link | Submitted by barberella on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 03:36.
the "Europeanization" of cultures all over the world attests to this.
The ''europeaization of cultures'' is not evidence of people wanting to look european. There are numerous reasons why cultures can/may end up ''europeanized'' and it is the reasons behinds this whering lies the the explanation/truth/answer to the rest. The europeanization of cultures i.e more freedom, freedom to choose ones partner etc...is not evidence of people wanting to look european. Personally through simple factual observation the way it looks to me is like this ''you win because you cheat''.
link | Submitted by barberella on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 03:36.
"The women are extremely feminine and are classic examples of what the rest of the world tries to emmulate."
Maybe a part of the world is but Not all the rest of the world is trying to emulate the looks of Northern europeans. There are plenty who try to emulate this ideal but on the other hand there are plenty of non-european women in the world who are feminine and are NOT and never have tried to emulate the looks of Northern europeans/europeans.
So for what it's worth, let me just say that as a "Nordic sub-race" (not the Osterdal type, but similar), I am glad to be part of the club. I do believe, by and large, that Northern Europeans (men as well as women) have a tendency to be the most attractive overall. The women are extremely feminine and are classic examples of what the rest of the world tries to emmulate. Whether it be plastic surgery, non invasive cosmetic enhancements, etc., the "Europeanization" of cultures all over the world attests to this. Why is it so wrong for someone with North European blood and ancestry to express pride in this. I can attest also, that it is not just my beloved blue eyed, blond acquaintances that comment on my beauty, but men of other races as well. Bash Emily all day long, but that does not mean that she's not speaking the truth. And I implore anyone who dares say that the indigenous peoples of Europe deserve to die out, than shame on you. If anyone were talking those things about non-whites, the PC lynchmob would be up in arms. I'm proud of my light blue eyes, light golden hair, and creamy complexion, and wish to see carried on into further generations. What race wouldn't want that? It is N. Europeans who aren't allowed to say this, and that needs to stop, right here and now.
Peace, and keep setting the record straight Emily.............
This is very late in the game but it has to be said. The most common cup size is not A or B. According to most manufacturers of bras most women are wearing the incorrect size. Most surveys poll between 80 to 90% of women wear the wrong size. Most women are wearing their bras 1 to 2 cups sizes too small. Taking this into account the most common size would actually be C or D. A DD cup would not be uncommon. Furthermore what really counts is actual bust measurement. That is when one takes a tape measure and goes all the way around the bust at the widest part. A 34D bust (band size being 34 but actual bust being 38) would not appear as large as a 40D (ABM being 44). Do you understand now? DD cups are not freakish. They are in fact quite normal and occur frequently in our world.
The issue is not whether or not homosexuals are treated equally in typical situations but whether they are treated equally in all situations. The issue is also not whether or not the majority of people favor same-sex marriage or not. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to ban a legal agreement between two consenting adults simply because the majority, who will receive no harm from the agreement, do not approve. The majority of people in the South were against integration, but segregation was still found to be unconstitutional.
What is the true nature of homosexuality? How are heterosexual marriages constitutional and homosexual marriages not when neither are actually mentioned in the constitution?
Marriage, by definition, could be the marriage of two ketchup bottles into one. It has nothing to do with gender. We use the English word "marriage" metaphorically to refer to the social arrangement between two people to become, what used to be, one legal entity. But married couples are no longer one legal entity and certainly have not been since women's suffrage. Now the term means something different and so the historical practice of marriage has little to do with the practice today. If the union of two homosexuals, by today's standards, is equal to the union of two heterosexuals, then marriage is an appropriate term. Now, you do not feel that they are equal, and that is your opinion which you of course are entitled to. I do feel they are equal, but the burden of proof is on the opposition to prove that they are not equal. Homosexuals have already proven that there is a legal union allowed to other couples that is not allowed to them. Now the opposition must prove that there is a good, and constitutional, justification for it, and children have nothing to do with it. Children may have had something to do with this social arrangement back before marriage became a legal arrangement, but in our society today, marriage only refers to the union of two people and has nothing to do with whether or not they become parents. By the way, no matter how you feel about homosexual parents, there are an abundance of children in need of adoption, and homosexual parents can provide them a home. Some would see this as a social good even if you do not.
My argument was not "consenting adults have a right to …" It was, "Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm." The portion of the sentence obscured by the ellipsis is as important as the portion you have presented. The incest example does not apply, and the very narrow scenario you proposed involving incest is a poor analogy, because sterile incestuous couples are not a recognized social group. Maybe someday the laws will change to allow marriage in this very narrow circumstance. It would bother me, but I guess it is none of my business in the end.
Ask African-Americans if being counted as 3/5 a person in the census was a judgment on their identity as a person. Beyond this, I was referring to their social status. Homosexuals believe being disallowed marriage reflects an inequality in their social status, and thus this is an apt comparison.
"People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices." Are you kidding? Do you see top models walking around everywhere you go? I sure don't? People are exposed to a variety they don't see among top models every day of their lives. If they go into the experiment and choose a more "feminine" version of beauty, it's because that's what they think is beautiful and understand that the beauty of fashion models is something that exists within that industry. They may appreciate it, but they are still capable of appreciating and even preferring the curvier aesthetic as well. If they are having an epiphany during the experiment while exposed to images by the experimenter, then they are participating in a horribly designed experiment. As far as the data in specifics, despite your reservations about Donohoe et al.'s interpretations of their data, I agree with them. If one element of beauty is abstracted from the manifold, the judgment of the participants may contradict a societal standard without discounting the veracity of that standard.
"You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models." Why does this matter, especially if their standard of beauty is at odds with most people's aesthetic preferences? Isn't it enough to say that these women do occupy this position? This is an issue of cause and effect. When you address the effect of fashion models on the self-image of women, you are compelling, but when you address the cause, homosexual designers, you are not. There is a simple reason for this, it is a fairly outlandish claim, and you do not have much to support it except conjecture. The fashion industry as a whole seems drawn to unusual and androgynous yet pretty women. You are convinced that this originated with homosexual designers, but this is hardly fact. However, your exploration of the genetic predisposition of the female body and problems with eating disorders are compelling. Your claim that fashion models set an unreasonable and even impossible standard of beauty is reasonable. How they became this standard involves far too many variables to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not very convincing. This is why so many responses to your posts end up arguing about gay rights and not "feminine" beauty. If you were to eliminate the element of sexual orientation from your argument, present a clear case for why fashion models present a standard of beauty genetically out of reach for most women, and champion an aesthetic alternative to this standard that laboratory science seems to indicate to be actually preferable to the fashion model standard, then I believe you would be more effective at achieving your aims.
Billy: Yes, elected officials can ban same-sex marriage if unelected judges go beyond their duty, which is interpreting law, but start making laws instead. If you believe that marriage means “intermingling of two substances into one,” then it has long been implicitly understood that the two substances happen to be a man and a woman. If you believe that marriage “as a description of a union between two people” serves as a metaphor and that “how we interpret that metaphor today is up to us,” then it is time for you to understand that most people do not interpret this metaphor to include same-sex marriages, and that a number of people who have come around to supporting same-sex marriage have been misinformed about the nature of homosexuality by the mainstream media and the secular education they get in public schools and the typical college. Tell the masses about the true nature of homosexuality and see what proportion supports same-sex marriage, and I can give you a hint: there is a good reason why countries with strong support for “homosexual rights” such as Canada and Sweden outlaw the truth about homosexuals, depicting it as “hate speech.”
The U.S. constitution doesn’t spell everything that is allowed. It was obvious to the authors of the constitution that one cannot write down legislation for any scenario that may occur in the future. So the issue is what is unconstitutional. Heterosexual marriage, this website and banning same-sex marriage are all consistent with the constitution.
Again, you have brought up the issue of fair and equal treatment. But in the typical scenario, homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated similarly. Since the matter being discussed is same-sex marriage, and the fact remains that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in terms of both nature and consequences, there cannot be a legal basis to have these two types of relationships made legally equivalent with respect to marriage.
African-Americans were never considered three-fifths of a person in the U.S. The matter was as follows. A state’s representation in congress is dependent on its population. Southerners wanted greater clout and and hence wished to count all Africans among them as a whole person for the purposes of electoral representation, whereas northerners wanted to regard the Africans as zero persons, obviously to undermine the strength of the southerners. A comprise was reached and each African was regarded as three-fifths of a free man for the purposes of electoral representation; the matter had nothing to do with personhood.
Yes, the incest argument nullifies the consenting adult argument without being meant as an analogy. Your argument was that “consenting adults have a right to …,” which is what I responded to, and showed that it is not sufficient to be consenting adults.
I am not saying that “better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic,” but that the top designers, the ones who come up with very expensive designer clothing that is custom made to fit rich clients, are the designers with greatest clout in the fashion industry. These are the people who will set the standards for how high-fashion models typically look like. They are using the models to display their designs. The items being sold are the designer products, not the models. The mater isn’t what kind of clothes have the greatest impact on people. Haute couture is beyond the means of the masses, but the matter is that the masses are exposed to top high-fashion models extensively.
Regarding controlled laboratory studies, it is simple. People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices. The participants don’t learn anything but the researchers learn about the preferences of the participants. I never suggested these experiments are didactic. The laboratory data are simple and not difficult to interpret once you gather a whole lot of it and look at underlying patterns. You are welcome to explain the data in a different manner, but instead of doing so you left a bunch of concerns in your comment. Substantiate these concerns with respect to the data in question.
The claimant needs to prove his claim. You have a long-standing system of marriage between a man and a woman and then people come along demanding same-sex marriage and say that opposition to this demand is a form of discrimination. So who needs to prove the discrimination claim? The ones arguing for same-sex marriage. You cannot portray this matter as needing to prove or disprove that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent. It is obvious that these relationships are different in fundamental ways: same-sex vs. opposite-sex partners, the ability to conceive a child together, etc.
Legal civil arrangements are contracts between consenting individuals, but when I said, “I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements,” this was because there is no need to allow for civil arrangements between homosexual couples since they are free to sign a contract between the two of them detailing rights, responsibilities and inheritance issues without the government allowing for civil unions and same-sex marriage. By doing so, many homosexual couples will be cohabiting in a marriage-like relationship. Of course, the government can allow a civil unions provision for homosexual couples that comes with a pre-package of benefits, rights and responsibilities, and many people, including myself, have no objections to this as long as these civil unions don’t function as marriage by a different name.
You said, “I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty.” I don’t believe this. It is more like the top 10 or top 100 most attractive women being voted by men are based on the limited choice being offered to them.
You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models.
A mainstream version of this site will not necessarily be a website, but it will basically feature attractive women and not bother with other issues you see within this site.
Kristin, I'm not sure if what you wrote was to be a response to me, but I would like to respond. Homosexuals have been offered civil unions in very few states, and in some of the states that have offered it, they are more limited than marriage. Also, the federal government does not recognize civil unions and DOMA enables other states to ignore civil unions obtained in other states. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions#United_States. The reason homosexuals want marriage is because they believe that the term "civil union" implies that their unions will be socially less than heterosexual unions even if they are, eventually, legally equal.
The term marriage is not derived from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Marriage is a practice of nearly every culture in nearly every geographical location, and in many of these cultures, it is/was practiced very differently than in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, in the Jewish tradition marriage was practiced very differently than it is now. Polygamy was common for instance.
I never compared homosexual marriage to biracial marriage, though I do think it is an apt comparison. Whether homosexuality is strictly hereditary or not (I do not believe it is strictly hereditary by the way) it is still not a choice. We have constructed a false binary as a culture. We argue that either homosexuality is completely hereditary or it is completely a matter of choice. Anyone who knows the first thing about nature vs. nurture studies knows that most character traits are likely a result of a combination of the two. Homosexuals chose their sexual orientation as much as heterosexuals chose theirs.
As far as this quote: "Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts." I'm not sure how homosexuals have more "fronts" than other minorities. Could you be more specific? Also, why the military language? Is the mainstream at war with minorities? I hope that is not actually your attitude, because minorities, including homosexuals, are as much citizens of this country as the members of the majority, and the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to protect them from the majority, not the other way around.
as someone who works in fashion i ca attest to why they use Easter Europeans.
Physically, they tend to have longer limbs (Nadja Auermann), prominent cheekbones, cat eyes, and defined jaws(Natasha Poly, Anna Selezneva), and norhtern European coloring. They DO often have smaller builds naturally. COnsequently, they are able to get to teeny sizes and are able to have some curves. (Anja Rubik) Us stylists love dainty shoulders and nipped waists but most white women have too broad of builds (backs,ribs, shoulders) to maintain any feminity at a smaller size. Once they whittle down, they look soooo asexual. That is ok sometimes, but generally we like enough feminity to make sense of the clothes.
I fail to understand why they need to feel like "everyone else" when they are not. The homosexual community has been offered same sex unions which offer the same rights to health insurance, inheritance, etc. The term marriage comes from a Judeo-Christian ethic that does not include them. Secondly, I hate when people compare this to miscegenation laws. Those had no solid biblical basis and one cannot choose their "race" Someone can choose who you sleep with. There has been no conclusive proof that homosexuality is strictly hereditary. There is some proof linking certain genes with a predisposition. that is it.
Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts.
poor Carrie Jean. i am still glad she stood up for herself, and I hope people continue to.
In the above post I said:
My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
I meant:
My argument is that the limit can include homosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
You're absolutely right. Elected officials do not have to accept or celebrate same-sex marriage, at least not in their personal lives, but they also cannot legally ban it. Marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Those opposed to same-sex marriage want to define it this way officially, but marriage simply means the intermingling of two substances into one. As a description of a union between two people, it serves as a metaphor. How we interpret that metaphor today is up to us. The constitution neither allows same-sex marriage nor marriage between heterosexuals. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, but fair and equal treatment is. By the way, the constitution also does not explicitly allow quasi-journalism disseminated in a semi-published and electronic format. I bet you believe you are entitled to it.
Because marriage is a legal institution today, where it was not in the past, it must be held to a different set of principles than in the past. These principles include equality and liberty, at least in this country. Homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law and the freedom to pursue their own idea of happiness, as long as they cause no harm to others, no matter how much it disgusts others.
The fact that homosexuals were not considered a socially recognized and protected group in the past has nothing to do with the recognition they are afforded today. African Americans were only considered 3/5 a person in the past. That figure certainly does not and should not affect are society today. Similarly, maybe in the future, "incest-o-sexuals" will be a recognized social group, but as of now, they are not. I do not see this as a likelihood, however, because in general, incest does cause harm to the next generation. Also, if your incest scenario is not an analogy for same-sex marriage, it can hardly shed any light on my consenting adults argument, let alone prove it absurd. I might as well say the example of fruit flies altering their inherited memory over generations proves your stable and genetic predisposition to a traditional "feminine" aesthetic absurd, but I think that would be a gross simplification. Your application of incest to the consenting adults scenario is a gross simplification as well.
I'm not sure you understand what Emily is arguing in her post above, or else you actually think Emily is saying there is no entitlement to marry someone you love. Emily argued that love does not entitle someone to marriage. There is a difference between these two statements, and she definitely said the later. Furthermore, I agree with her that love does not necessarily entitle one to marriage and that a limit must be drawn. My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
Haute couture: so what your saying is better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic, because now I'm confused. I thought the models who all wore one size represent the homosexual aesthetic. What does this have to do with personal fitting, or better fabric for that matter? What does the silhouette of the clothing, which is how fashion is judged at its most basic, have to do with fabric or personal fitting? The fashion industry pays attention to haute couture. The rest of us pay attention to ready-to-wear clothing. Haute couture has as much influence on ready-to-wear clothing as Jasper Johns has on graphic artists, which isn't to say none, just that the influence is within limits.
Your suggestion that laboratory experiments are didactic is ridiculous. People are not supposed to learn anything as participants in laboratory experiments. The experimenter is meant to learn something. If the participants are learning something, the experiment is faulty. Also, there are plenty of explanations why an observer would react one way to a silhouette and another to a full picture. If you abstract one element of aesthetic beauty from the manifold, is it any surprise that it would need to be exaggerated in order to achieve a response? I'm not saying that this is the only way to explain it, there are plenty of interpretations. I just mean to say that even laboratory experiments involve interpretation, and thus can produce biased data, and I do not believe your interpretation is a very reasonable one.
Your faith in laboratory data is to the extreme. Humans create laboratory studies and humans are fallible. They are capable of making mistakes in the design of the experiment, the collection of data, and the interpretation of that data. This is especially true of any experiment that collects data on the social or psychological make-up of people. The best an experiment can do is demonstrate correlates of variables, but causation is always going to be interpretive. This is simply because a participant will always bring a number of uncontrollable variables into the experiment. The best an experimenter can do is test an abundance of participants and proffer a reasonable interpretation of the patterns found in the data collected. This will never result in absolute certainty.
Erik, in your last post you said, "I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements between homosexual couples. Homosexual couples have recourse to contracts, deeds and trusts even if they don’t have the options of same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages." What do you think civil arrangements are if not contracts? What do you think the legal status of marriages and civil unions are if not that of a contract?
You also said, "You have presented opposition to same-sex marriage as an example of discrimination based on personal tastes and beliefs, but it is the homosexuals who need to come up with reasons why their relationships should be treated like heterosexual relationships, failing which – and they have failed – they have no basis for making a discrimination claim." Homosexuals do not have to prove that their relationships are like heterosexual relationships to make a discrimination claim. Their opposition has to prove that homosexual relationships are not like heterosexual relationships in order to defeat a discrimination claim. That is how discrimination laws work. If you don't understand this, I can see why you might think your personal tastes and beliefs have a bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. They don't.
I don't believe we will ever come to a consensus on these topics, so let me end by stating what I agree with you on. I also believe that the fashion industry has had a negative effect of the self-image of many women. I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty. I have found your information on the genetic predispositions of the anatomical female body compelling, and this furthers your arguments about the destructive influences of the fashion industry on women by demonstrating that the fashion model's body is a standard that is not only unreasonable, but genetically impossible for the vast majority of women to achieve. I just don't understand why you have to bring sexual orientation into the mix. It muddles up your argument by adding in an element that seems to have very questionable relevance to the purpose you've stated in the first paragraph of the intropage to this site. If and when you go to a mainstream version of this site, I believe that if you eliminate your arguments about homosexual designers, lifetime-exclusive heterosexual males, and the like, you will have a much more convincing and appealing website. These are just my two cents. I don't know whether they'll have any impact on you or if you will consider them, but please don't dismiss them off-hand. People who disagree on all the issues we have discussed in the past week can agree on the synopsis of your arguments I've offered above in this paragraph.
yes people are getting smarter, its called the flynn effect and i just noticed erik would include it in his trash magazine. What exactly do you mean flynn is taking us for a ride?
I suggest phytoestrogens only be taken in their natural form, they are found in tomatoes, berries, soy, nuts, etc. Basically, in all the good stuff and yummy plants. I would not suggest taking estrogen pills,xenoestrogens, or phytoestrogens that come in pill forms or any other unnatural forms.
Phytoestrogens in their natural form, found in plants, seems to have a good effect on a woman's fertility. There also seems to be a correlation between lack of phytoestrogens and breast cancer. On the other hand, in its unnatural form it seems to be harmful actually promoting cancer.
So ladies, stop worrying if you are feminine or not. Try your best by taking care of yourself, it is all you can do. Eating phytoestrogens and anti-oxidents will make you look younger and more attractive, whether or not you are feminine. Worrying causes wrinkles, so stop listening to all this bullcrap. Besides, your genes have made it this far, its unlikely they are useless. Generation after generation people are getting smarter and more attractive, and if not, who cares, life is short, all you can do is love yourself and others.
Promoting feminine beauty should not be trashy and distasteful. You do not need to have photos of naked feminine women in magazines to promote feminine beauty. How is this promoting feminine beauty? By encouraging men to pay more attention to and mate with more feminine women? Why is encouragement needed if men clearly understand that a feminine woman is more fertile and attractive than a non-feminine woman?
Concentrating on men is the wrong approach to promoting feminine beauty in society. The trick is to concentrate on women. What are you going to convince men to do? Look at more feminine women? Select more feminine women to mate with? Here's the thing sweetie, unless you are a severely dysfunctional woman physically,mentally,and emotionally you will have the opportunity to reproduce and pass your genes on. Period. There will be very few women on Earth that wish to reproduce that cannot. A woman's genes probably won't die out, unless by choice. Therefore, selection is not a logical way to go since the majority of women masculine or feminine will pass their genes on.
The trick is to concentrate on women. For example, promoting a diet rich in phytoestrogens is one way to go. Phytoestrogens are similair to estradol. Here is a good video on those:
Also, teaching women to take care of themselves. Having the right diet, an exercise routine, a skin care routine, even smiling can all make a woman appear more attractive and feminine. Wearing the right clothes and hairstyles that emphasize femininity. Just like there are few very feminine women, there are few very masculine women. Most women are inbetween. All women need to do is concentrate on their feminine features. The more you concentrate on something, the more it becomes a reality in your life, it is as simple as that. If you spend your time on and focus on taking care of yourself and being beautiful you can only be more beautiful than you were before. Simple as that.
Yes, photos of more feminine women in the media would probably encourage women to try to look and act more feminine. On the other hand society is going through an era of having strong independent women with careers and children, women who could do it all. Society's concern is not with femininizing women but masculinizing them. You won't read articles about how soft and sweet a woman is, you're going to read an article of how a woman beat the odds and became CEO of a company despite the glass ceiling!
I believe in balance. I love being feminine, but I love being independent and strong as well. There is nothing wrong with finding the right balance in life. Women should be taught from a very young age to be well balanced, it is as simple as that. I'd love to be a stay at home mom, although after a while of taking care of the kids everyday for who knows how many years, I'd want a career as well. Nothing wrong with that.
Evolution has either stopped or is going into a different direction. No one is dying out from being ugly. Selection is being based on other characteristics besides just physical. It is all the more complicated. Love at first sight doesn't mean love forever or even after the first date, rarely will it translate into reproduction after first sight...
Catherin Zeta Jones is a better example of a round face:
Uma Thurman has an oblong face shape, it is too long to be round. A round face is generally a short face. It is wide, usually with low set and rounded cheeks. The chin is rounded in some cases blends in with the face and is not very prominent. The jaw is also generally wide and rounded. In some cases the jaw is as wide as the temples, however most of the time the jaw is slightly narrower than the temples. A round face is usually defined to be as wide as it is long. Although this may be the case with some women, the majority of round faced women lean towards a more oval-round faced look where the face is rounded, but not literally a circle. The hairline is also round.
Charlize Theron is a good example of this. Her face can be classified as oval, but really it is a round face:
Jewel is not a good example of an oval face. She has more of a combination face type leaning towards a square-heart combo. Her jaw is squared and her chin is very prominent and pointy making it lean towards a heart shape.
An oval face is longer than it is wide. The hairline and jaw are rounded and the chin is more prominent. The face is less wide than the round face type. The temples and jaw are supposed to be the same width, however generally the jaw is slighly narrower. Oval faces usually go hand-in-hand with high cheekbones, while round faces generally display low cheekbones. However, in some cases it is visa versa. An oval face is known for symmetry and balance and is considered the ideal face type, although many argue that the oval face shape does not exist only in combination with other face types. Megan Fox is a good example of an oval face shape:
How can I trust any of this to be accurate when the author clearly does not know how to identify face shapes properly? Please explain to me how Uma Thurman is categorized as having a round face shape?
Uma Thurman:
I also wonder how the author managed to categorize "Jewel" aka Jewel Kilcher as having the perfect and balanced oval face shape. See for yourself:
Observe the photo below; a composite of the faces of women with high estrogen levels on your left side and high low estrogen levels on your right:
The truth is that neither of those faces are really unattractive. However, one is clearly more attractive than the other, the one on your left. Now, this supports Erik's theory that feminine women are more attractive, a theory he has convinced me with.
Now, Erik has another theory that Northern European women seem to be more feminine and on average more attractive than any other European women and other races of women in general. However, I have to disagree and I want to use the photograph above as the reason why.
If you look at the feminine woman, her features are not typically Northern European but Central European. You could say there is a slight shift towards a Northern European look, but can I say SLIGHT! If you look at the other photo you can see the woman on the right has a more Northern European appearance overall than the woman on the left. She has a higher nose bridge, more defined chin, and less rounded face and cheekbones.
These are all features you will more easily find among Northern European women than central European women. I am not going to get into Southern/Eastern European women, as I feel they are more complicated. I will admit that it Southern/Eastern European women may be less attractive ON AVERAGE than Northern/Central European women. Why is up for debate.
Either way, if the Nordic nose is the perfect nose or if Nordic features are most attractive, this photograph doesn't seem to support that and tells a different story.
I would say Central European features with a slight shift towards Northern European features are most attractive. However, when I say Northern European I mean Germany,Ireland,England etc. I believe once you get into the Scandinavian countries the bone structure is different and in my opinion less attractive.
What Erik fails to realize is that unless a woman is hyperfeminine, which is not even attractive, she will exhibit masculine features at certain angles, especially in photographs. Take Charlize Theron for example:
She has a GORGEOUS face! I mean if you could describe anything as angelic, she would be it.
Now take a look at Charlize Theron in these pictures:
It goes to show that the wrong lighting, hair, or makeup can even make perfection look slightly mascunilized and unattractive. Although Charlize's bad photos are a far cry from those of the Victoria's Models, she is not perfect just as no other woman is. If you look hard enough you can find some type of mascunilization in any woman.
On another note, there I have noticed a phenomenon that many women have pretty faces and ugly bodies or visa versa. I find that the majority of women with dainty feminine faces, like Charlize's often have mascunilized bodies. On the other hand I will see many everyday women and celebrities alike with ugly mascunilized faces and great bodies. More so however I see pretty faces with masculine bodies.
Hi there,
In answer to kristen higgins.. U know why everyone makes fun of Americans because we are really poor at general knowledge.. U don't even know that people from Middle east and north Africa are infact white/caucasian... Goodness gracious.. Blondes are not the only white people on earth.. How could u just make up your own category which goes against facts.. Have u ever traveled to the middle east and parts of north africa or Russia.. They are caucasian even if they have no albino skin and hair like u suggest....How dumb.....Europians are not the only caucasian /white......There are people even in latin america who are racially caucasian.. Ethnicity is different from race and hence cannot categorize physical appearances ...Ethnicity only categorizes language and culture..People from middle east some parts of latin america, north africa and parts of Asia are all acaucasian...Remember than from now onwards......
I disagree, while Dana does not have a tiny ribcage I don't believe she has a wide ribcage either. I think that the extra fat on her bones makes her ribcage look a lot wider. If you look at her ribcage in comparison to her shoulders and breasts, it is small. I think she has a gorgeous body, a body that I believe would be more gorgeous if she lost 15-20 pounds. I admire that her body looks the way it does when she is overweight. Once I reach a certain weight my body seems to become a bit more masculinized, even though I gain weight in all the right places after a certain point it just doesn't work, so its really interesting to see someone who can look good while clearly overweight.
I see your point with Heidi Klum. Heidi is not "the body". Her body is clearly mascunilized and although I believe that sometimes a slightly masculinized body can still look good, hers just doesn't. Similarly her face is very coarse, yes. Her cheekbones are high and too prominent, her eyes are sunken in, and her jaw is strong. However, to me she still posesses attractive features and believe it or not I think she has some cute qualities. Yes, oddly enough I do believe that Heidi Klum has a cute face. I can't tell you what makes her face cute. To a certain extent I do think it is her face width, her nose shape, her forehead.It is definitley in the bone structure. It looks like a cute but mascunilized face. Anybody else agree or understand what I am talking about? Does anyone else think that Heidi Klum's face exihibits "cuteness"? I can't explain it.
I don't have anythign against Dana's figure. Women come in all different sizes and shapes. But please! Don't say that she is more attractvive than any Victoria Secret model, because it is not true.
Most of you are sooo pathetic. I can't believe there are still people on here that like thin, narrow, witch-like noses. Don't be so narrow minded, litterally. I mean if Miranda has a broad nose, what to think of an average afro american woman? Miranda's nose might be slightly wider in comparison to Charlize Theron's nose or to Christina Aguilera's nose, her nose is still not to be called wide. If her nose is broad, what's Beyonce's nose to be called? What Christina Milian's nose to be called?
Get a grip people, Miranda has a beautiful baby-like cute nose. It fits her perfectly well. It gives her face a distinct, soft look. I looooove her nose. It's unique, it's cute and it's one of the reasons why VS gave her the job.
I bet Emily has an ugly pointy narrow nose. Miranda's nose is prettier than hers. And I know that without even having seen her.
Many people still don't seem to get that there is not something like 'a perfect nose'. When will it finally get through to you that not everybody thinks the same way you do? When will it finally get through to you that a narrow nose is just as pretty or ugly as a wide nose?
Barbie is boring, people. Barbie is boring.
Gemma Ward is worlds most succesful model at the moment. Look at her nose >>>http://i1.tinypic.com/nqqkp5.jpg<<< , it's not as narrow as Lily Cole's, but she's still more succesful than Lily Cole. She has an exotic, asian like nose and I think it's beautiful. It gives her that babyface, just like it does Miranda. It's just the perfect, moderate nose.
never knew this things are possible, its a simply WOW
link | Submitted by barberella on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 03:36.
the "Europeanization" of cultures all over the world attests to this.
The ''europeaization of cultures'' is not evidence of people wanting to look european. There are numerous reasons why cultures can/may end up ''europeanized'' and it is the reasons behinds this whering lies the the explanation/truth/answer to the rest. The europeanization of cultures i.e more freedom, freedom to choose ones partner etc...is not evidence of people wanting to look european. Personally through simple factual observation the way it looks to me is like this ''you win because you cheat''.
link | Submitted by barberella on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 03:36.
"The women are extremely feminine and are classic examples of what the rest of the world tries to emmulate."
Maybe a part of the world is but Not all the rest of the world is trying to emulate the looks of Northern europeans. There are plenty who try to emulate this ideal but on the other hand there are plenty of non-european women in the world who are feminine and are NOT and never have tried to emulate the looks of Northern europeans/europeans.
So for what it's worth, let me just say that as a "Nordic sub-race" (not the Osterdal type, but similar), I am glad to be part of the club. I do believe, by and large, that Northern Europeans (men as well as women) have a tendency to be the most attractive overall. The women are extremely feminine and are classic examples of what the rest of the world tries to emmulate. Whether it be plastic surgery, non invasive cosmetic enhancements, etc., the "Europeanization" of cultures all over the world attests to this. Why is it so wrong for someone with North European blood and ancestry to express pride in this. I can attest also, that it is not just my beloved blue eyed, blond acquaintances that comment on my beauty, but men of other races as well. Bash Emily all day long, but that does not mean that she's not speaking the truth. And I implore anyone who dares say that the indigenous peoples of Europe deserve to die out, than shame on you. If anyone were talking those things about non-whites, the PC lynchmob would be up in arms. I'm proud of my light blue eyes, light golden hair, and creamy complexion, and wish to see carried on into further generations. What race wouldn't want that? It is N. Europeans who aren't allowed to say this, and that needs to stop, right here and now.
Peace, and keep setting the record straight Emily.............
/sigh
This is very late in the game but it has to be said. The most common cup size is not A or B. According to most manufacturers of bras most women are wearing the incorrect size. Most surveys poll between 80 to 90% of women wear the wrong size. Most women are wearing their bras 1 to 2 cups sizes too small. Taking this into account the most common size would actually be C or D. A DD cup would not be uncommon. Furthermore what really counts is actual bust measurement. That is when one takes a tape measure and goes all the way around the bust at the widest part. A 34D bust (band size being 34 but actual bust being 38) would not appear as large as a 40D (ABM being 44). Do you understand now? DD cups are not freakish. They are in fact quite normal and occur frequently in our world.
Erik,
The issue is not whether or not homosexuals are treated equally in typical situations but whether they are treated equally in all situations. The issue is also not whether or not the majority of people favor same-sex marriage or not. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to ban a legal agreement between two consenting adults simply because the majority, who will receive no harm from the agreement, do not approve. The majority of people in the South were against integration, but segregation was still found to be unconstitutional.
What is the true nature of homosexuality? How are heterosexual marriages constitutional and homosexual marriages not when neither are actually mentioned in the constitution?
Marriage, by definition, could be the marriage of two ketchup bottles into one. It has nothing to do with gender. We use the English word "marriage" metaphorically to refer to the social arrangement between two people to become, what used to be, one legal entity. But married couples are no longer one legal entity and certainly have not been since women's suffrage. Now the term means something different and so the historical practice of marriage has little to do with the practice today. If the union of two homosexuals, by today's standards, is equal to the union of two heterosexuals, then marriage is an appropriate term. Now, you do not feel that they are equal, and that is your opinion which you of course are entitled to. I do feel they are equal, but the burden of proof is on the opposition to prove that they are not equal. Homosexuals have already proven that there is a legal union allowed to other couples that is not allowed to them. Now the opposition must prove that there is a good, and constitutional, justification for it, and children have nothing to do with it. Children may have had something to do with this social arrangement back before marriage became a legal arrangement, but in our society today, marriage only refers to the union of two people and has nothing to do with whether or not they become parents. By the way, no matter how you feel about homosexual parents, there are an abundance of children in need of adoption, and homosexual parents can provide them a home. Some would see this as a social good even if you do not.
My argument was not "consenting adults have a right to …" It was, "Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm." The portion of the sentence obscured by the ellipsis is as important as the portion you have presented. The incest example does not apply, and the very narrow scenario you proposed involving incest is a poor analogy, because sterile incestuous couples are not a recognized social group. Maybe someday the laws will change to allow marriage in this very narrow circumstance. It would bother me, but I guess it is none of my business in the end.
Ask African-Americans if being counted as 3/5 a person in the census was a judgment on their identity as a person. Beyond this, I was referring to their social status. Homosexuals believe being disallowed marriage reflects an inequality in their social status, and thus this is an apt comparison.
"People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices." Are you kidding? Do you see top models walking around everywhere you go? I sure don't? People are exposed to a variety they don't see among top models every day of their lives. If they go into the experiment and choose a more "feminine" version of beauty, it's because that's what they think is beautiful and understand that the beauty of fashion models is something that exists within that industry. They may appreciate it, but they are still capable of appreciating and even preferring the curvier aesthetic as well. If they are having an epiphany during the experiment while exposed to images by the experimenter, then they are participating in a horribly designed experiment. As far as the data in specifics, despite your reservations about Donohoe et al.'s interpretations of their data, I agree with them. If one element of beauty is abstracted from the manifold, the judgment of the participants may contradict a societal standard without discounting the veracity of that standard.
"You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models." Why does this matter, especially if their standard of beauty is at odds with most people's aesthetic preferences? Isn't it enough to say that these women do occupy this position? This is an issue of cause and effect. When you address the effect of fashion models on the self-image of women, you are compelling, but when you address the cause, homosexual designers, you are not. There is a simple reason for this, it is a fairly outlandish claim, and you do not have much to support it except conjecture. The fashion industry as a whole seems drawn to unusual and androgynous yet pretty women. You are convinced that this originated with homosexual designers, but this is hardly fact. However, your exploration of the genetic predisposition of the female body and problems with eating disorders are compelling. Your claim that fashion models set an unreasonable and even impossible standard of beauty is reasonable. How they became this standard involves far too many variables to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not very convincing. This is why so many responses to your posts end up arguing about gay rights and not "feminine" beauty. If you were to eliminate the element of sexual orientation from your argument, present a clear case for why fashion models present a standard of beauty genetically out of reach for most women, and champion an aesthetic alternative to this standard that laboratory science seems to indicate to be actually preferable to the fashion model standard, then I believe you would be more effective at achieving your aims.
Billy: Yes, elected officials can ban same-sex marriage if unelected judges go beyond their duty, which is interpreting law, but start making laws instead. If you believe that marriage means “intermingling of two substances into one,” then it has long been implicitly understood that the two substances happen to be a man and a woman. If you believe that marriage “as a description of a union between two people” serves as a metaphor and that “how we interpret that metaphor today is up to us,” then it is time for you to understand that most people do not interpret this metaphor to include same-sex marriages, and that a number of people who have come around to supporting same-sex marriage have been misinformed about the nature of homosexuality by the mainstream media and the secular education they get in public schools and the typical college. Tell the masses about the true nature of homosexuality and see what proportion supports same-sex marriage, and I can give you a hint: there is a good reason why countries with strong support for “homosexual rights” such as Canada and Sweden outlaw the truth about homosexuals, depicting it as “hate speech.”
The U.S. constitution doesn’t spell everything that is allowed. It was obvious to the authors of the constitution that one cannot write down legislation for any scenario that may occur in the future. So the issue is what is unconstitutional. Heterosexual marriage, this website and banning same-sex marriage are all consistent with the constitution.
Again, you have brought up the issue of fair and equal treatment. But in the typical scenario, homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated similarly. Since the matter being discussed is same-sex marriage, and the fact remains that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in terms of both nature and consequences, there cannot be a legal basis to have these two types of relationships made legally equivalent with respect to marriage.
African-Americans were never considered three-fifths of a person in the U.S. The matter was as follows. A state’s representation in congress is dependent on its population. Southerners wanted greater clout and and hence wished to count all Africans among them as a whole person for the purposes of electoral representation, whereas northerners wanted to regard the Africans as zero persons, obviously to undermine the strength of the southerners. A comprise was reached and each African was regarded as three-fifths of a free man for the purposes of electoral representation; the matter had nothing to do with personhood.
Yes, the incest argument nullifies the consenting adult argument without being meant as an analogy. Your argument was that “consenting adults have a right to …,” which is what I responded to, and showed that it is not sufficient to be consenting adults.
I am not saying that “better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic,” but that the top designers, the ones who come up with very expensive designer clothing that is custom made to fit rich clients, are the designers with greatest clout in the fashion industry. These are the people who will set the standards for how high-fashion models typically look like. They are using the models to display their designs. The items being sold are the designer products, not the models. The mater isn’t what kind of clothes have the greatest impact on people. Haute couture is beyond the means of the masses, but the matter is that the masses are exposed to top high-fashion models extensively.
Regarding controlled laboratory studies, it is simple. People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices. The participants don’t learn anything but the researchers learn about the preferences of the participants. I never suggested these experiments are didactic. The laboratory data are simple and not difficult to interpret once you gather a whole lot of it and look at underlying patterns. You are welcome to explain the data in a different manner, but instead of doing so you left a bunch of concerns in your comment. Substantiate these concerns with respect to the data in question.
The claimant needs to prove his claim. You have a long-standing system of marriage between a man and a woman and then people come along demanding same-sex marriage and say that opposition to this demand is a form of discrimination. So who needs to prove the discrimination claim? The ones arguing for same-sex marriage. You cannot portray this matter as needing to prove or disprove that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent. It is obvious that these relationships are different in fundamental ways: same-sex vs. opposite-sex partners, the ability to conceive a child together, etc.
Legal civil arrangements are contracts between consenting individuals, but when I said, “I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements,” this was because there is no need to allow for civil arrangements between homosexual couples since they are free to sign a contract between the two of them detailing rights, responsibilities and inheritance issues without the government allowing for civil unions and same-sex marriage. By doing so, many homosexual couples will be cohabiting in a marriage-like relationship. Of course, the government can allow a civil unions provision for homosexual couples that comes with a pre-package of benefits, rights and responsibilities, and many people, including myself, have no objections to this as long as these civil unions don’t function as marriage by a different name.
You said, “I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty.” I don’t believe this. It is more like the top 10 or top 100 most attractive women being voted by men are based on the limited choice being offered to them.
You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models.
A mainstream version of this site will not necessarily be a website, but it will basically feature attractive women and not bother with other issues you see within this site.
Kristin, I'm not sure if what you wrote was to be a response to me, but I would like to respond. Homosexuals have been offered civil unions in very few states, and in some of the states that have offered it, they are more limited than marriage. Also, the federal government does not recognize civil unions and DOMA enables other states to ignore civil unions obtained in other states. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions#United_States. The reason homosexuals want marriage is because they believe that the term "civil union" implies that their unions will be socially less than heterosexual unions even if they are, eventually, legally equal.
The term marriage is not derived from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Marriage is a practice of nearly every culture in nearly every geographical location, and in many of these cultures, it is/was practiced very differently than in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, in the Jewish tradition marriage was practiced very differently than it is now. Polygamy was common for instance.
I never compared homosexual marriage to biracial marriage, though I do think it is an apt comparison. Whether homosexuality is strictly hereditary or not (I do not believe it is strictly hereditary by the way) it is still not a choice. We have constructed a false binary as a culture. We argue that either homosexuality is completely hereditary or it is completely a matter of choice. Anyone who knows the first thing about nature vs. nurture studies knows that most character traits are likely a result of a combination of the two. Homosexuals chose their sexual orientation as much as heterosexuals chose theirs.
As far as this quote: "Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts." I'm not sure how homosexuals have more "fronts" than other minorities. Could you be more specific? Also, why the military language? Is the mainstream at war with minorities? I hope that is not actually your attitude, because minorities, including homosexuals, are as much citizens of this country as the members of the majority, and the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to protect them from the majority, not the other way around.
as someone who works in fashion i ca attest to why they use Easter Europeans.
Physically, they tend to have longer limbs (Nadja Auermann), prominent cheekbones, cat eyes, and defined jaws(Natasha Poly, Anna Selezneva), and norhtern European coloring. They DO often have smaller builds naturally. COnsequently, they are able to get to teeny sizes and are able to have some curves. (Anja Rubik) Us stylists love dainty shoulders and nipped waists but most white women have too broad of builds (backs,ribs, shoulders) to maintain any feminity at a smaller size. Once they whittle down, they look soooo asexual. That is ok sometimes, but generally we like enough feminity to make sense of the clothes.
Lastly, they come cheap and are easy to find.
I fail to understand why they need to feel like "everyone else" when they are not. The homosexual community has been offered same sex unions which offer the same rights to health insurance, inheritance, etc. The term marriage comes from a Judeo-Christian ethic that does not include them. Secondly, I hate when people compare this to miscegenation laws. Those had no solid biblical basis and one cannot choose their "race" Someone can choose who you sleep with. There has been no conclusive proof that homosexuality is strictly hereditary. There is some proof linking certain genes with a predisposition. that is it.
Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts.
poor Carrie Jean. i am still glad she stood up for herself, and I hope people continue to.
Correction:
In the above post I said:
My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
I meant:
My argument is that the limit can include homosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
Sorry
Erik,
You're absolutely right. Elected officials do not have to accept or celebrate same-sex marriage, at least not in their personal lives, but they also cannot legally ban it. Marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Those opposed to same-sex marriage want to define it this way officially, but marriage simply means the intermingling of two substances into one. As a description of a union between two people, it serves as a metaphor. How we interpret that metaphor today is up to us. The constitution neither allows same-sex marriage nor marriage between heterosexuals. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, but fair and equal treatment is. By the way, the constitution also does not explicitly allow quasi-journalism disseminated in a semi-published and electronic format. I bet you believe you are entitled to it.
Because marriage is a legal institution today, where it was not in the past, it must be held to a different set of principles than in the past. These principles include equality and liberty, at least in this country. Homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law and the freedom to pursue their own idea of happiness, as long as they cause no harm to others, no matter how much it disgusts others.
The fact that homosexuals were not considered a socially recognized and protected group in the past has nothing to do with the recognition they are afforded today. African Americans were only considered 3/5 a person in the past. That figure certainly does not and should not affect are society today. Similarly, maybe in the future, "incest-o-sexuals" will be a recognized social group, but as of now, they are not. I do not see this as a likelihood, however, because in general, incest does cause harm to the next generation. Also, if your incest scenario is not an analogy for same-sex marriage, it can hardly shed any light on my consenting adults argument, let alone prove it absurd. I might as well say the example of fruit flies altering their inherited memory over generations proves your stable and genetic predisposition to a traditional "feminine" aesthetic absurd, but I think that would be a gross simplification. Your application of incest to the consenting adults scenario is a gross simplification as well.
I'm not sure you understand what Emily is arguing in her post above, or else you actually think Emily is saying there is no entitlement to marry someone you love. Emily argued that love does not entitle someone to marriage. There is a difference between these two statements, and she definitely said the later. Furthermore, I agree with her that love does not necessarily entitle one to marriage and that a limit must be drawn. My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.
Haute couture: so what your saying is better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic, because now I'm confused. I thought the models who all wore one size represent the homosexual aesthetic. What does this have to do with personal fitting, or better fabric for that matter? What does the silhouette of the clothing, which is how fashion is judged at its most basic, have to do with fabric or personal fitting? The fashion industry pays attention to haute couture. The rest of us pay attention to ready-to-wear clothing. Haute couture has as much influence on ready-to-wear clothing as Jasper Johns has on graphic artists, which isn't to say none, just that the influence is within limits.
Your suggestion that laboratory experiments are didactic is ridiculous. People are not supposed to learn anything as participants in laboratory experiments. The experimenter is meant to learn something. If the participants are learning something, the experiment is faulty. Also, there are plenty of explanations why an observer would react one way to a silhouette and another to a full picture. If you abstract one element of aesthetic beauty from the manifold, is it any surprise that it would need to be exaggerated in order to achieve a response? I'm not saying that this is the only way to explain it, there are plenty of interpretations. I just mean to say that even laboratory experiments involve interpretation, and thus can produce biased data, and I do not believe your interpretation is a very reasonable one.
Your faith in laboratory data is to the extreme. Humans create laboratory studies and humans are fallible. They are capable of making mistakes in the design of the experiment, the collection of data, and the interpretation of that data. This is especially true of any experiment that collects data on the social or psychological make-up of people. The best an experiment can do is demonstrate correlates of variables, but causation is always going to be interpretive. This is simply because a participant will always bring a number of uncontrollable variables into the experiment. The best an experimenter can do is test an abundance of participants and proffer a reasonable interpretation of the patterns found in the data collected. This will never result in absolute certainty.
Erik, in your last post you said, "I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements between homosexual couples. Homosexual couples have recourse to contracts, deeds and trusts even if they don’t have the options of same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages." What do you think civil arrangements are if not contracts? What do you think the legal status of marriages and civil unions are if not that of a contract?
You also said, "You have presented opposition to same-sex marriage as an example of discrimination based on personal tastes and beliefs, but it is the homosexuals who need to come up with reasons why their relationships should be treated like heterosexual relationships, failing which – and they have failed – they have no basis for making a discrimination claim." Homosexuals do not have to prove that their relationships are like heterosexual relationships to make a discrimination claim. Their opposition has to prove that homosexual relationships are not like heterosexual relationships in order to defeat a discrimination claim. That is how discrimination laws work. If you don't understand this, I can see why you might think your personal tastes and beliefs have a bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. They don't.
I don't believe we will ever come to a consensus on these topics, so let me end by stating what I agree with you on. I also believe that the fashion industry has had a negative effect of the self-image of many women. I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty. I have found your information on the genetic predispositions of the anatomical female body compelling, and this furthers your arguments about the destructive influences of the fashion industry on women by demonstrating that the fashion model's body is a standard that is not only unreasonable, but genetically impossible for the vast majority of women to achieve. I just don't understand why you have to bring sexual orientation into the mix. It muddles up your argument by adding in an element that seems to have very questionable relevance to the purpose you've stated in the first paragraph of the intropage to this site. If and when you go to a mainstream version of this site, I believe that if you eliminate your arguments about homosexual designers, lifetime-exclusive heterosexual males, and the like, you will have a much more convincing and appealing website. These are just my two cents. I don't know whether they'll have any impact on you or if you will consider them, but please don't dismiss them off-hand. People who disagree on all the issues we have discussed in the past week can agree on the synopsis of your arguments I've offered above in this paragraph.
Are you a medical doctor? You have no way of knowing Dana is overweight.
BTW Erik,
What do you think about the fact that higher estrogen levels seem to contribute to breast cancer?
yes people are getting smarter, its called the flynn effect and i just noticed erik would include it in his trash magazine. What exactly do you mean flynn is taking us for a ride?
I suggest phytoestrogens only be taken in their natural form, they are found in tomatoes, berries, soy, nuts, etc. Basically, in all the good stuff and yummy plants. I would not suggest taking estrogen pills,xenoestrogens, or phytoestrogens that come in pill forms or any other unnatural forms.
Phytoestrogens in their natural form, found in plants, seems to have a good effect on a woman's fertility. There also seems to be a correlation between lack of phytoestrogens and breast cancer. On the other hand, in its unnatural form it seems to be harmful actually promoting cancer.
Here is the video link, embedded videos don't show up here it seems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7mAsnLcVOE
So ladies, stop worrying if you are feminine or not. Try your best by taking care of yourself, it is all you can do. Eating phytoestrogens and anti-oxidents will make you look younger and more attractive, whether or not you are feminine. Worrying causes wrinkles, so stop listening to all this bullcrap. Besides, your genes have made it this far, its unlikely they are useless. Generation after generation people are getting smarter and more attractive, and if not, who cares, life is short, all you can do is love yourself and others.
Even if it were satire, it's just bad.
Promoting feminine beauty should not be trashy and distasteful. You do not need to have photos of naked feminine women in magazines to promote feminine beauty. How is this promoting feminine beauty? By encouraging men to pay more attention to and mate with more feminine women? Why is encouragement needed if men clearly understand that a feminine woman is more fertile and attractive than a non-feminine woman?
Concentrating on men is the wrong approach to promoting feminine beauty in society. The trick is to concentrate on women. What are you going to convince men to do? Look at more feminine women? Select more feminine women to mate with? Here's the thing sweetie, unless you are a severely dysfunctional woman physically,mentally,and emotionally you will have the opportunity to reproduce and pass your genes on. Period. There will be very few women on Earth that wish to reproduce that cannot. A woman's genes probably won't die out, unless by choice. Therefore, selection is not a logical way to go since the majority of women masculine or feminine will pass their genes on.
The trick is to concentrate on women. For example, promoting a diet rich in phytoestrogens is one way to go. Phytoestrogens are similair to estradol. Here is a good video on those:
Also, teaching women to take care of themselves. Having the right diet, an exercise routine, a skin care routine, even smiling can all make a woman appear more attractive and feminine. Wearing the right clothes and hairstyles that emphasize femininity. Just like there are few very feminine women, there are few very masculine women. Most women are inbetween. All women need to do is concentrate on their feminine features. The more you concentrate on something, the more it becomes a reality in your life, it is as simple as that. If you spend your time on and focus on taking care of yourself and being beautiful you can only be more beautiful than you were before. Simple as that.
Yes, photos of more feminine women in the media would probably encourage women to try to look and act more feminine. On the other hand society is going through an era of having strong independent women with careers and children, women who could do it all. Society's concern is not with femininizing women but masculinizing them. You won't read articles about how soft and sweet a woman is, you're going to read an article of how a woman beat the odds and became CEO of a company despite the glass ceiling!
I believe in balance. I love being feminine, but I love being independent and strong as well. There is nothing wrong with finding the right balance in life. Women should be taught from a very young age to be well balanced, it is as simple as that. I'd love to be a stay at home mom, although after a while of taking care of the kids everyday for who knows how many years, I'd want a career as well. Nothing wrong with that.
Evolution has either stopped or is going into a different direction. No one is dying out from being ugly. Selection is being based on other characteristics besides just physical. It is all the more complicated. Love at first sight doesn't mean love forever or even after the first date, rarely will it translate into reproduction after first sight...
Catherin Zeta Jones is a better example of a round face:
Uma Thurman has an oblong face shape, it is too long to be round. A round face is generally a short face. It is wide, usually with low set and rounded cheeks. The chin is rounded in some cases blends in with the face and is not very prominent. The jaw is also generally wide and rounded. In some cases the jaw is as wide as the temples, however most of the time the jaw is slightly narrower than the temples. A round face is usually defined to be as wide as it is long. Although this may be the case with some women, the majority of round faced women lean towards a more oval-round faced look where the face is rounded, but not literally a circle. The hairline is also round.
Charlize Theron is a good example of this. Her face can be classified as oval, but really it is a round face:
Jewel is not a good example of an oval face. She has more of a combination face type leaning towards a square-heart combo. Her jaw is squared and her chin is very prominent and pointy making it lean towards a heart shape.
An oval face is longer than it is wide. The hairline and jaw are rounded and the chin is more prominent. The face is less wide than the round face type. The temples and jaw are supposed to be the same width, however generally the jaw is slighly narrower. Oval faces usually go hand-in-hand with high cheekbones, while round faces generally display low cheekbones. However, in some cases it is visa versa. An oval face is known for symmetry and balance and is considered the ideal face type, although many argue that the oval face shape does not exist only in combination with other face types. Megan Fox is a good example of an oval face shape:
How can I trust any of this to be accurate when the author clearly does not know how to identify face shapes properly? Please explain to me how Uma Thurman is categorized as having a round face shape?
Uma Thurman:
I also wonder how the author managed to categorize "Jewel" aka Jewel Kilcher as having the perfect and balanced oval face shape. See for yourself:
Jewel Kilcher:
Observe the photo below; a composite of the faces of women with high estrogen levels on your left side and high low estrogen levels on your right:
The truth is that neither of those faces are really unattractive. However, one is clearly more attractive than the other, the one on your left. Now, this supports Erik's theory that feminine women are more attractive, a theory he has convinced me with.
Now, Erik has another theory that Northern European women seem to be more feminine and on average more attractive than any other European women and other races of women in general. However, I have to disagree and I want to use the photograph above as the reason why.
If you look at the feminine woman, her features are not typically Northern European but Central European. You could say there is a slight shift towards a Northern European look, but can I say SLIGHT! If you look at the other photo you can see the woman on the right has a more Northern European appearance overall than the woman on the left. She has a higher nose bridge, more defined chin, and less rounded face and cheekbones.
These are all features you will more easily find among Northern European women than central European women. I am not going to get into Southern/Eastern European women, as I feel they are more complicated. I will admit that it Southern/Eastern European women may be less attractive ON AVERAGE than Northern/Central European women. Why is up for debate.
Either way, if the Nordic nose is the perfect nose or if Nordic features are most attractive, this photograph doesn't seem to support that and tells a different story.
I would say Central European features with a slight shift towards Northern European features are most attractive. However, when I say Northern European I mean Germany,Ireland,England etc. I believe once you get into the Scandinavian countries the bone structure is different and in my opinion less attractive.
What Erik fails to realize is that unless a woman is hyperfeminine, which is not even attractive, she will exhibit masculine features at certain angles, especially in photographs. Take Charlize Theron for example:
She has a GORGEOUS face! I mean if you could describe anything as angelic, she would be it.
Now take a look at Charlize Theron in these pictures:
It goes to show that the wrong lighting, hair, or makeup can even make perfection look slightly mascunilized and unattractive. Although Charlize's bad photos are a far cry from those of the Victoria's Models, she is not perfect just as no other woman is. If you look hard enough you can find some type of mascunilization in any woman.
On another note, there I have noticed a phenomenon that many women have pretty faces and ugly bodies or visa versa. I find that the majority of women with dainty feminine faces, like Charlize's often have mascunilized bodies. On the other hand I will see many everyday women and celebrities alike with ugly mascunilized faces and great bodies. More so however I see pretty faces with masculine bodies.
Hi there,
In answer to kristen higgins.. U know why everyone makes fun of Americans because we are really poor at general knowledge.. U don't even know that people from Middle east and north Africa are infact white/caucasian... Goodness gracious.. Blondes are not the only white people on earth.. How could u just make up your own category which goes against facts.. Have u ever traveled to the middle east and parts of north africa or Russia.. They are caucasian even if they have no albino skin and hair like u suggest....How dumb.....Europians are not the only caucasian /white......There are people even in latin america who are racially caucasian.. Ethnicity is different from race and hence cannot categorize physical appearances ...Ethnicity only categorizes language and culture..People from middle east some parts of latin america, north africa and parts of Asia are all acaucasian...Remember than from now onwards......
I disagree, while Dana does not have a tiny ribcage I don't believe she has a wide ribcage either. I think that the extra fat on her bones makes her ribcage look a lot wider. If you look at her ribcage in comparison to her shoulders and breasts, it is small. I think she has a gorgeous body, a body that I believe would be more gorgeous if she lost 15-20 pounds. I admire that her body looks the way it does when she is overweight. Once I reach a certain weight my body seems to become a bit more masculinized, even though I gain weight in all the right places after a certain point it just doesn't work, so its really interesting to see someone who can look good while clearly overweight.
I see your point with Heidi Klum. Heidi is not "the body". Her body is clearly mascunilized and although I believe that sometimes a slightly masculinized body can still look good, hers just doesn't. Similarly her face is very coarse, yes. Her cheekbones are high and too prominent, her eyes are sunken in, and her jaw is strong. However, to me she still posesses attractive features and believe it or not I think she has some cute qualities. Yes, oddly enough I do believe that Heidi Klum has a cute face. I can't tell you what makes her face cute. To a certain extent I do think it is her face width, her nose shape, her forehead.It is definitley in the bone structure. It looks like a cute but mascunilized face. Anybody else agree or understand what I am talking about? Does anyone else think that Heidi Klum's face exihibits "cuteness"? I can't explain it.
I don't have anythign against Dana's figure. Women come in all different sizes and shapes. But please! Don't say that she is more attractvive than any Victoria Secret model, because it is not true.
Most of you are sooo pathetic. I can't believe there are still people on here that like thin, narrow, witch-like noses. Don't be so narrow minded, litterally. I mean if Miranda has a broad nose, what to think of an average afro american woman? Miranda's nose might be slightly wider in comparison to Charlize Theron's nose or to Christina Aguilera's nose, her nose is still not to be called wide. If her nose is broad, what's Beyonce's nose to be called? What Christina Milian's nose to be called?
Get a grip people, Miranda has a beautiful baby-like cute nose. It fits her perfectly well. It gives her face a distinct, soft look. I looooove her nose. It's unique, it's cute and it's one of the reasons why VS gave her the job.
I bet Emily has an ugly pointy narrow nose. Miranda's nose is prettier than hers. And I know that without even having seen her.
Many people still don't seem to get that there is not something like 'a perfect nose'. When will it finally get through to you that not everybody thinks the same way you do? When will it finally get through to you that a narrow nose is just as pretty or ugly as a wide nose?
Barbie is boring, people. Barbie is boring.
Gemma Ward is worlds most succesful model at the moment. Look at her nose >>>http://i1.tinypic.com/nqqkp5.jpg<<< , it's not as narrow as Lily Cole's, but she's still more succesful than Lily Cole. She has an exotic, asian like nose and I think it's beautiful. It gives her that babyface, just like it does Miranda. It's just the perfect, moderate nose.
Pages