and boobs? because their genetic is faraway from africa. have you ever notice? many of the northern europeans have got weak jaw and round face with flat nose as well as epicathic folds and their nose aren't big and hook like the other caucasians? by the way, emily, I don't even think you are caucasian? don't you?

because many of pure pure blonde people like Fin and Estonian that I know. they proud of mongoloid blood. even anna kunikova ( the famous blond sporter also stated she has got mongol blood) you can serach for he pictures under the topic "Uyghur or Mongol".

oriental-looking nordic women"

ImageImageImageImage

Caucasian-looking south east asian women"
Image"
Image
Image
Image

Central and East Asian admixture
East Asian mtDNA (haplogroups A, B, C, D, M, N9a and Z) is restricted mainly to Eastern Europe and Scandinavia and is found at generally low frequencies: Lapland (8.5%), Bulgaria/Turkey (6.9%), European Russia (4.2%), Spain/Portugal (2.3%), Czech Republic (1.8%), Western Slavs (1.6%), Eastern Slavs (1.3% to 5.2%), Southern Slavs (1.2%), Scandinavia (0.93%), France/Italy (0.81%), Iceland (0.64%), Germany (0.57%), Finland/Estonia (0.5%), England/Wales (0.23%) and Scotland (0.18%).[94]

Central Asian Y-DNA is much more common. Tat-C (haplogroup N1c) is a Y-chromosome lineage that originated in Siberia[95] and is thought to have spread to Northeastern Europe with male Uralic hunter-gatherer migrations occurring over the last 4000 years.[96] Today it's found in Northern and Northeastern Europe at varying frequencies: Finland (55%), Lithuania (47%), Lapland (42%), Estonia (37%), European Russia (14%), Ukraine (11%), Sweden (8%), Norway (6%), Poland (4%), Germany (3%), Slovakia (3%), Denmark (2%) and Belarus (2%).[97][98]

Though the above rather high frequencies are likely inflated due to genetic drift, which can affect Y-chromosomes,[99] a small but significant Central/East Asian genetic influence in Russians and Finns has been confirmed using population structure analysis.[100]

Asians in south east asia don't have epicanthic folds and board face....I find many nordic do have got folds eyes than the south east asians.

ImageImageImageImage

it is inaccurate to say asian couldn't have blond hair and blue eyes. many chinese in the west of china and mongolia also have blue eyes and blonde hair.

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

VC, what do you KNOW of my "narrow" perceptions of female beauty? Not a thing. You know that I defended a person being harrassed for expressing her views, PC or not, which I would have done for any one of you, by the way. I have said, time and time again to you, Godis, and others, that I'm not Emily, and do not share each and every one of her views, but I do share some. I've stated that I've found beauty to be found in all races, ethnicities, etc. Would you like me to post up pictures of non-Nordic attractive women to ease yours and Godis' minds? I've chosen NOT to, because that end of the argument is already represented, is it not? Yes, I have my preferences, but I believe that I'm a lot more "lenient" of what defines beauty than Emily is. Emily knows this too. She does not chastise me for having stated the opinions I have, has she? No, I've found that when you lay of name-calling, personal attacks and similar behaviors, it is a lot easier to have intelligent conversation. For all of the scientific knowledge you personally have, I call you a "pseudo" intellectual because you lack the ability to debate with any class. Now, I'm sure you're about to balk at the fact that Emily has class, what with all her "horrible" stated opinions of other races, but she is seemily very intelligent, without having to cite tons of articles. She does not use excessive slang and swearing, which I believe is a very low-rent way to "debate". I can't think of too many people who wouldn't give her that, even if they disagree with everything she says. You seem obviously immature, otherwise you'd refrain from the foul debating tactics that you use, and then deem them "acceptable" because you're angry. To use your own words, get a goddamn grip!

Addressing your self-supiority in regards to your using articles as opposed to pictures. Well, if you can't see my point than let me explain again. Ever heard the expression, a picture states a thousand words? I believe, on this site, that's true. You can talk about nasal bridges and gonial angles and brow ridges, and myself, being admittedly less scientificly and more visually or literally inclined will base my opinions on what it is that I see first and what I read last. For some, it is more easily interpreted visually. That has nothing to do with anyone's intellect being inferior, it has to do with the fact that this site is about BEAUTY, beauty being something more readily interpreted through use of visual aids instead of written ones. As of May 2010, I'll have a bachelors in one of the literary arts. I obviously enjoy reading, even science, but I think that maybe, for all the scientific knowledge you have, you should show some photos to prove your points to those of us who aren't as scientificly minded. This is not unreasonable. If you know you're at a debate site where the vast mojority of commentators DO use photos, try doing that yourself. And try NOT to state that photos aren't concrete scientific evidence and when used, makes our arguments less valid. That is foolish and once again, lacks maturity and is insulting. And once again, I'll state that for all the evidence you have cited about Nordics being less feminine, I still believe that Nordics are very feminine based on what I SEE. Present a photo showing your point to those of us lay persons, VC.

Sorry for the spelling and typos, I wrote that too quickly.

Bookworm, first of all, you state that Scandinavians are unattractive, and then state that they look like quasi-Asians, who are attractive. And furthermore, accusing Emily of being jealous of Asians is absurd. I don't see any jealousy there, I see you trying to use photos that are insufficient in making any points at all. And your facts? I'm not the expert, VC has more scientific background, but I'M willing to bet that Finns have NO WHERE near 25% Asian DNA. They appear to have risidual characteristics derived from some very distant Asian admixture, but to my knowledge, populations with this many blue-eyed blondes are not typically heavy on Asian DNA, at least not recent. Like VC does, cite your sources if you care to make such outrageous claims. So you don't like the looks of Scandinavians? It's ok to say that without making ridiculous accusations or posting outright lies.

Pages

Click here to post a new comment