I don't think the Slavic round face is feminine if it is very broad and with massive cheekbones. I think distinctly round faces sometimes lack refinement, and they can often look coarse. A face needs to be more oval than round. Yes, that girl (no 2) has an oval face, not a round one. A face can be more or less oval/long. I didn't quantify how oval her face is but it is not round.
And, no, Scandinavians do not have "larger cheekbones than most". Slavics have more massive and larger cheekbones than Nordics. That is well-known. Generally speaking, the more East you travel, the broader, larger and more protruding the cheekbones will be, and the rounder the face shape will be, ending up in the Asian race.
I don't know how your face shape is relevant, and I haven't commented on it since I haven't seen it. I'm sorry if you think you don't fit my view of what is beautiful. Slavic men can look attractive since the general coarseness of the Slavic face, and the large protruding cheekbones fit men better. Women need the Nordic gracility and femininity. There are always exceptions, of course, but I think this generally holds true.
The single biggest problem with your posts is that you are being paranoically dishonest. Equally, with the others and with yourself. You very selectively nitpick facts that you believe support your racist claims while at the same time conveniently and selectively ignoring the ones that stand in stark contrast with what you want others to believe. And, as all clinically obsessed demagogues, you naively believe that other people somehow will agree to ignore the ocean of data that obviously turn your racist paranoia to cheap rubbish.
Like all psycho-demagogues you frequently employ statements of the type "What I am saying is widely accepted and cannot be disputed. It is simply the truth."
There was a guy in Germany who was doing the same and actually, at the time, quite many people in his home country believed him. He ended badly in 1945.
To support your racist fantasies you post meticulously selected pictures of people from Sweden calling them average. Then you contrast them with average or below average examples from e.g. India. Also as expected, you totally ignore socio-economic conditions and conveniently forget that, everything else being equal, a properly selected upper-class properly cared for girl from Sweden will obviously tend to look better in front of a camera than, say, a poor hard-working girl from Grece. This, however, says nothing about the actual innate beauty of peoples from different regions.
As part of your nationalistic propaganda, you hand select a narrow group of Swedes, maybe 10% of the overall genotype, and laborously try to convince everyone on this blog that this is how all Swedes look like. Your selections have many attractive (as described by you) features that are more commonly found in other peoples in Europe like the Galic, Slavic or Northern Italian than actually in the Swedish. I have been to Sweden and the population does not look even remotely as handsome as you try to convince us here. Majority of women are rather tall and either very thin and bony, thus devoid of the gracious female shapes, or conversely very heavily built with coarse facial features ("horse faces"). And again, please don't bother to counter by posting photos of beautiful girls from other countries trying to pass them off as Swedish.
Historically, Scandinavian Peninsula, as the most northern, sunlight-devoid and cold piece of land in Europe, remained uninhabited long after other parts of the continent became already populated. The beauty traits that you so much admiire in the few lucky Swedes that happen to possess them are actually all imports from other, mostly European (and more broadly Euro-Asian) gene pools. They arrived in Sweden through ancient peoples' migration and by intermixing in more modern times with other European peoples.
As I said before, racism and hate are not new. You follow the trail frequented before you by others of your ilk. However, what never ceases to amaze me is that all genuinly born racists are always driven by some kind of inferiority complex. Hitler raved about the Aryan race himself while looking anything like an Aryan, Goebbels (his minister of propaganda) was a professional 24/7 Jew-hater while being a Jew himself, they all turned against, among others, the Slavic peoples East of them at the same time obviously admiring in their propaganda the quintesential Slavic looks (blonde/fair shin/blue eyes), etc. etc.
Emily, what is your inferiority complex? As above, also in your case the full racist hypocrisy of your lunacies lies in the fact that the very gene exchange, so much hated by you and other genuine racists, has actually given people in your own country the very features that you happen to so much admire in today's Sweden. For instance, the the often quoted and discussed blonde fine-boned blue-eyed female genotype came to Sewden from the South-Baltic states, mostly northern Slavic populations plus partly northern Germany. So, net-net you were the beneficiaries in the process. Does the suppressed but ever returning awareness of this fact weigh so heavy on you that the only cure you see available is to keep spilling hate?
An observation that I have seen made several times about very photogenic people. When seen in the flesh they have heads that look too big for their body. Marilyn Monroe is an obvious example.
Sera, there are certain cultural norms or conventions that indicate what is recognized as femine beauty in every society. Therefore, it is not just in the eye of the beholder where beauty is recognized. As a photographer, I find beauty in certain women that I meet. When they are in front of my camera, their beauty excites me and I want my photographs to show the beauty that I see.
"Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it"."
There being forced to do it andso how is making muslims or any other religious group to do the same combating the problem exactly, love? or is it just that it will be fair? LOL
"Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others."
On the one hand you say homosexuals are forcing christians on the other you are indirectly implying its the law. Make up your mind. The law is not forcing the christians to wed homosexuals. Its the christians this particular group of people who opening themselves up to this possibility. Face it if you dont want to face it then face it. There is no relgious discrimination involved because as far as islams stance is concerned homosexuality is forbidden plain and simple.
"My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group."
If it is against there religious beliefs love and they had conviction in there beliefs and had enough sense they wouldnt be in the situation in the first place. All in all there is certainly no religious discrimination just because one group has taken on the act iot certainly doesnt equate to discrimination if another group fails to. The law is certainly not stopping christians from practicing there religion if the law was then you could say discrimination was involved but just because the christians have opened themselves up to wedding gay couples that certainly is not the muslims responsibility. Get a grip will you love.
those with excess abdominal fat even if they are okay elsewhere (this is a diseased constitution)
What do you mean by diseased constitution?
Also, with regard to supermodels. Gay men or lower testosterone males predominantly control the fashion industry. Those type of men are more likely to be attracted to, or simply tp prefer for asthetic reasons, more masculine or androgenous female faces.
Also, do you think there is any truth to the idea that higher testosterone results in the asymmetry of facial features?
"Higher IQ men are much less likely to be influenced by high T to engage in risky behaviour, need I say more"
- Does testosterone influence intelligence? Does more testosterone make you dumber?
- Or, as is known higher testosterone makes men more likely to engage in risky, spur of the moment, and stupid behaviour. Does higher intelligence actually reduce the chances of this due to the greater ability of the man in question to reflect on the potential consequences of his actions?
In short - Men with high T and high intelligence do not do the same stupid things that men with high T and low intelligence do?
What sort of body type would you consider John Wayne with his wide shoulders and wide hips?
"When the shape became too masculine their perception turned negative and the man was seen to be threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, and selfish. (quoted from Fair Women, Dark men )" -
I think this is the failure of the survey method. Remember, women find bikers, criminals and dangerous and abusive men hot, yet will never admit to it. In fact they might not know themselves what they are attracted to. It may be the greater levels of attraction and masculinity they are attracted to DESPITE the bad behaviourof the man. Ergo women are not attracted to assholes, per se, but are attracted to highly testosteronised or masculinised men and these types are more likely to engage in asshole behaviour. Unfortunately I have no evidence for this besides what I've seen. Any study trying to understand this would be better off trying to study a woman's actions and not listen to her words.
On a related note, its well known that prison populations are full of men who are highly testosteronised or masculinised. No one would call these men pretty or attractive yet women seem to love them. All this boils down to is basically, women are attracted to high levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone lead to higher levels of aggression and more risk taking behaviour, which as I said before, means women are attracted to men who display threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, and selfish behaviour but it is not this behaviour that attracts them. It is the high levels of masculinity they are attracted to despite these negative personality traits. So of course they will give these men bad ratings, but still jump into bed with them.
Concerning big hair, baldness and mohawks: Baldness is a sign of intimidation in some men. Consider bikers, gang members and so forth who shave their heads. Consider also soldiers have very short hair.
Are fish lips and mono-brows examples of masculinisation?
Also, is there any truth to the idea that high testosterone lowers the immune system?
Might I add the second one has saggy breasts. Saggy breasts will always appear larger than they really are. A girl with equally big breasts that are perky, will have what appears to be smaller breasts but really they are just well defined and well perky. I think the best combo is large perky breasts, however still well structured but soft with a tiny bit of sag, but no real sag. Like classic tear drop breasts, only a bit more rounded and perked.
In my opinion none of them are all that. The first one is too flat chested and small, the second one is more feminine but not all that impressive. Although she has a nice hour glass shape from the back, it kind of disappears from the front. I know she is a bit chunkier, but that is really not an excuse. I have an equal hourglass shape from the back and front even when I have a little extra fat here and there. Also, what is up with all their legs? None of them have very nice knees! Soft but well defined knees with porportionate legs and nice calves and ankles that are not too thick or thin, just right and feminine are ideal. I don't see this with these women. The last one just has a weird butt.
Emily, you claim the second girl has an oval face. It's close to my face shape and I would call my face "round". I don't believe she has an oval shape sorry. You also call the women in the many pictures you post "oval" shaped when in fact many times they go from round, to square, to diamond, to oblong, and very rarely oval actually. You claim round faces are so blah, but I like my round face and I think round faces are often feminine. Besides, many "Nordics" have round faces not just ugly Eastern Europeans with hooked noses and broad cheekbones like myself according to you. Oh, and btw, you keep mentioning how everyone else has "massive" cheekbones. Only Nordics don't. Well Scandinavians have larger cheekbones than most. It is evident in your photos as well. Scandinavians are Nordic, but there are many groups of Nordics and Scandinavians definatley have the large cheekbones. Other Nordics have more regressed cheekbones, however they often appear high.
Number 1 seems to have proportionally longer legs than the others, and that is feminine, I think. She looks very good from behind and has a nice feminine shape, but somewhat too small breasts and buttocks in profile. Her face is somewhat broad, and the jaw a little too masculine.
Number 2 is very feminine. She also has the most feminine face shape, I think. Oval, fine facial features. Her legs are proportionally shorter in comparison to number 1, so number 1 "wins" there. Her thighs entirely "clash" or merge when she stands with her legs together, and that indicates more body fat than the others.
Number 3 has a more masculine hair colour and face, and high/broad cheekbones, which I think often add masculinity/coarseness. Her legs are too short for her upper body. Like the others she has a small and feminine waist, and her behind looks very good in profile.
Number 2 has more body fat than the others so that might give her a more feminine appearance compared to the others, who are thinner. It is important to pick girls who are equally well-nourished, I think, in order to get a fair comparison. Overall, number 2 is the most feminine one here.
Guys, I really can't believe what I'm reading here. I only got through the first 15 or so posts. Listen, there is a lot of variation within humanity, and a great deal of overlap, even between men and women. There are no features that are strictly masculine or strictly feminine, unless you're talking about the sexual organs, or secondary sexual features (i.e. breasts, etc). I don't understand what all the fuss is about, many of these women are very beautiful with the features they possess. Can't we just agree that different people will have different ideals of beauty? And how can one get a clear picture of the beauty of any of these women by looking at these still photographs, that do nothing to show their personality traits, or any endearing features? As they have been portrayed, they are nothing more than sacks of meat, no wonder you can't see any of their attractiveness! I don't mean to rant though, just my thoughts.
"Emily, I don't know how old you are but you should look into the romantic life of Halle Berry. She is an African American so probably rather ugly and "primitive" to you but she is considered by most people to be one of the most beautiful stars in Hollywood."
African American, is she? This is Halle with her mother, Judith Ann Hawkins;
Let's try to be truthful here. Halle is of mixed race.
As is so very often the case non-whites get their beauty because of their similarity to whites. Halle is pretty not because of any coarse black traits but because of the white genes she got from her caucasian mother. Her most prominent non-white feature, her nose, is also her weakest point, I think.
"Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love."
Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it".
Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others.
My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group.
"I do not live in Europe now but I still remember from college that Hungarians and Romanians ARE NOT Slavs. In one of your earlier posts you criticized coarse features (and fake blonde hair) of some girls from those ethnic groups and labeled them as Slavic."
Technically they may not be Slavic countries, but they are virtually surrounded by Slavic countries, and believing that there hasn't been migration and "race" mixing there is rather naive, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that Hungary is one of the most mixed countries in Europe. There are many there who have typical Slavic, broad, round and robust faces with massive cheekbones.
There are others who are more gracile and less Slavic in type, of course, but those were not the ones I was referring to. A common theme seems to be a very large and hooked nose, which appears both in Slavic faces and the more gracile Mediterannean, or Gypsy type.
Slavic men can look very good and masculine since the robust features suit men better. Women seem to often lose the needed gracility, and without it some of the femininity is lost since it depends to an extent on gracile, soft and fine facial features.
We need masculine women to produce REAL men, and thanks to those women we can actually enjoy males who possess perfect masculine characteristics. I love musculine males and I will never be satisfied with anything that is less than a 100% pure men. Naturally, all true women feel this way- including me!
As a heterosexual man, I can tell you that I do prefer women with larger breasts. However, I don't particularly like implants. The reason why it might seem to you that men like them has less to do with them preferring fake breasts over natural breasts and more to do with the fact that most men don't seem to really know the difference.
Seeing how little representation there is in the media of true femininity in women, implants are more and more represented in the media. Therefore, you have practically entire generations of men, especially those who fixate themselves a lot on what the media promotes, who will get turned on at anything coming out of a women's chest.
So feel great to know you have a great pair of natural breasts that even the waves of beauty pageant contestants can only wish they had. :)
To Emily:
I owe you a reply on another post which I will get to in due time. However, I have started to get an idea of what kind of person you are the more and more I read your comments.
In any case, it seems that you are ignorant of what homosexuals are protesting for and trying to pushing forth. In fact, based on his comment in the last paragraph of this article, Erik may be as well.
The same sex marriage debate is about having a marital union recognized by the government and all that comes with that. It has nothing to do with being recognized by religions like Christianity, which essentially mean nothing outside of those groups.
The reason why religion even becomes an issue in this debate is really because the religious groups base their very vocalized disapproval of same sex marriages on their faith.
The pictures you posted Erik of Fox getting near that black car seem to suggest it, but I hit up some bikini pictures of her and I don't see an hourglass figure in sight.
I just stumbled upon this page and it grabbed my attention but I just have to thank Emily for banging in the truth about the average Asian.
I live in Vancouver, Canada, and went to a high school with over half the population being Asian. The whole Vancouver area is full of them. My point is on AVERAGE they are extremely ugly. My siblings and I always laughed at the school photos of them. They look retarded over half the time and then you get on the internet with them claiming they are the greatest looking women on earth.
I admit about 5% of them are GORGEOUS. Extremely rare and better-looking than most white women by far. They also usually are thin (and HAVE to be, if they put on any weight it never goes to good places). But most of them look like their faces were beat with a frying pan and then melted. Honestly, I find most of them difficult to look at.
I do feel kind of bad since they are some of the nicest and funniest people I know but, jeez, stop lying to people that never see Asians in real life and bashing white people (usually women).
The results of the study stand apart from the assumptions related to physical attractiveness and its relation to health. There is some relationship between the two just as there are components of attractiveness unrelated to health.
You can find the pdf of the article by Weeden and Sabini here
Peters M, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness. Animal Behavior. 2007’73:937-942.
This was a very poor study.
Firstly, a previous study had found support for the one ornament hypothesis (Thornhill and Grammer, 1999; and a shape analysis of the dataset published later; both studies are discussed here). Whereas the Thornhill and Grammer (1999) article doesn’t mention it, the interaction term between face and body attractiveness in their multiple regression analysis was statistically significant (personal communication), unlike in Peters et al. (2007).
Whereas attractiveness ratings have to be coded in terms of a Likert scale (e.g., rate using a scale of 1-10), there is no excuse for Peters et al. assessing masculinity-femininity and averageness using Likert scales {note that the shape analysis of the data of Thornhill and Grammer (1999) uses geometric morphometrics to separate averageness, fluctuating asymmetry and masculinity-femininity}. Not surprisingly, Peters et al. (2007) find that many of their variables are not normally distributed, which leads to problems with multiple regression analysis since it assumes normally distributed variables. When Peters et al. assess averageness by having participants rate how distinctive people appear, one must not forget that one will appear more distinctive with increasing fluctuating asymmetry, increasing masculinization, increasing feminization and factors other than symmetry and sexual dimorphism, and that the confounds here cannot be controlled for by the principal components analysis performed by Peters et al. In ordinary principal components analysis, the principal components are orthogonal, i.e., they do not affect each other, yet Peters et al. tested for an interaction term between the first two principal components! Naturally, they found none.
The entire study of Peters et al. is ridiculous, not to mention their assumption that if there is an interaction between face and body attractiveness then faces and bodies cannot meaningfully be studied separately and mate choice studies based solely on face or body attractiveness are fundamentally flawed. Studying just face or body attractiveness will reveal useful though not comprehensive insights into mate choice regardless of whether there is an interaction between face and body attractiveness.
Whereas there is indeed a problem with the images, whether you alter head height only, head width only or the entire head so as to preserve its shape, you are going to end up with odd-looking head-body combinations at the extremes. If you go to the pdf of the article and reduce the size so that the images comprising the stimulus set are so small that you can hardly make out the facial features, you will note the images in the middle range (the range where most humans lie) look most attractive and the ones at the extremes look odd. So the authors don’t have a serious problem with their study. But the study can be improved by employing different face shapes.
By the way, is this forced right of homosexuals to marry limited to Christianity? I haven't heard a thing about forcing Jews or Muslims to marry gay couples. That is unacceptable. Muslims and Jews should also have to marry homosexual couples, otherwise the law to me seems blatantly discriminatory and unvalid.
Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love.
The premise of the paper you cite has been criticized. Weeden and Sabini 2005. Physical Attractiveness and Health in Western Societies.
Moreover, a study disputed the one ornament interpretation: Peters, Rhodes, and Simmons. 2007. Contributions of the Face and Body to Overall Attractiveness. Animal Behaviour. http://vocs.unideb.hu/librarian/inline&get=01375.pdf
I don't think the Slavic round face is feminine if it is very broad and with massive cheekbones. I think distinctly round faces sometimes lack refinement, and they can often look coarse. A face needs to be more oval than round. Yes, that girl (no 2) has an oval face, not a round one. A face can be more or less oval/long. I didn't quantify how oval her face is but it is not round.
And, no, Scandinavians do not have "larger cheekbones than most". Slavics have more massive and larger cheekbones than Nordics. That is well-known. Generally speaking, the more East you travel, the broader, larger and more protruding the cheekbones will be, and the rounder the face shape will be, ending up in the Asian race.
I don't know how your face shape is relevant, and I haven't commented on it since I haven't seen it. I'm sorry if you think you don't fit my view of what is beautiful. Slavic men can look attractive since the general coarseness of the Slavic face, and the large protruding cheekbones fit men better. Women need the Nordic gracility and femininity. There are always exceptions, of course, but I think this generally holds true.
To Emily:
The single biggest problem with your posts is that you are being paranoically dishonest. Equally, with the others and with yourself. You very selectively nitpick facts that you believe support your racist claims while at the same time conveniently and selectively ignoring the ones that stand in stark contrast with what you want others to believe. And, as all clinically obsessed demagogues, you naively believe that other people somehow will agree to ignore the ocean of data that obviously turn your racist paranoia to cheap rubbish.
Like all psycho-demagogues you frequently employ statements of the type "What I am saying is widely accepted and cannot be disputed. It is simply the truth."
There was a guy in Germany who was doing the same and actually, at the time, quite many people in his home country believed him. He ended badly in 1945.
To support your racist fantasies you post meticulously selected pictures of people from Sweden calling them average. Then you contrast them with average or below average examples from e.g. India. Also as expected, you totally ignore socio-economic conditions and conveniently forget that, everything else being equal, a properly selected upper-class properly cared for girl from Sweden will obviously tend to look better in front of a camera than, say, a poor hard-working girl from Grece. This, however, says nothing about the actual innate beauty of peoples from different regions.
As part of your nationalistic propaganda, you hand select a narrow group of Swedes, maybe 10% of the overall genotype, and laborously try to convince everyone on this blog that this is how all Swedes look like. Your selections have many attractive (as described by you) features that are more commonly found in other peoples in Europe like the Galic, Slavic or Northern Italian than actually in the Swedish. I have been to Sweden and the population does not look even remotely as handsome as you try to convince us here. Majority of women are rather tall and either very thin and bony, thus devoid of the gracious female shapes, or conversely very heavily built with coarse facial features ("horse faces"). And again, please don't bother to counter by posting photos of beautiful girls from other countries trying to pass them off as Swedish.
Historically, Scandinavian Peninsula, as the most northern, sunlight-devoid and cold piece of land in Europe, remained uninhabited long after other parts of the continent became already populated. The beauty traits that you so much admiire in the few lucky Swedes that happen to possess them are actually all imports from other, mostly European (and more broadly Euro-Asian) gene pools. They arrived in Sweden through ancient peoples' migration and by intermixing in more modern times with other European peoples.
As I said before, racism and hate are not new. You follow the trail frequented before you by others of your ilk. However, what never ceases to amaze me is that all genuinly born racists are always driven by some kind of inferiority complex. Hitler raved about the Aryan race himself while looking anything like an Aryan, Goebbels (his minister of propaganda) was a professional 24/7 Jew-hater while being a Jew himself, they all turned against, among others, the Slavic peoples East of them at the same time obviously admiring in their propaganda the quintesential Slavic looks (blonde/fair shin/blue eyes), etc. etc.
Emily, what is your inferiority complex? As above, also in your case the full racist hypocrisy of your lunacies lies in the fact that the very gene exchange, so much hated by you and other genuine racists, has actually given people in your own country the very features that you happen to so much admire in today's Sweden. For instance, the the often quoted and discussed blonde fine-boned blue-eyed female genotype came to Sewden from the South-Baltic states, mostly northern Slavic populations plus partly northern Germany. So, net-net you were the beneficiaries in the process. Does the suppressed but ever returning awareness of this fact weigh so heavy on you that the only cure you see available is to keep spilling hate?
An observation that I have seen made several times about very photogenic people. When seen in the flesh they have heads that look too big for their body. Marilyn Monroe is an obvious example.
Sera, there are certain cultural norms or conventions that indicate what is recognized as femine beauty in every society. Therefore, it is not just in the eye of the beholder where beauty is recognized. As a photographer, I find beauty in certain women that I meet. When they are in front of my camera, their beauty excites me and I want my photographs to show the beauty that I see.
Adriana's not a transsexual. This is simply preposterous.
"Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it"."
There being forced to do it andso how is making muslims or any other religious group to do the same combating the problem exactly, love? or is it just that it will be fair? LOL
"Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others."
On the one hand you say homosexuals are forcing christians on the other you are indirectly implying its the law. Make up your mind. The law is not forcing the christians to wed homosexuals. Its the christians this particular group of people who opening themselves up to this possibility. Face it if you dont want to face it then face it. There is no relgious discrimination involved because as far as islams stance is concerned homosexuality is forbidden plain and simple.
"My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group."
If it is against there religious beliefs love and they had conviction in there beliefs and had enough sense they wouldnt be in the situation in the first place. All in all there is certainly no religious discrimination just because one group has taken on the act iot certainly doesnt equate to discrimination if another group fails to. The law is certainly not stopping christians from practicing there religion if the law was then you could say discrimination was involved but just because the christians have opened themselves up to wedding gay couples that certainly is not the muslims responsibility. Get a grip will you love.
those with excess abdominal fat even if they are okay elsewhere (this is a diseased constitution)
What do you mean by diseased constitution?
Also, with regard to supermodels. Gay men or lower testosterone males predominantly control the fashion industry. Those type of men are more likely to be attracted to, or simply tp prefer for asthetic reasons, more masculine or androgenous female faces.
Also, do you think there is any truth to the idea that higher testosterone results in the asymmetry of facial features?
"Higher IQ men are much less likely to be influenced by high T to engage in risky behaviour, need I say more"
- Does testosterone influence intelligence? Does more testosterone make you dumber?
- Or, as is known higher testosterone makes men more likely to engage in risky, spur of the moment, and stupid behaviour. Does higher intelligence actually reduce the chances of this due to the greater ability of the man in question to reflect on the potential consequences of his actions?
In short - Men with high T and high intelligence do not do the same stupid things that men with high T and low intelligence do?
What sort of body type would you consider John Wayne with his wide shoulders and wide hips?
"When the shape became too masculine their perception turned negative and the man was seen to be threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, and selfish. (quoted from Fair Women, Dark men )" -
I think this is the failure of the survey method. Remember, women find bikers, criminals and dangerous and abusive men hot, yet will never admit to it. In fact they might not know themselves what they are attracted to. It may be the greater levels of attraction and masculinity they are attracted to DESPITE the bad behaviourof the man. Ergo women are not attracted to assholes, per se, but are attracted to highly testosteronised or masculinised men and these types are more likely to engage in asshole behaviour. Unfortunately I have no evidence for this besides what I've seen. Any study trying to understand this would be better off trying to study a woman's actions and not listen to her words.
On a related note, its well known that prison populations are full of men who are highly testosteronised or masculinised. No one would call these men pretty or attractive yet women seem to love them. All this boils down to is basically, women are attracted to high levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone lead to higher levels of aggression and more risk taking behaviour, which as I said before, means women are attracted to men who display threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, and selfish behaviour but it is not this behaviour that attracts them. It is the high levels of masculinity they are attracted to despite these negative personality traits. So of course they will give these men bad ratings, but still jump into bed with them.
Concerning big hair, baldness and mohawks: Baldness is a sign of intimidation in some men. Consider bikers, gang members and so forth who shave their heads. Consider also soldiers have very short hair.
Are fish lips and mono-brows examples of masculinisation?
Also, is there any truth to the idea that high testosterone lowers the immune system?
Might I add the second one has saggy breasts. Saggy breasts will always appear larger than they really are. A girl with equally big breasts that are perky, will have what appears to be smaller breasts but really they are just well defined and well perky. I think the best combo is large perky breasts, however still well structured but soft with a tiny bit of sag, but no real sag. Like classic tear drop breasts, only a bit more rounded and perked.
In my opinion none of them are all that. The first one is too flat chested and small, the second one is more feminine but not all that impressive. Although she has a nice hour glass shape from the back, it kind of disappears from the front. I know she is a bit chunkier, but that is really not an excuse. I have an equal hourglass shape from the back and front even when I have a little extra fat here and there. Also, what is up with all their legs? None of them have very nice knees! Soft but well defined knees with porportionate legs and nice calves and ankles that are not too thick or thin, just right and feminine are ideal. I don't see this with these women. The last one just has a weird butt.
Emily, you claim the second girl has an oval face. It's close to my face shape and I would call my face "round". I don't believe she has an oval shape sorry. You also call the women in the many pictures you post "oval" shaped when in fact many times they go from round, to square, to diamond, to oblong, and very rarely oval actually. You claim round faces are so blah, but I like my round face and I think round faces are often feminine. Besides, many "Nordics" have round faces not just ugly Eastern Europeans with hooked noses and broad cheekbones like myself according to you. Oh, and btw, you keep mentioning how everyone else has "massive" cheekbones. Only Nordics don't. Well Scandinavians have larger cheekbones than most. It is evident in your photos as well. Scandinavians are Nordic, but there are many groups of Nordics and Scandinavians definatley have the large cheekbones. Other Nordics have more regressed cheekbones, however they often appear high.
Number 1 seems to have proportionally longer legs than the others, and that is feminine, I think. She looks very good from behind and has a nice feminine shape, but somewhat too small breasts and buttocks in profile. Her face is somewhat broad, and the jaw a little too masculine.
Number 2 is very feminine. She also has the most feminine face shape, I think. Oval, fine facial features. Her legs are proportionally shorter in comparison to number 1, so number 1 "wins" there. Her thighs entirely "clash" or merge when she stands with her legs together, and that indicates more body fat than the others.
Number 3 has a more masculine hair colour and face, and high/broad cheekbones, which I think often add masculinity/coarseness. Her legs are too short for her upper body. Like the others she has a small and feminine waist, and her behind looks very good in profile.
Number 2 has more body fat than the others so that might give her a more feminine appearance compared to the others, who are thinner. It is important to pick girls who are equally well-nourished, I think, in order to get a fair comparison. Overall, number 2 is the most feminine one here.
Guys, I really can't believe what I'm reading here. I only got through the first 15 or so posts. Listen, there is a lot of variation within humanity, and a great deal of overlap, even between men and women. There are no features that are strictly masculine or strictly feminine, unless you're talking about the sexual organs, or secondary sexual features (i.e. breasts, etc). I don't understand what all the fuss is about, many of these women are very beautiful with the features they possess. Can't we just agree that different people will have different ideals of beauty? And how can one get a clear picture of the beauty of any of these women by looking at these still photographs, that do nothing to show their personality traits, or any endearing features? As they have been portrayed, they are nothing more than sacks of meat, no wonder you can't see any of their attractiveness! I don't mean to rant though, just my thoughts.
Ali
are not what "mentally normal people" find attractive in women.
That might be a bit harsh
"Emily, I don't know how old you are but you should look into the romantic life of Halle Berry. She is an African American so probably rather ugly and "primitive" to you but she is considered by most people to be one of the most beautiful stars in Hollywood."
African American, is she? This is Halle with her mother, Judith Ann Hawkins;
Let's try to be truthful here. Halle is of mixed race.
As is so very often the case non-whites get their beauty because of their similarity to whites. Halle is pretty not because of any coarse black traits but because of the white genes she got from her caucasian mother. Her most prominent non-white feature, her nose, is also her weakest point, I think.
"Boring conformity" = a harmonious, well-shaped and beautiful nose.
"Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love."
Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it".
Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others.
My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group.
"I do not live in Europe now but I still remember from college that Hungarians and Romanians ARE NOT Slavs. In one of your earlier posts you criticized coarse features (and fake blonde hair) of some girls from those ethnic groups and labeled them as Slavic."
Technically they may not be Slavic countries, but they are virtually surrounded by Slavic countries, and believing that there hasn't been migration and "race" mixing there is rather naive, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that Hungary is one of the most mixed countries in Europe. There are many there who have typical Slavic, broad, round and robust faces with massive cheekbones.
There are others who are more gracile and less Slavic in type, of course, but those were not the ones I was referring to. A common theme seems to be a very large and hooked nose, which appears both in Slavic faces and the more gracile Mediterannean, or Gypsy type.
Slavic men can look very good and masculine since the robust features suit men better. Women seem to often lose the needed gracility, and without it some of the femininity is lost since it depends to an extent on gracile, soft and fine facial features.
You just don't get it, do you Emily?
We need masculine women to produce REAL men, and thanks to those women we can actually enjoy males who possess perfect masculine characteristics. I love musculine males and I will never be satisfied with anything that is less than a 100% pure men. Naturally, all true women feel this way- including me!
To Anneliese:
As a heterosexual man, I can tell you that I do prefer women with larger breasts. However, I don't particularly like implants. The reason why it might seem to you that men like them has less to do with them preferring fake breasts over natural breasts and more to do with the fact that most men don't seem to really know the difference.
Seeing how little representation there is in the media of true femininity in women, implants are more and more represented in the media. Therefore, you have practically entire generations of men, especially those who fixate themselves a lot on what the media promotes, who will get turned on at anything coming out of a women's chest.
So feel great to know you have a great pair of natural breasts that even the waves of beauty pageant contestants can only wish they had. :)
To Emily:
I owe you a reply on another post which I will get to in due time. However, I have started to get an idea of what kind of person you are the more and more I read your comments.
In any case, it seems that you are ignorant of what homosexuals are protesting for and trying to pushing forth. In fact, based on his comment in the last paragraph of this article, Erik may be as well.
The same sex marriage debate is about having a marital union recognized by the government and all that comes with that. It has nothing to do with being recognized by religions like Christianity, which essentially mean nothing outside of those groups.
The reason why religion even becomes an issue in this debate is really because the religious groups base their very vocalized disapproval of same sex marriages on their faith.
Where?
The pictures you posted Erik of Fox getting near that black car seem to suggest it, but I hit up some bikini pictures of her and I don't see an hourglass figure in sight.
Here's a site with a bunch of bikini photos of her:
http://www.zimbio.com/Bikini+Celebrities/articles/1217/Megan+Fox+newest+bikini+pictures
Where's the hourglass figure? If you see it there, then please explain it to me.
I just stumbled upon this page and it grabbed my attention but I just have to thank Emily for banging in the truth about the average Asian.
I live in Vancouver, Canada, and went to a high school with over half the population being Asian. The whole Vancouver area is full of them. My point is on AVERAGE they are extremely ugly. My siblings and I always laughed at the school photos of them. They look retarded over half the time and then you get on the internet with them claiming they are the greatest looking women on earth.
I admit about 5% of them are GORGEOUS. Extremely rare and better-looking than most white women by far. They also usually are thin (and HAVE to be, if they put on any weight it never goes to good places). But most of them look like their faces were beat with a frying pan and then melted. Honestly, I find most of them difficult to look at.
I do feel kind of bad since they are some of the nicest and funniest people I know but, jeez, stop lying to people that never see Asians in real life and bashing white people (usually women).
The results of the study stand apart from the assumptions related to physical attractiveness and its relation to health. There is some relationship between the two just as there are components of attractiveness unrelated to health.
You can find the pdf of the article by Weeden and Sabini here
You can find a response to Weeden and Sabini here
The other study you cited was
This was a very poor study.
Firstly, a previous study had found support for the one ornament hypothesis (Thornhill and Grammer, 1999; and a shape analysis of the dataset published later; both studies are discussed here). Whereas the Thornhill and Grammer (1999) article doesn’t mention it, the interaction term between face and body attractiveness in their multiple regression analysis was statistically significant (personal communication), unlike in Peters et al. (2007).
Whereas attractiveness ratings have to be coded in terms of a Likert scale (e.g., rate using a scale of 1-10), there is no excuse for Peters et al. assessing masculinity-femininity and averageness using Likert scales {note that the shape analysis of the data of Thornhill and Grammer (1999) uses geometric morphometrics to separate averageness, fluctuating asymmetry and masculinity-femininity}. Not surprisingly, Peters et al. (2007) find that many of their variables are not normally distributed, which leads to problems with multiple regression analysis since it assumes normally distributed variables. When Peters et al. assess averageness by having participants rate how distinctive people appear, one must not forget that one will appear more distinctive with increasing fluctuating asymmetry, increasing masculinization, increasing feminization and factors other than symmetry and sexual dimorphism, and that the confounds here cannot be controlled for by the principal components analysis performed by Peters et al. In ordinary principal components analysis, the principal components are orthogonal, i.e., they do not affect each other, yet Peters et al. tested for an interaction term between the first two principal components! Naturally, they found none.
The entire study of Peters et al. is ridiculous, not to mention their assumption that if there is an interaction between face and body attractiveness then faces and bodies cannot meaningfully be studied separately and mate choice studies based solely on face or body attractiveness are fundamentally flawed. Studying just face or body attractiveness will reveal useful though not comprehensive insights into mate choice regardless of whether there is an interaction between face and body attractiveness.
Whereas there is indeed a problem with the images, whether you alter head height only, head width only or the entire head so as to preserve its shape, you are going to end up with odd-looking head-body combinations at the extremes. If you go to the pdf of the article and reduce the size so that the images comprising the stimulus set are so small that you can hardly make out the facial features, you will note the images in the middle range (the range where most humans lie) look most attractive and the ones at the extremes look odd. So the authors don’t have a serious problem with their study. But the study can be improved by employing different face shapes.
06/06/2009 - 10:43
by Emily
By the way, is this forced right of homosexuals to marry limited to Christianity? I haven't heard a thing about forcing Jews or Muslims to marry gay couples. That is unacceptable. Muslims and Jews should also have to marry homosexual couples, otherwise the law to me seems blatantly discriminatory and unvalid.
Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love.
The premise of the paper you cite has been criticized. Weeden and Sabini 2005. Physical Attractiveness and Health in Western Societies.
Moreover, a study disputed the one ornament interpretation: Peters, Rhodes, and Simmons. 2007. Contributions of the Face and Body to Overall Attractiveness. Animal Behaviour.
http://vocs.unideb.hu/librarian/inline&get=01375.pdf
send me pics
Pages