This whole site is about beauty. A strong portion of this site is about supporting the idea that beauty in women is strongly correlated to femininity. You claim that as one's body fat increases, so does their masculinization. In other words a woman will look more masculine overweight, than she would underweight or obviously at just the right weight.
So with all that in mind I assume this article was to dissolve the idea that many posters here have that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These posters cite these old paintings as evidence of this claiming that back then obesity was seen as a sign of wealth and abundance.I also assume you are trying to dispell the idea that obesity was never a correlate to femininity and beauty, that as one gains more and more weight at a certain point she starts to become more and more masculine and that as the result fashion models are not masculine only because they are skinny because in fact as one gains more weight she becomes more masucline and as one loses weight she becomes more feminine.
Now, you show pictures painted by artists to prove that never was obesity a correlate to femininity, and never was obesity considered attractive. Therefore you post these paintings to show these painted women are not obese.
However, my comment reveals that despite the fact that these women are not obese they are still masculinized. So if you are studying preferences from old times and you want to make the connection: preferences back then were not very different from now because our preferences on beauty do not change because of politics, economic, or social circumstances in general.
However, although these paintings prove your point: (Obesity was never considered attractive, and beauty is indeed not in the eye of the beholder) it lacks on your other point: that femininity is a correlate of beauty in women. Because if you are using these examples as examples of beautiful women, then these women in these paintings do not fit your standards of a beautiful woman. Therefore, I don't see why you would use them.
The Venus one has does not necessarily have a feminine face, she does not have really wide shoulders but they are masculine nonetheless, her abdominal area is extremely masculine. I mean there is SOME femininity in that picture but very little. Therefore you are proving that back then men did not have preferences for obesity, however you are not proving that men had preferences for femininity, instead a strange twist of feminine and androgynous qualities.
Almost any painting I have seen from the Renaissance features either a male or female with an androgynous twist. Therefore, you can't really use those paintings to prove that masculinity makes a man more attractive and femininity makes a woman attractive. Because these paintings do not reveal that at all and dispell your theory.
Also erik the points you make on self esteem/ego etc I totally agree with you. A while back you mentioned europeans have lower self esteem on average compared to majority if not all other races/groups of people. If high self esteem/ego is related to a high opinion of yourself then if taking physical appearance into account is it that europeans dont have a high opinion of themselves or there looks?
Also you mentioned somewhere before (perhaps i have understood it wrong) about it not being true of northern europeans to mix with other races I disagree history is abundant with examples of european mixes where people have freely and happily mixed, it is true and natural that if various races of human populations meet or come face to face they are likely to against all odds eventually end up mixing and europeans are no exception or anything special in this regard just as it is true and natural of races to mix it is also true and natural of races to not mix except with there own racial composition or likeness.
I dont agree that all europeans who end up mixing with a non european will prefer a whiter version in your words to what they have, yes there are cases where they might but there are plenty of cases where they wont. You are right not everyone can or will get there preferences but what should stop europeans not getting there preferences after all they have all the freedom in the world.
Voice of Reason,
Wow! I like you!
You seem like a really nice lady/girl?
You seem to know what "true beauty" really is all about :)
Erik,
I am going to be direct with you. I have noticed in your responses to me you always say things like i am annoying, all i do is post is nonesense, i am foul etc etc. Why?
Are you trying to put me down? lol
Well it ain't working honey ;)
I think i know why you have this "attitude" towards me. I call it the triple whammy!
I know you posted this in another (Ekaterina) discussion but who is putting words in whose mouth?
Submitted by Erik on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 02:53.
Adressed to Emily
"I know you are a reasonable person..."
"Whereas someone may attempt to put down others to feel better about himself, if someone is putting down others, it cannot be assumed that this person is doing so to feel better about himself. After all, “putting down others” may simply be an accurate description of these people."
I am sorry but i am not quite sure what your trying to say? Does the last sentence mean that people who are "put down" by others have low confidence etc... and therefore are easily influenced/affected by what people say?
I am interested in knowing whoose descendents these people that reside in south asia who are known as the kalash people are i.e what is there physical make up? There are theories of them being the descendets of alexander the greats army (greeks) I think the most breathtakingly beautiful women in the world reside in south asia kashmiris, pathans/pashtuns of north west federation/frontier of pakistan and the kalash. I dont find europeans in the current sense whom i see in europe including nordics/scandanivians to be beautifull in the sense of anything beyond your earthly kind of beauty but i find these people the kalash who dont look european to me withstanding hair, eye and skin colour tone there physical features and overall look are quiete different to europeans they would never be mistaken for a european you see today they are very beautifull.
Voice of Unreason: Self-esteem and ego (not used much in mainstream psychology) capture largely the same idea notwithstanding specific linguistic usage where ego is used to suggest conceit. Ego basically refers to one’s concept of oneself. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego (not a good source because ego has been used extensively in philosophy and psychoanalysis, but ego captures the concept of self-esteem to a large degree)
This site does not equate beauty with femininity as it would be obvious to anyone with basic understanding of science and one who has made an effort to read enough of this site. This site meticulously documents numerous correlates of beauty that are unrelated to femininity.
You may believe that true beauty is likeability and approachability, but this site has nothing to do with this true beauty. It is about looks.
You think genocide / ethnic cleansing stem from beliefs of superiority? There have been a lot of reasons. There is also sociological literature showing political orientation varying in a single dimension (e.g., left vs. right) but behavior varying in two or more dimensions, i.e., belief in superiority is not necessarily related to discriminatory behavior and may be related to benevolent behavior.
I don’t think Emily is hiding her head in shame. It is a waste of time arguing with the voice of unreason. She can move on, but I have no choice because I run this site. Begone!
Peter: Spare us your poor comments. You may disagree with the “nonsense” that happens to be scientific research, but you may not express your disagreement here unless you have a comparably scholarly counter argument. The statistical trend has been clearly documented: higher self-esteem/self-worth goes with more prejudiced beliefs about others.
Of course you can have high self-esteem but not a high opinion of your ethnic group or sexual orientation. This would not contradict anything I said. When one talks about someone’s self-esteem, the reference is to global self-esteem. A specific form of esteem can be quite different from global self-esteem.
Whereas someone may attempt to put down others to feel better about himself, if someone is putting down others, it cannot be assumed that this person is doing so to feel better about himself. After all, “putting down others” may simply be an accurate description of these people.
I didn’t say anything about Emily being reasonable or whether she has issues or not. You have been warned about putting words in my mouth. Don’t do it again.
You said "Behold academic research on self-esteem: people espousing a higher opinion of themselves/their group tend to have higher self-esteem/ego"
The paper is about self esteem and not ego, either you have not understood that or you're trying to infer it is the same.
Self esteem is one's confidence in terms of looks, intelligence and Ego is one's deluded pride or vanity. They are as different as chalk and cheese. Similarly your website equates feminity with beauty which isn't always the case.
I am a woman and I know I am beautiful/attractive but I don't go around espousing a higher opinion because I am not CONCEITED and DELUDED. In short I am not mad, what matters is that you are likeable, approachable by everyone and I think that's what is true beauty.
Beauty is transient, it comes and goes. What was a flower will wither and dry and rot with time.
People's opinion of how superior they are in terms of race or looks tend to come from their own insecurity and intolerance. This is what has caused genocides and ethnic cleansing. It is a madness.
All you and Emily have done is just defend yourself because you are constantly being shouted down by others because of your deluded ego.
Emily must be hiding her head in shame, she is not even around to defend herself anymore.
"You and Emily are insecure, ugly people who feels compelled to put down other people's appearance in order to feed your own ego."
:)
Erik,
"Regarding your notion of ego and insecurity problems, this tripe has come up before and exposed for the nonsense it is. Behold academic research on self-esteem: people espousing a higher opinion of themselves/their group tend to have higher self-esteem/ego; they don’t do so to put down others in order to make themselves feel better/overcome their insecurities. Besides, the notion behind this site is to exalt certain looks rather than to put down various looks."
I disagree with this nonesense! Personally i have above average self esteem BUT i don't have a high opinion of either my Ethnic or "sexuality" background. I TOTALLY AGREE that people tend to put down others in order for themselves to feel better at some level. Have you ever experienced racism? homophobia? Then don't say things like Behold this and Behold that....As if it was sent from the heavens lol
Another way to look at it would be that people who have a high opinion of themselves tend to have a higher opinion of their ethnic group BUT people need validation / a comparison group by which to evaluate their "supremity". This leads/can lead to putting down the others/thinking of the others as inferior comparatively.
This is a complex issue. A person who is Nordic could think highly of himself and his group but for non insecurity problems think "they" are better than others. OR a "closeted" homosexual can be homophobic to take attention off from him or other reasons...in this case insecurities are present.
If you think Emily is reasonable and doesn't have "issues" then you must be deluded!
I would be happy to talk more about you and Emily....You know where to find me :)
Godis: I would like to know myself why Hitler went after Jews. The proceedings of Nazi Germany are not something that I am interested in, but I have had to look up two things about the Nazis: their concept of beauty and their attitude toward homosexuals. The beauty issue should be self-evident; someone coming up with this site is bound to look up Nazi beauty standards at some point. The homosexuality material was part of my examining homosexual issues. The topic of political orientation and attitude toward homosexuality came up, and the Nazi view/treatment of homosexuals simply had to be looked up.
On the beauty issue I learned that the Nazis admired Northern European features and that the concept of them promoting German superiority was nonsense, which I addressed in my previous comment. On the homosexuality issue, I came across a complex picture of Nazi attitudes that is off-topic for this site, but the conclusion – after also taking into account the attitudes, through time, of organized religion and the communists/leftists – was basically lack of an association between political orientation and attitude toward homosexuality. Similarly, on the Jewish dislike issue, I expect a complex picture given the examples of Werner Goldberg, Walter Hollaender, Helmut Wilberg and many others like them in the Reich, as well as other amazing facts such as much Nazi philosophy being based on the work of the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg, another Jewish individual.
I have never heard of Hitler liking to play with feces. If true, then he was mentally ill. Answering your question on homosexuality and pedophilia is a low priority issue because it has already been answered. A link a few comments above the page where you left your comment on pedophilia cites all the evidence you need to consider; other comments have appeared elsewhere. If I have to repeat myself, then I need to find the free time first.
Voice of Unreason: How can you ask me whether I was defending Hitler or “justifying the murder of million people just because of race”? Begone! There is no place for hysterical inferences – that do not follow in any way whatsoever from the arguments – at this site.
I wouldn’t put it as defending Emily. The problem is that beauty apparently cannot be discussed without some people bringing in Nazi Germany and assigning genocidal or enslaving or domineering ambitions to some of the participants. Such individuals need to be stopped in their tracks before they ruin the discussion.
In response to my comment about leaving a relevant comment, the Zonneschijn clown again left a comment about skin and hair color. The interesting thing is that she considers it an insult to describe some women as masculine. Obviously she doesn’t like masculinization in women. I also do not recall describing the features of Adriana Lima, Angelina Joli or Aishwarya Rai as manly. They are not among the more feminine women, some masculinization is not the same as manly, and in many pictures Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai look good to me.
Godis: You just left another useless comment. The article does not address masculinity-femininity. The article is about socially acceptable body fat levels in Medieval Europe and today. The argument is not just based on pictures, but a lot of text is cited also, and you have not disputed it. Yes, some things can be inferred from ancestral art.
Godis: Megan Fox has a mixture of feminine and masculine features. In my opinion calling her not feminine at all is an exaggeration. Your choice of photos is biased, so please allow me to be equally biased in picking counter-examples. :)
She does have broad shoulders and a relatively flat backside. On the other hand though, she has an hourglass figure with wide hips and a very thin waist. You are wrong that she's tall, because she's in fact fairly short at about 5 ft 4.5 in.
As for the "non-existent" breasts, most of your pictures come from a time when she was at her skinniest. Check out her teen photos, she was a probably C-cup then. She gained some of the weight back recently.
I don't have time to discuss her face right now, maybe I will follow up later.
The Venus picture by Boticelli is obviously masculinized. Not to mention that back then men were often depicted as very feminine...
I don't think looking at old art proves any point you make. It completely contradicts your theory on beauty. Many of the paintings painted during the Renaissance feature super feminine men or women with an androgynous twist or subtle androgynous qualities.
Are you defending Emily? Are you defending Hitler?
In short are you justifying the murder of million people just because of race?
You and Emily are insecure, ugly people who feels compelled to put down other people's appearance in order to feed your own ego.
I am sorry but you will never be happy till you have got rid of this insecurity.
Hitler fed the germans lies and he fed that insecurity so he could gain power but there will always be good people who will cut you down as evidenced by History.
"GAH, it's like women have to be anorexic these days."
That's how it seems. "Normal" women are considered "Fat" (Or even worse, obese) and sickly anorexic women are considered "normal." - I honestly think larger women look much better than thin women.
And lmao, Hitler and his Jewish shoulders just proves how twisted that man was. Hitler also had a fetish for being deficated on believe it or not. sick sick sick man.
So how come Hitler killed all those Jewish people regardless of what they looked like? How come that guy in the pic above won all those awards for looking "Aryan" lmao but all the rest of the Jews were killed off, despite the fact that some if not many could pass for Aryan just as the one above in the pic. Please answer my question I am so intrigued to know what your answer will be.
By the way how come you haven't responded to my answer about homosexuals and pedophilia?
Henrik Bjornsen: There is no misrepresentation of Nordics by Emily. She is not discussing 19th century ideologies, and there is no attempt on her part to justify the domination of other people.
Germany is not being discussed. German ego was not relevant in the aftermath of World War I. Germany had almost won this war but malicious individuals got America involved, and this led to Germany’s defeat. The German mood was one of anger. Germany was forced into the Versailles Treaty. Part of this involved significant loss of German territory. The corresponding German response was anger and increased nationalist fervor. The Versailles Treaty also bankrupted Germany. The corresponding German response was anger and frustration. Where does ego come into the picture? Besides, Emily’s answers do not indicate an insecure woman.
Weimar Germany or even Nazi Germany did not espouse a belief in German superiority. The Nazis admired Northern European features and half of Germans were not ethnically Northern European. So how could the Nazis promote the notion of German superiority? You might also want to consider the following picture of the ideal German soldier, used by Nazis as a recruitment tool.
If you think that his blue eyes, blond hair and general Aryan looks were the main reasons why he was chosen by the Nazis, you would be correct. But who was this individual? He was Werner Goldberg. Why would the Nazis knowingly pick a Goldberg (Werner was half Jew) to portray the ideal German soldier if they believed in German ethnic superiority? There are many examples like this from Nazi Germany. For instance, there was half Jew Colonel Walter Hollaender, who received Hitler’s Deutschblütigkeitserklärung and the following military awards: Ritterkreuz, German-Cross in Gold, EKI, EKII, and Close Combat Badge. In another example, the half Jew Luftwaffe General Helmut Wilberg was not only the recipient of the military awards of Hohenzollern's Knight’s Cross with Swords, EKI and EKII, he was also declared an Aryan by Hitler in 1935.
Being a Swede you will naturally find average Swedes average looking and nothing special because they are the people you have grown among. Emily is addressing average Swedes vs. average non-Nordics.
Regarding colder climates selecting wider builds, Nordics don’t show cold adaptations. They have shorter trunks than East Asians. Among Europeans, they are a long-legged people and have a less obesity-prone build. They are not a stocky people.
Nobody here is talking about Scandinavian overrepresentation among models. The issue is Nordic overrepresentation. Nordic people have been among the major founders of Russia and the Ukraine. The word Russia comes from the Rus people, a branch of the Vikings. Between Russia and the Ukraine, we are looking at around 180 million people whereas Scandinavians number around 20 million people. Even with a lower proportion of its population being ethnically Nordic, the absolute number of Nordic-looking people (light pigmentation in skin, hair, eyes; fine facial features, etc.) is substantial in Russia-Ukraine compared to Scandinavia. And if you look at the top Eastern European models, you won’t see a lot of obviously Slavic-looking ones. If you look at pictures of attractive people from Russian and the Ukraine compiled by people who are from these nations, they will usually feature Nordic-looking people.
I am interested in writing by Benjamin Franklin that he wanted to bar Scandinavian immigration because he thought them to be a swarthy people. This would be remarkable. Back then most Americans didn’t want European people outside of Northern/Northwestern Europe to immigrate to the United States, but the reason wasn’t swarthiness or presumed inferiority. If you look at the champions of keeping America Northern European, not only did they not put forth Nordic supremacist viewpoints, they came up with very different arguments. Madison Grant believed Southern Europeans to be artistically superior and possibly intellectually superior to Nordic whites. William Vaile espoused similar viewpoints. The best example comes from Australia. Alfred Deakin, the architect of white Australia policy, wanted to keep Australia white. His argument? Whites are inferior to non-whites on too many important measures and hence non-whites must be kept out because their superiority makes them a threat to whites!
This site is not about politics, especially politics that bears no resemblance to what actually transpired. It is about looks.
stoner Joe: There are male bodybuilders who develop female breasts on top of a thick layer of muscle. So a man-faced woman with big breasts is hardly unusual. Estrogens promote deposition of fat in the breasts. Women with elevated levels of both androgens and estrogens will show signs of masculinization along with a tendency to have well-developed breasts. Alternatively, the woman could have genetics not related to estrogen production that causes large breasts. In another possibility, genetics not related to masculinization could make parts of her face look masculine.
Ethan: Jenni looks great to me, but she has muscularity that is above average compared to the other women in the attractive women section.
While I by no means think that every person is objectively beautiful, I do think the restrictions on this site are way too narrow and are quite ridiculous. There are all shapes and sizes that people find beautiful, and it is much more difficult to classify than with the simple restrictions provided here.
Besides, the examples provided don't even make sense with the restrictions given. The avg. hip to waist ratio of a Playboy model is actually .68. This is BELOW the .7 or below ratio that it was thought most men prefer. Yes, Playboy models (even with their fake boobs, which I don't like), actually DO have the hour-glass figures that you say are the ideal for beauty.
Culture also DOES play a role in the perception of beauty, like it or not. (I mean general perception of beauty, not just industry standards set by a few presumably homosexual men.) In other centuries, heavy women were in vogue. Corsets altering the very structure of the body were once considered the ultimate in beauty, as was foot-binding. In the 1920s it was flat chests, and in the 1950s hour-glass figures were all the rage... then Twiggy... then the supermodels of the 80s and 90s... then waif-like, heroine chic... now we're back to big breasts again - and in culture (outside the fashion mainstream - but not as much as you'd think), real women have curves.
This particular quote stood out in terms of the role of culture in the perception of beauty in regards to mate choice:
""Waist-to-hip ratio may indeed be a useful signal to men, then, but whether men prefer a [waist-to-hip ratio] associated with lower or higher androgen/estrogen ratios (or value them equally) should depend on the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive," Cashdan writes."
Next, you have to take into consideration how much these models are air-brushed. Even most of the women you claim are masculinized(sp) have had their waists airbrushed to appear smaller in comparison to their hips, often altering the way the natural ribcage could appear so much as to be unrealistic no matter how much weight is gained or lost.
To me, the comparison of this site to eugenics is absolutely fair. Of course, maybe I'm just bitter as a result of my naturally small-chested, wide-rib-caged, narrow-waisted and underweight frame. (Hopefully, I won't be underweight for long... been under a lot of stress this year and seem to keep losing the pounds once I put them on... sigh)
FWIW, I know that most avg women out there think that women like me have it easy... simply because I'm thin. The truth is, I don't fit the ideal shown in the fashion industry and in the media any more than they do. For every woman who wishes she had a smaller chest, there is a woman like me who wouldn't mind a larger one (though I like my A cups). For every woman complaining about her large hips, there is a woman like me wishing for more "womanly" curves (and we have to endure the extra insult of the implication that we are not REAL woman, bc of course, real women have curves). For every few women who are upset that they are overweight, there is a woman like me who would love to gain 10 pounds. Everyone is under the microscope. However, I still don't think this site promotes beauty. If you were to add up all of the qualifications listed, not even the women listed in the "attractive women" section would meet every qualification here. This site is just a really just the authors view of beauty, not generalized as he claims. It is also a bit sick and twisted that this much time is devoted to it in my opinion.
In case you are wondering how I got to this site, I was doing a search to find pictures of what natural women look like (not in a sexualized way per se). I was trying to find relatively varied pictures across the spectrum. Difficult to do when searching online, I know, but I thought I'd try. The more I explored this site, the more offended I became however, and I felt the need to comment. *sigh*
With most of the others in the 'masculinized' section, it's pretty obvious that they're a little more manly than the average dame, but I really don't see how Jenni from Femjoy is at all like that.
Jenni appears to have a nice, soft face and jaw with no angles, hips that are noticeably wider than her waist, a round butt, and nice breasts that are definitely adequate, if not the sort you could get lost in.
Is this girl just so beautiful that I'm missing something obvious?
I enjoy the women pictured and have never seen them before, I wish I knew where they came from. Anyway, why are the nipples
painted out, a very bad idea as it takes a long time to redo
them, and there is just too many that I like. Please don't do it.
Greg
Portland, OR
The more relevant question is why is Emily being treated seriously. If she's still keeping track of this forum, I expect her to come back with more banal responses. I live in Gothenburg and Stockholm, and travel around much of the EU and United States for business.
I can tell you from the start that our dearest Emily misrepresents the so-called Nordic race quite well. Really, I'm flattered to think that the ideologies used in the 19th century to attempt to unify and energize people, as well as justify the domination of others, describes us so well! I feel like I am now this gorgeous and graceful representative of this league of angels! How it warms my heart.
Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth, and self-fulfilling prophecies of observation are a potent force in cherry picking the evidence. You will find in every country a small group of people who will still defend the 19th century ideologies because admitting the truth is too painful, especially when this image fed to the public was to some an integral part of their identity, perhaps passed down to children and grandchildren. Without it, they feel lost, because even a broken compass gives a sense of security. The most drastic and classic example is the belief in the superiority of the German Reich, especially post-unification. Germany's defeat during World War I causes a major blow to the German ego, because it shattered the ingrained and unquestioned self-image fed to it by the ruling class. The image was fed to the masses not because it was true, but because of the effect it had on unifying a variety of peoples into one nation, which as you can imagine, was easier to govern than a collection of disparate duchies and kingdoms. The reason Hitler was so successful was because he was able to exploit the shame experienced by the Germans. He took the wreckage from the discredited self-image, and glued it back together with a new mythology. Just the same, Emily demonstrates the classic Coue method used to convince her insecure self of a certain self-image. She posts to a forum and tries to convince others because, as she seems to think, truth is established by consensus.
Based on my extensive traveling, I find most Scandinavians to be quite average in appearance as far as Europeans are concerned, and not particularly spectacular on average. I love my country, I love my culture, because they are mine, but there's no sense covering up my impressions. The stereotypes are just that, stereotypes. Anthropologically speaking, colder climates seem to select for wider builds, which makes sense since core body temperature needs to be maintained, and so you'll find that many of our women have a stockier appearance. Body type is predominantly pear-shaped, whereas the model ideal is apple or hourglass. It is a mistake to say that there is a Scandinavian overrepresentation among models, as presently Slavic women form a very large portion of models, and who are often chosen because they have very light pigmentation (eyes, hair and skin) which lends itself to a variety of make-up, and graceful, well-proportioned facial and body features. Certainly, they are not generally Rubenesque (that is, overtly voluptuous), but their features appear to be the preferred prototype for today's modeling (contrasted to the overtly curvaceous models favored during some previous periods in history). Of course, it is bad to generalize about "Eastern Europeans" as there is a variety of ethnicities living in what may be called EE. Russia (much like Kazakhstan) by itself features a mixtures of European, Asian and Turkish people.
Interesting to note, Benjamin Franklin wanted to bar Scandinavians, Italians and a few others from the US because he considered them to be too swarthy. That being said, I do not find all ethnic groups to be on average as attractive, to me, and there is indeed little sexual dimorphism among Asian populaces, but don't buy for a minute that Scandinavians are some exception if you don't want to believe fairy tales manufactured by ideologues, ignorants or the media.
You've GOT to be kidding me. Bodies aside, and this "Layla" who is probably only known in her hometown has a manly face, if we go by your masculine/feminine game. To my understanding, Mystique is tall and long-legged-- a perfect fit for the gorgeous Rebecca Romijn.
The Ask Men list is based on fame rather than aesthetics (same goes for the Maxim list,etc.). If it was based on aesthetics, then any of the girls in the Aubade calendar would blow the celebrity women and supermodels out of the water. Take this girl for instance. Her face isn't that great, but her body is much better than the body of any woman on the Ask Men list:
This whole site is about beauty. A strong portion of this site is about supporting the idea that beauty in women is strongly correlated to femininity. You claim that as one's body fat increases, so does their masculinization. In other words a woman will look more masculine overweight, than she would underweight or obviously at just the right weight.
So with all that in mind I assume this article was to dissolve the idea that many posters here have that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These posters cite these old paintings as evidence of this claiming that back then obesity was seen as a sign of wealth and abundance.I also assume you are trying to dispell the idea that obesity was never a correlate to femininity and beauty, that as one gains more and more weight at a certain point she starts to become more and more masculine and that as the result fashion models are not masculine only because they are skinny because in fact as one gains more weight she becomes more masucline and as one loses weight she becomes more feminine.
Now, you show pictures painted by artists to prove that never was obesity a correlate to femininity, and never was obesity considered attractive. Therefore you post these paintings to show these painted women are not obese.
However, my comment reveals that despite the fact that these women are not obese they are still masculinized. So if you are studying preferences from old times and you want to make the connection: preferences back then were not very different from now because our preferences on beauty do not change because of politics, economic, or social circumstances in general.
However, although these paintings prove your point: (Obesity was never considered attractive, and beauty is indeed not in the eye of the beholder) it lacks on your other point: that femininity is a correlate of beauty in women. Because if you are using these examples as examples of beautiful women, then these women in these paintings do not fit your standards of a beautiful woman. Therefore, I don't see why you would use them.
The Venus one has does not necessarily have a feminine face, she does not have really wide shoulders but they are masculine nonetheless, her abdominal area is extremely masculine. I mean there is SOME femininity in that picture but very little. Therefore you are proving that back then men did not have preferences for obesity, however you are not proving that men had preferences for femininity, instead a strange twist of feminine and androgynous qualities.
Almost any painting I have seen from the Renaissance features either a male or female with an androgynous twist. Therefore, you can't really use those paintings to prove that masculinity makes a man more attractive and femininity makes a woman attractive. Because these paintings do not reveal that at all and dispell your theory.
Also erik the points you make on self esteem/ego etc I totally agree with you. A while back you mentioned europeans have lower self esteem on average compared to majority if not all other races/groups of people. If high self esteem/ego is related to a high opinion of yourself then if taking physical appearance into account is it that europeans dont have a high opinion of themselves or there looks?
Also you mentioned somewhere before (perhaps i have understood it wrong) about it not being true of northern europeans to mix with other races I disagree history is abundant with examples of european mixes where people have freely and happily mixed, it is true and natural that if various races of human populations meet or come face to face they are likely to against all odds eventually end up mixing and europeans are no exception or anything special in this regard just as it is true and natural of races to mix it is also true and natural of races to not mix except with there own racial composition or likeness.
I dont agree that all europeans who end up mixing with a non european will prefer a whiter version in your words to what they have, yes there are cases where they might but there are plenty of cases where they wont. You are right not everyone can or will get there preferences but what should stop europeans not getting there preferences after all they have all the freedom in the world.
Voice of Reason,
Wow! I like you!
You seem like a really nice lady/girl?
You seem to know what "true beauty" really is all about :)
Erik,
I am going to be direct with you. I have noticed in your responses to me you always say things like i am annoying, all i do is post is nonesense, i am foul etc etc. Why?
Are you trying to put me down? lol
Well it ain't working honey ;)
I think i know why you have this "attitude" towards me. I call it the triple whammy!
I know you posted this in another (Ekaterina) discussion but who is putting words in whose mouth?
Submitted by Erik on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 02:53.
Adressed to Emily
"I know you are a reasonable person..."
"Whereas someone may attempt to put down others to feel better about himself, if someone is putting down others, it cannot be assumed that this person is doing so to feel better about himself. After all, “putting down others” may simply be an accurate description of these people."
I am sorry but i am not quite sure what your trying to say? Does the last sentence mean that people who are "put down" by others have low confidence etc... and therefore are easily influenced/affected by what people say?
Erik,
I am interested in knowing whoose descendents these people that reside in south asia who are known as the kalash people are i.e what is there physical make up? There are theories of them being the descendets of alexander the greats army (greeks) I think the most breathtakingly beautiful women in the world reside in south asia kashmiris, pathans/pashtuns of north west federation/frontier of pakistan and the kalash. I dont find europeans in the current sense whom i see in europe including nordics/scandanivians to be beautifull in the sense of anything beyond your earthly kind of beauty but i find these people the kalash who dont look european to me withstanding hair, eye and skin colour tone there physical features and overall look are quiete different to europeans they would never be mistaken for a european you see today they are very beautifull.
http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kalash-girl_.jpg
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kalash-girl_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pastmist.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/nord-pakistan-kalash-du-chitral/&usg=__u7tUqjb451Dk4fAjy17kakXUUZo=&h=333&w=500&sz=154&hl=en&start=1&um=1&
Voice of Unreason: Self-esteem and ego (not used much in mainstream psychology) capture largely the same idea notwithstanding specific linguistic usage where ego is used to suggest conceit. Ego basically refers to one’s concept of oneself. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego (not a good source because ego has been used extensively in philosophy and psychoanalysis, but ego captures the concept of self-esteem to a large degree)
This site does not equate beauty with femininity as it would be obvious to anyone with basic understanding of science and one who has made an effort to read enough of this site. This site meticulously documents numerous correlates of beauty that are unrelated to femininity.
You may believe that true beauty is likeability and approachability, but this site has nothing to do with this true beauty. It is about looks.
You think genocide / ethnic cleansing stem from beliefs of superiority? There have been a lot of reasons. There is also sociological literature showing political orientation varying in a single dimension (e.g., left vs. right) but behavior varying in two or more dimensions, i.e., belief in superiority is not necessarily related to discriminatory behavior and may be related to benevolent behavior.
I don’t think Emily is hiding her head in shame. It is a waste of time arguing with the voice of unreason. She can move on, but I have no choice because I run this site. Begone!
Peter: Spare us your poor comments. You may disagree with the “nonsense” that happens to be scientific research, but you may not express your disagreement here unless you have a comparably scholarly counter argument. The statistical trend has been clearly documented: higher self-esteem/self-worth goes with more prejudiced beliefs about others.
Of course you can have high self-esteem but not a high opinion of your ethnic group or sexual orientation. This would not contradict anything I said. When one talks about someone’s self-esteem, the reference is to global self-esteem. A specific form of esteem can be quite different from global self-esteem.
Whereas someone may attempt to put down others to feel better about himself, if someone is putting down others, it cannot be assumed that this person is doing so to feel better about himself. After all, “putting down others” may simply be an accurate description of these people.
I didn’t say anything about Emily being reasonable or whether she has issues or not. You have been warned about putting words in my mouth. Don’t do it again.
You said "Behold academic research on self-esteem: people espousing a higher opinion of themselves/their group tend to have higher self-esteem/ego"
The paper is about self esteem and not ego, either you have not understood that or you're trying to infer it is the same.
Self esteem is one's confidence in terms of looks, intelligence and Ego is one's deluded pride or vanity. They are as different as chalk and cheese. Similarly your website equates feminity with beauty which isn't always the case.
I am a woman and I know I am beautiful/attractive but I don't go around espousing a higher opinion because I am not CONCEITED and DELUDED. In short I am not mad, what matters is that you are likeable, approachable by everyone and I think that's what is true beauty.
Beauty is transient, it comes and goes. What was a flower will wither and dry and rot with time.
People's opinion of how superior they are in terms of race or looks tend to come from their own insecurity and intolerance. This is what has caused genocides and ethnic cleansing. It is a madness.
All you and Emily have done is just defend yourself because you are constantly being shouted down by others because of your deluded ego.
Emily must be hiding her head in shame, she is not even around to defend herself anymore.
Voice of Reason,
"You and Emily are insecure, ugly people who feels compelled to put down other people's appearance in order to feed your own ego."
:)
Erik,
"Regarding your notion of ego and insecurity problems, this tripe has come up before and exposed for the nonsense it is. Behold academic research on self-esteem: people espousing a higher opinion of themselves/their group tend to have higher self-esteem/ego; they don’t do so to put down others in order to make themselves feel better/overcome their insecurities. Besides, the notion behind this site is to exalt certain looks rather than to put down various looks."
I disagree with this nonesense! Personally i have above average self esteem BUT i don't have a high opinion of either my Ethnic or "sexuality" background. I TOTALLY AGREE that people tend to put down others in order for themselves to feel better at some level. Have you ever experienced racism? homophobia? Then don't say things like Behold this and Behold that....As if it was sent from the heavens lol
Another way to look at it would be that people who have a high opinion of themselves tend to have a higher opinion of their ethnic group BUT people need validation / a comparison group by which to evaluate their "supremity". This leads/can lead to putting down the others/thinking of the others as inferior comparatively.
This is a complex issue. A person who is Nordic could think highly of himself and his group but for non insecurity problems think "they" are better than others. OR a "closeted" homosexual can be homophobic to take attention off from him or other reasons...in this case insecurities are present.
If you think Emily is reasonable and doesn't have "issues" then you must be deluded!
I would be happy to talk more about you and Emily....You know where to find me :)
Godis: I would like to know myself why Hitler went after Jews. The proceedings of Nazi Germany are not something that I am interested in, but I have had to look up two things about the Nazis: their concept of beauty and their attitude toward homosexuals. The beauty issue should be self-evident; someone coming up with this site is bound to look up Nazi beauty standards at some point. The homosexuality material was part of my examining homosexual issues. The topic of political orientation and attitude toward homosexuality came up, and the Nazi view/treatment of homosexuals simply had to be looked up.
On the beauty issue I learned that the Nazis admired Northern European features and that the concept of them promoting German superiority was nonsense, which I addressed in my previous comment. On the homosexuality issue, I came across a complex picture of Nazi attitudes that is off-topic for this site, but the conclusion – after also taking into account the attitudes, through time, of organized religion and the communists/leftists – was basically lack of an association between political orientation and attitude toward homosexuality. Similarly, on the Jewish dislike issue, I expect a complex picture given the examples of Werner Goldberg, Walter Hollaender, Helmut Wilberg and many others like them in the Reich, as well as other amazing facts such as much Nazi philosophy being based on the work of the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg, another Jewish individual.
I have never heard of Hitler liking to play with feces. If true, then he was mentally ill. Answering your question on homosexuality and pedophilia is a low priority issue because it has already been answered. A link a few comments above the page where you left your comment on pedophilia cites all the evidence you need to consider; other comments have appeared elsewhere. If I have to repeat myself, then I need to find the free time first.
Voice of Unreason: How can you ask me whether I was defending Hitler or “justifying the murder of million people just because of race”? Begone! There is no place for hysterical inferences – that do not follow in any way whatsoever from the arguments – at this site.
I wouldn’t put it as defending Emily. The problem is that beauty apparently cannot be discussed without some people bringing in Nazi Germany and assigning genocidal or enslaving or domineering ambitions to some of the participants. Such individuals need to be stopped in their tracks before they ruin the discussion.
Regarding your notion of ego and insecurity problems, this tripe has come up before and exposed for the nonsense it is. Behold academic research on self-esteem: people espousing a higher opinion of themselves/their group tend to have higher self-esteem/ego; they don’t do so to put down others in order to make themselves feel better/overcome their insecurities. Besides, the notion behind this site is to exalt certain looks rather than to put down various looks.
In response to my comment about leaving a relevant comment, the Zonneschijn clown again left a comment about skin and hair color. The interesting thing is that she considers it an insult to describe some women as masculine. Obviously she doesn’t like masculinization in women. I also do not recall describing the features of Adriana Lima, Angelina Joli or Aishwarya Rai as manly. They are not among the more feminine women, some masculinization is not the same as manly, and in many pictures Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai look good to me.
Godis: You just left another useless comment. The article does not address masculinity-femininity. The article is about socially acceptable body fat levels in Medieval Europe and today. The argument is not just based on pictures, but a lot of text is cited also, and you have not disputed it. Yes, some things can be inferred from ancestral art.
Godis: Megan Fox has a mixture of feminine and masculine features. In my opinion calling her not feminine at all is an exaggeration. Your choice of photos is biased, so please allow me to be equally biased in picking counter-examples. :)
She does have broad shoulders and a relatively flat backside. On the other hand though, she has an hourglass figure with wide hips and a very thin waist. You are wrong that she's tall, because she's in fact fairly short at about 5 ft 4.5 in.
As for the "non-existent" breasts, most of your pictures come from a time when she was at her skinniest. Check out her teen photos, she was a probably C-cup then. She gained some of the weight back recently.
I don't have time to discuss her face right now, maybe I will follow up later.
The Venus picture by Boticelli is obviously masculinized. Not to mention that back then men were often depicted as very feminine...
I don't think looking at old art proves any point you make. It completely contradicts your theory on beauty. Many of the paintings painted during the Renaissance feature super feminine men or women with an androgynous twist or subtle androgynous qualities.
Erik,
Are you defending Emily? Are you defending Hitler?
In short are you justifying the murder of million people just because of race?
You and Emily are insecure, ugly people who feels compelled to put down other people's appearance in order to feed your own ego.
I am sorry but you will never be happy till you have got rid of this insecurity.
Hitler fed the germans lies and he fed that insecurity so he could gain power but there will always be good people who will cut you down as evidenced by History.
"GAH, it's like women have to be anorexic these days."
That's how it seems. "Normal" women are considered "Fat" (Or even worse, obese) and sickly anorexic women are considered "normal." - I honestly think larger women look much better than thin women.
And lmao, Hitler and his Jewish shoulders just proves how twisted that man was. Hitler also had a fetish for being deficated on believe it or not. sick sick sick man.
Ok Erik,
So how come Hitler killed all those Jewish people regardless of what they looked like? How come that guy in the pic above won all those awards for looking "Aryan" lmao but all the rest of the Jews were killed off, despite the fact that some if not many could pass for Aryan just as the one above in the pic. Please answer my question I am so intrigued to know what your answer will be.
By the way how come you haven't responded to my answer about homosexuals and pedophilia?
Henrik Bjornsen: There is no misrepresentation of Nordics by Emily. She is not discussing 19th century ideologies, and there is no attempt on her part to justify the domination of other people.
Germany is not being discussed. German ego was not relevant in the aftermath of World War I. Germany had almost won this war but malicious individuals got America involved, and this led to Germany’s defeat. The German mood was one of anger. Germany was forced into the Versailles Treaty. Part of this involved significant loss of German territory. The corresponding German response was anger and increased nationalist fervor. The Versailles Treaty also bankrupted Germany. The corresponding German response was anger and frustration. Where does ego come into the picture? Besides, Emily’s answers do not indicate an insecure woman.
Weimar Germany or even Nazi Germany did not espouse a belief in German superiority. The Nazis admired Northern European features and half of Germans were not ethnically Northern European. So how could the Nazis promote the notion of German superiority? You might also want to consider the following picture of the ideal German soldier, used by Nazis as a recruitment tool.
If you think that his blue eyes, blond hair and general Aryan looks were the main reasons why he was chosen by the Nazis, you would be correct. But who was this individual? He was Werner Goldberg. Why would the Nazis knowingly pick a Goldberg (Werner was half Jew) to portray the ideal German soldier if they believed in German ethnic superiority? There are many examples like this from Nazi Germany. For instance, there was half Jew Colonel Walter Hollaender, who received Hitler’s Deutschblütigkeitserklärung and the following military awards: Ritterkreuz, German-Cross in Gold, EKI, EKII, and Close Combat Badge. In another example, the half Jew Luftwaffe General Helmut Wilberg was not only the recipient of the military awards of Hohenzollern's Knight’s Cross with Swords, EKI and EKII, he was also declared an Aryan by Hitler in 1935.
Being a Swede you will naturally find average Swedes average looking and nothing special because they are the people you have grown among. Emily is addressing average Swedes vs. average non-Nordics.
Regarding colder climates selecting wider builds, Nordics don’t show cold adaptations. They have shorter trunks than East Asians. Among Europeans, they are a long-legged people and have a less obesity-prone build. They are not a stocky people.
Nobody here is talking about Scandinavian overrepresentation among models. The issue is Nordic overrepresentation. Nordic people have been among the major founders of Russia and the Ukraine. The word Russia comes from the Rus people, a branch of the Vikings. Between Russia and the Ukraine, we are looking at around 180 million people whereas Scandinavians number around 20 million people. Even with a lower proportion of its population being ethnically Nordic, the absolute number of Nordic-looking people (light pigmentation in skin, hair, eyes; fine facial features, etc.) is substantial in Russia-Ukraine compared to Scandinavia. And if you look at the top Eastern European models, you won’t see a lot of obviously Slavic-looking ones. If you look at pictures of attractive people from Russian and the Ukraine compiled by people who are from these nations, they will usually feature Nordic-looking people.
I am interested in writing by Benjamin Franklin that he wanted to bar Scandinavian immigration because he thought them to be a swarthy people. This would be remarkable. Back then most Americans didn’t want European people outside of Northern/Northwestern Europe to immigrate to the United States, but the reason wasn’t swarthiness or presumed inferiority. If you look at the champions of keeping America Northern European, not only did they not put forth Nordic supremacist viewpoints, they came up with very different arguments. Madison Grant believed Southern Europeans to be artistically superior and possibly intellectually superior to Nordic whites. William Vaile espoused similar viewpoints. The best example comes from Australia. Alfred Deakin, the architect of white Australia policy, wanted to keep Australia white. His argument? Whites are inferior to non-whites on too many important measures and hence non-whites must be kept out because their superiority makes them a threat to whites!
This site is not about politics, especially politics that bears no resemblance to what actually transpired. It is about looks.
Greg: This site is primarily an educational site, not an entertainment site. Minor censorship makes it more suitable for a wider audience.
stoner Joe: There are male bodybuilders who develop female breasts on top of a thick layer of muscle. So a man-faced woman with big breasts is hardly unusual. Estrogens promote deposition of fat in the breasts. Women with elevated levels of both androgens and estrogens will show signs of masculinization along with a tendency to have well-developed breasts. Alternatively, the woman could have genetics not related to estrogen production that causes large breasts. In another possibility, genetics not related to masculinization could make parts of her face look masculine.
Ethan: Jenni looks great to me, but she has muscularity that is above average compared to the other women in the attractive women section.
While I by no means think that every person is objectively beautiful, I do think the restrictions on this site are way too narrow and are quite ridiculous. There are all shapes and sizes that people find beautiful, and it is much more difficult to classify than with the simple restrictions provided here.
Besides, the examples provided don't even make sense with the restrictions given. The avg. hip to waist ratio of a Playboy model is actually .68. This is BELOW the .7 or below ratio that it was thought most men prefer. Yes, Playboy models (even with their fake boobs, which I don't like), actually DO have the hour-glass figures that you say are the ideal for beauty.
Culture also DOES play a role in the perception of beauty, like it or not. (I mean general perception of beauty, not just industry standards set by a few presumably homosexual men.) In other centuries, heavy women were in vogue. Corsets altering the very structure of the body were once considered the ultimate in beauty, as was foot-binding. In the 1920s it was flat chests, and in the 1950s hour-glass figures were all the rage... then Twiggy... then the supermodels of the 80s and 90s... then waif-like, heroine chic... now we're back to big breasts again - and in culture (outside the fashion mainstream - but not as much as you'd think), real women have curves.
You may find this article to be of interest: http://www.livescience.com/health/081203-hourglass-figure.html
This particular quote stood out in terms of the role of culture in the perception of beauty in regards to mate choice:
""Waist-to-hip ratio may indeed be a useful signal to men, then, but whether men prefer a [waist-to-hip ratio] associated with lower or higher androgen/estrogen ratios (or value them equally) should depend on the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive," Cashdan writes."
Next, you have to take into consideration how much these models are air-brushed. Even most of the women you claim are masculinized(sp) have had their waists airbrushed to appear smaller in comparison to their hips, often altering the way the natural ribcage could appear so much as to be unrealistic no matter how much weight is gained or lost.
To me, the comparison of this site to eugenics is absolutely fair. Of course, maybe I'm just bitter as a result of my naturally small-chested, wide-rib-caged, narrow-waisted and underweight frame. (Hopefully, I won't be underweight for long... been under a lot of stress this year and seem to keep losing the pounds once I put them on... sigh)
FWIW, I know that most avg women out there think that women like me have it easy... simply because I'm thin. The truth is, I don't fit the ideal shown in the fashion industry and in the media any more than they do. For every woman who wishes she had a smaller chest, there is a woman like me who wouldn't mind a larger one (though I like my A cups). For every woman complaining about her large hips, there is a woman like me wishing for more "womanly" curves (and we have to endure the extra insult of the implication that we are not REAL woman, bc of course, real women have curves). For every few women who are upset that they are overweight, there is a woman like me who would love to gain 10 pounds. Everyone is under the microscope. However, I still don't think this site promotes beauty. If you were to add up all of the qualifications listed, not even the women listed in the "attractive women" section would meet every qualification here. This site is just a really just the authors view of beauty, not generalized as he claims. It is also a bit sick and twisted that this much time is devoted to it in my opinion.
In case you are wondering how I got to this site, I was doing a search to find pictures of what natural women look like (not in a sexualized way per se). I was trying to find relatively varied pictures across the spectrum. Difficult to do when searching online, I know, but I thought I'd try. The more I explored this site, the more offended I became however, and I felt the need to comment. *sigh*
With most of the others in the 'masculinized' section, it's pretty obvious that they're a little more manly than the average dame, but I really don't see how Jenni from Femjoy is at all like that.
Jenni appears to have a nice, soft face and jaw with no angles, hips that are noticeably wider than her waist, a round butt, and nice breasts that are definitely adequate, if not the sort you could get lost in.
Is this girl just so beautiful that I'm missing something obvious?
Great site, btw.
You've got terrible taste in women, and this girl isn't the only example.
I enjoy the women pictured and have never seen them before, I wish I knew where they came from. Anyway, why are the nipples
painted out, a very bad idea as it takes a long time to redo
them, and there is just too many that I like. Please don't do it.
Greg
Portland, OR
The more relevant question is why is Emily being treated seriously. If she's still keeping track of this forum, I expect her to come back with more banal responses. I live in Gothenburg and Stockholm, and travel around much of the EU and United States for business.
I can tell you from the start that our dearest Emily misrepresents the so-called Nordic race quite well. Really, I'm flattered to think that the ideologies used in the 19th century to attempt to unify and energize people, as well as justify the domination of others, describes us so well! I feel like I am now this gorgeous and graceful representative of this league of angels! How it warms my heart.
Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth, and self-fulfilling prophecies of observation are a potent force in cherry picking the evidence. You will find in every country a small group of people who will still defend the 19th century ideologies because admitting the truth is too painful, especially when this image fed to the public was to some an integral part of their identity, perhaps passed down to children and grandchildren. Without it, they feel lost, because even a broken compass gives a sense of security. The most drastic and classic example is the belief in the superiority of the German Reich, especially post-unification. Germany's defeat during World War I causes a major blow to the German ego, because it shattered the ingrained and unquestioned self-image fed to it by the ruling class. The image was fed to the masses not because it was true, but because of the effect it had on unifying a variety of peoples into one nation, which as you can imagine, was easier to govern than a collection of disparate duchies and kingdoms. The reason Hitler was so successful was because he was able to exploit the shame experienced by the Germans. He took the wreckage from the discredited self-image, and glued it back together with a new mythology. Just the same, Emily demonstrates the classic Coue method used to convince her insecure self of a certain self-image. She posts to a forum and tries to convince others because, as she seems to think, truth is established by consensus.
Based on my extensive traveling, I find most Scandinavians to be quite average in appearance as far as Europeans are concerned, and not particularly spectacular on average. I love my country, I love my culture, because they are mine, but there's no sense covering up my impressions. The stereotypes are just that, stereotypes. Anthropologically speaking, colder climates seem to select for wider builds, which makes sense since core body temperature needs to be maintained, and so you'll find that many of our women have a stockier appearance. Body type is predominantly pear-shaped, whereas the model ideal is apple or hourglass. It is a mistake to say that there is a Scandinavian overrepresentation among models, as presently Slavic women form a very large portion of models, and who are often chosen because they have very light pigmentation (eyes, hair and skin) which lends itself to a variety of make-up, and graceful, well-proportioned facial and body features. Certainly, they are not generally Rubenesque (that is, overtly voluptuous), but their features appear to be the preferred prototype for today's modeling (contrasted to the overtly curvaceous models favored during some previous periods in history). Of course, it is bad to generalize about "Eastern Europeans" as there is a variety of ethnicities living in what may be called EE. Russia (much like Kazakhstan) by itself features a mixtures of European, Asian and Turkish people.
Interesting to note, Benjamin Franklin wanted to bar Scandinavians, Italians and a few others from the US because he considered them to be too swarthy. That being said, I do not find all ethnic groups to be on average as attractive, to me, and there is indeed little sexual dimorphism among Asian populaces, but don't buy for a minute that Scandinavians are some exception if you don't want to believe fairy tales manufactured by ideologues, ignorants or the media.
You've GOT to be kidding me. Bodies aside, and this "Layla" who is probably only known in her hometown has a manly face, if we go by your masculine/feminine game. To my understanding, Mystique is tall and long-legged-- a perfect fit for the gorgeous Rebecca Romijn.
The Ask Men list is based on fame rather than aesthetics (same goes for the Maxim list,etc.). If it was based on aesthetics, then any of the girls in the Aubade calendar would blow the celebrity women and supermodels out of the water. Take this girl for instance. Her face isn't that great, but her body is much better than the body of any woman on the Ask Men list:
http://www.prisca-mannequin.com/
Pages