And if men are attracted to more feminine women and women more attracted to masculine men... what is the deal with the Kaulitz brothers? They are clearly effeminate, yet they have young girls around the world swooning over them. How do you explain that? This throws off your whole theory that masculinity makes men attractive and femininty women attractive. There is much more to the equation I am afraid:
I mean seriously. Looking at this chart you provide the first woman's face (that I posted) matches the "feminine" model face almost perfectly. She has the same chin, same cheekbones, same forehead. Her nose area and mouth area are very similair.
Then looking at the woman in your attractive section, she most definitley matches the more masculine face shape:
Then I see this woman in the feminine and attractive women section:
In all honesty if I compare this woman to a Victorias Secret model I would believe the Victorias Secret model is masculine, but I would believe this woman is literally a man. Please explain as to why you believe the woman in your attractive women section is attractive and feminine while you claim the woman above is more masculine?
What in particular about her face makes her more on the masculine side over the feminine side?
She has low cheekbones, fine facial features, her mouth is small not wide, her cheeks are rounded her forehead high and dome shaped. What makes her masculine at all?
Clearly, the woman is not feminine at all. She has higher set cheekbones, a small chest, wide shoulders, her cheeks are not very ample and she does not have the width aspect of beauty, she has broad shoulders, she is tall and her face is long.
She does have a beautiful face though and although her high cheekbones may be due to her half Native AMerican ancestry, the rest of her still just isn't feminine. period. She is attractive, but it is obviously not due to feminization but simply good bone structure and good genes. Her full lips, blue eyes, dark thick hair, good structure in general, symmetry, make her look good but feminization plays no part it seems in her attraction.
You look at this pic and it makes you think she is feminine but it is clearly airbrushed. Her breasts are practically non-existent without a wonder bra:
Well I like Northern European cheekbones. Anyways, I believe that robust cheekbones are most masculine period. Because whether your cheekbones are high or low if they are robust they will look masculine.
My Dear Erik!
So nice to hear from you :) Happy Easter!
Hope you had/will have a great Easter weekend!!!
I am very busy at the moment so will not be responding to everything but will do what little i can.
1. Regarding baiting...Ok you win! I am guilty. Please punish me?
2. "If you don’t know English well enough you must not waste my time by leaving comments here."
This is very poor coming from you Erik. Ad hominem?
Where have i exhibited poor English language skills? Yes i am no PHD in English but i have a Bachelor's of Science from an English university. I think you and other people can mostly understand what i am saying?
3. "So if some Swedes leaning more toward Slavic looks are throw in, then you cannot object to it. The woman in question was cited as an example of one with a fine nose. If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point"
Does her nose look fine to you? Tell me honestly does her nose tip possess thick cartilage/fleshy part? If you still think she has a fine nose then i must assume my nose is fine as well! Her nose and mine are similar at the tip in front view.
I am going to use the second pic in my response to Emily but i hope you can notice the slight hump clearer here. What about her tip? If you are not convinced then i can find more pics.
Off course i expect you to say her nose is fine so you won't have to negate what you said "If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point" BUT it is clear to me and maybe others that her nose is not "fine". I can post pictures of Nordics you have posted on this website and Emily has posted to clarify what is a fine nose :)
Ok i think this will be all for now.
Enjoy the weekend Erik
Jules: Formal education in schools about sexuality can only be presented in a neutral manner, which would be dull to pre-pubescent children.
Besides, the younger children learn about sexuality the more responsible they will be doesn’t hold. There is plenty of literature on drug abuse prevention education that has shown no benefit or enhanced drug use. When you tell people about some allegedly pleasure-inducing activities that they are not aware of, some of them will be tempted to try it. Similar literature on sexual behavior will be difficult to cite because there are too many malicious individuals in the sex education field.
Britain introduced comprehensive sex education in schools in the 1990s. Ten years after, most indices of risky sexual behaviors, STDs and teenage pregnancy increased. There could be any of a number of reasons behind the correlation, but the malicious sex educators will not consider the possibility that sex education prompted some individuals to engage in sexual practices before they would have otherwise or that sex education made them engage in practices that they would not have without hearing them talked about.
I will give you an anecdote. Once a 9-year-old girl developed a crush on me; I was 25. One day when I was in bed in shorts only, she jumped into bed with the text book that was given to her in sex education class. She opened the page that depicted a penis getting erect and started going over the explicit details, edging closer to me and giving me the look. There was no one else in the house. I made her close the book and shifted to a different topic. What if I were interested in girls her age? I could have easily taken advantage of the situation and she happened to be a good looking girl.
If you saw her you would guess she is between 8 and 11 and pre-pubescent. I doubt precocious puberty was at play. Whereas it is not unusual for 9- or 10-year-old girls to develop a crush on an adult man, it was the sex education class that provided her with the explicit book, the explicit knowledge and a means to convey her sexual interest to an adult man in a blatantly obvious manner. I fail to see any good purpose in giving such explicit sex education to pre-pubescents. If you as a parent want to provide explicit sex education to your own pre-pubescent children, you can go ahead; I have no objections. But I am not in favor of such education as part of the school curriculum.
Hotsauce: The impossibility of the dimensions is the wrong issue. What if Barbie looked like an ogre, the equivalent of a 4,000-pound human or like an ape-woman? All of these dimensions would be impossible also, but would feminists object similarly? The feminist objections are to exaggerations of some features widely considered to be attractive.
Mike: The article is about not being tricked by muscle mass. I am not being fooled by the muscle mass of Dorian Yates. Tom Cruise does not have an effeminate physique in terms of muscle mass. Tom Cruise has made an effort to work out and attain decent muscle mass, but take a look at his shoulder width, especially in relation to hip width.
Godis: The article is not about what women find attractive in men. It is about the subtlety of masculinity-femininity in men.
You said, “Besides, the whole feminine masculine scale in my opinion doesn't have to do as much with attraction as you claim.” The evidence suggests, cited within this site, that in the absence of physical defects, the extent of femininity is the most powerful correlate of beauty in women for a given ethnic group. I agree that “a woman with nice features that isn’t particularly feminine can be more attractive than a feminine woman with boring, bland, or just bad features.” Nothing within this site refutes this notion and the site also offers plenty of evidence in its favor. Why don’t you read enough of this site before leaving comments?
There is nothing for me to say regarding your bringing in Keeley Hazell. I have passed her as an attractive woman, which doesn’t mean that all aspects of her looks have to be in the feminine range.
Peter: You said that your criticism of Marilyn Monroe was along the same lines as my comments about some models. Wrong.
You cited two examples: Tyra Banks and Veronika. I wrote:
And no, Tyra Banks is not feminine; she got breast implants at some point.
There are two clauses. The semi-colon suggests that the clauses are presented as separate. There is nothing that suggests that the first clause is inferred from the second.
So your objection about what breast implants have to do with femininity does not follow. You also wrote, “An otherwise feminine woman will still look feminine with small breasts,” which I have mentioned on numerous occasions. What is the point?
You left out what my statement was in response to. It was in response to the following comment.
i don't think its a transsexual parade..i mean look at tyra banks, she had front and back and was pretty.
This person suggested that Tyra is feminine and that she had prominent breasts and buttocks. I appropriately responded that Tyra is not feminine and she has had breast implants.
If you don’t know English well enough you must not waste my time by leaving comments here.
Your second example was about the nose of Veronika vs. Gisele Bundchen. The comparison is not solely about femininity but it is also about attractiveness. So addressing the nose is appropriate.
You said that you never disputed that Marilyn does not look Nordic or that her face shape is not found in Nordic countries. You are wasting my time. This was never the issue. You said that you disagreed with the gorgeous label. But this is an issue that came later.
Here is Emily’s comment to which you responded.
Marilyn had a typically Nordic, cute potatoe nose - somewhat upturned. Not elegant or straight as you say, but cute in type. Her nose is a common type of nose here, as is her entire looks.
Note that there is no “gorgeous” in the statement.
Your response to Emily was
Marilyn Monroe had a nose job and chin implant....i thought you would know that!
I appropriately responded that you are baiting Emily and wasting our time because your comment does nothing to undermine the two contexts of Emily’s statement: to make the argument that Marilyn was basically a Nordic type and that her concave nose profile is found among many Nordic women.
The gorgeous comment by Emily came later. You must not waste my time with such poor arguments.
As to how do we know that her nose profile was concave before surgery, it is your responsibility to do the investigation. The issue is irrelevant to Emily’s quote cited within this comment to which you responded inappropriately. It is irrelevant because Marilyn’s nose is used as an example of a profile more common in Scandinavia compared to other parts of Europe. How Marilyn got her nose does not change this fact.
You said that the tip of the nose defines whether a nose is hooked or not. There is more to a hook than a mere tip. There will be a convex profile in a hooked nose involving the region above the tip. If the nose tip is pulled downward when someone is smiling and there is no convex profile to the nose, then it is ridiculous to be describing this as a hook-nosed tendency.
You do not need to post again the Swedish actress’ face to show me that you don’t see shadows suggesting a concave nose profile. I see them. Reposting the pictures would not make me fail to see them or help you see the shadows.
You said, “I doubt she would admit to posting a picture of a Swedish woman who "looked Slavic" as she has clearly pointed them out and expressed her dislike of them.” Whatever she posts, there will not be no overlap with Slavic women’s looks. So your comment is pointless. Emily has made a point to show a wide variety of Swedes to give people an idea of what Swedes look like. So if some Swedes leaning more toward Slavic looks are throw in, then you cannot object to it. The woman in question was cited as an example of one with a fine nose. If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point, but your objection to her more Slavic looks is not a valid objection and a waste of time for the readers.
I don’t believe that Emily has glorified hair and eye color. Again, her comments on these matters have been responses to others.
Of course, if someone wanted to malign a group (create negative propaganda, as you put it), then this person will seek negative data on this group. But the issue is irrelevant because it does not follow that if someone has come up with a negative argument about a group then it implies that this person has come up with this argument because he sought a negative argument. An unbiased approach can easily lead to a negative portrayal of a group if that is what the reality is.
Accusing different people of being the same person is foulness because it doesn’t address the arguments of these persons. If your responses are on topic, you address your opponent’s arguments and then wonder whether this opponent is also posting under other names, it would be a different matter. But in your case you have resorted to numerous foul techniques, ignored many arguments and used the accusation of different people being the same to put down/rebut/undermine the arguments of others, an unambiguous example of foulness.
I am not assuming like Brazilian. How could he have been clearly referring to nostril shape when he didn’t see them? Assuming he had your nostrils in mind, what made him infer their shape without looking at them? Obviously, the fleshy alar structure, which notwithstanding it being thicker in men, isn’t Nordic in your case. You left a statement about your being able to find Nordic men with alae as thick as yours and other nose shapes, but as it should be clear from previous arguments, this does not matter. A Nordic nose can only have meaning in terms of a cluster of features present in high frequency in Nordic populations. It is self-evident that your nose is outside this cluster, and by a comfortable margin, and you have acknowledged this.
Regarding baiting you have done a very poor job of defending yourself, but then you can’t really defend yourself because you really are guilty of baiting. If you are guilty of baiting others, you cannot defend yourself by pointing out that others are doing the same; you remain guilty. Emily’s note about Indians’ hygiene was irrelevant, in very bad taste and clearly out of frustration. You are responsible for baiting and frustrating her and making her go over the top. Also, your baiting precedes Brazilian saying bad things about Indians’ noses. And you are the one who posted your pictures, on your own, at a website that addresses physical attractiveness though not of men. What did you expect? That no one will comment on your looks and have negative things to say about them if your face has shortcomings or if your arguments are frustrating them?
b: Why would the fashion industry or more specifically the movers and shakers in it be fixated on adolescence? Think of aesthetic preference. There could be alternative possibilities, but there is much evidence for aesthetic preferences explaining the preference for adolescent looks, and I will let you figure out why this aesthetic preference exists. The dominant designers couldn’t get away with using 13- or 14-year-old boys to market clothes to adult men but they push the boundaries.
Emily: First of all, your initial comment on the Indians’ hygiene was inappropriate. Then you ended up defending your viewpoint. What is this? You must learn to spot provocateurs and control your temper. When I was a teenager I approached debate with enthusiasm and was strongly interested in making a logical and empirical case to win the argument. But I soon learned that there are people who debate to win for the sake of winning not for the sake of making a rational argument for their viewpoint. One cannot debate these individuals because they will resort to all sorts of logical fallacies and obnoxious behaviors to win. If I had no administrative control over this site, like you, then I would ignore Peter the provocateur. But you have taken his bait, repeatedly, and self-destructed.
Attacking the group to which your opponent belongs is a bad idea. And if you are going to do it then you better have a decent argument. Mohandas Gandhi was an upper caste Hindu and presumably was raised in a sub-culture that held defecating in the open and leaving the mess for something else to clean up as irresponsible. You also have to consider that the British occupation of India helped greatly expand the non-upper-caste/class population of India. Normally, starvation/food shortage/disease outbreaks would cull a burgeoning lower class, but foreigners industrializing the country and introducing modern medicine would facilitate great expansion of the lower class. This will serve to greatly increase the proportion of the population behaving in an irresponsible manner. Trashing one’s own neighborhood is common among Third World people around the world. Here in the United States you see trash lying all over some neighborhoods settled by Third World people; the people could clean up the mess but they act as if it is someone else’s job. Were it not for toilets made available to them a number of them would be defecating in the open and leaving it for others to clean up. In China you see people openly vomiting and spitting on the streets. There is no need to single out Indians, and no need to be addressing their hygiene in the first place. Don’t take Peter’s bait.
This website allows anyone to leave comments on this article on Ekaterina and also other 18-year-olds. This is being consistent; nothing hypocritical here. It cannot be inferred from this that I care less about others than about Ekaterina. To prove hypocrisy you have to start with finding similar examples involving other 18-year-olds that I have featured such that I didn’t intervene.
As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the nasty comments on other girls, they are usually much milder than the dog comparison, and often a one-time incident by a commentator. Some of these comments are left by individuals hostile toward this website, and the context makes it clear that the nasty comments are not exactly aimed toward the woman being commented on but toward me or are simply an expression of anger that is misplaced. The nasty comments are also ameliorated by either my using the women’s pictures in the context of women I like or the fashion industry calling them attractive and singing peans to their beauty.
On the other hand, your case has been without parallel. You agree with most of my arguments and have resorted to a dog comparison and comparison with babies in the case of East Asians. My intervention in the form of asking you to stop acting in this manner is not being hypocritical or indicative of special concern for Ekaterina.
You mentioned my making money off of the nude pictures. This is irrelevant and not a valid criticism. The women have posed nude voluntarily with the understanding that people will be selling the pictures. I am legally required to identify the source of the pictures as in linking to them and if these websites offer an affiliate program, then signing up takes cares of legal issues, provides me with the pictures that I need and brings in an earnings bonus, which goes toward running this site. You should not have a reason to complain given lots of high quality information within this site that is freely accessible to the public.
You think I would have a difficult time proving lower self-esteem in Northern Europeans than in many other populations, on average?
If you feel the need to correct misconceptions of how Romanians look and apparently have a lot of spare time, post plenty of group pictures and cut the crude remarks.
I am not Richards. If you are wondering about the similarity, that is where I got some of the anthropological literature from, which I verified before citing it. On the other hand, Richards’ articles themselves are not citable because they tarnish neutral and excellent scientific information by integrating it with a political agenda that is unsavory in many aspects.
z: You asked whether a woman with high cheekbones, broad face, flat or hook nose, dark skin and coarse hair can be feminine. The answer is yes.
Godis: Gruendl et al. didn’t say that masculinization results in high cheekbones. I said that, and you are right that the correct statement is that masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones. I wasn’t careful enough when I wrote the sentence. But you have committed a worse error: “The thin lips of many Germans for example are a masculine trait.” The correct notion is that controlling for other factors, thinner lips look more masculine. Your note on ethnic differences is irrelevant. All referenced comparisons are within an ethnic group. And your statements about cheekbone height are mistaken. Cheekbones are shrunk in Northern Europeans compared to East Asians. This means a higher-cheekboned appearance in Northern Europeans on average. You are confusing “high cheekbones” for wide cheekbones.
In a less formal investigation of this topic, I notice that men have longer torso to leg length than women. And I think women generally prefer taller men and visa versa for many reasons, including convenience, as I will try to point out here. Tall men with short legs are able to have greater success with pressing their genitailia against the women in standing poses with a shorter women with longer legs. This may again explain why men prefer women with shorter legs to wear heals, so that when they are standing or dancing they can press their genitals together with less effort. If the couples legs are of equal length heels are unnecessary. In this case heels would complicate the matter.
I agree Kristin. A woman can look athletic and still look sexy.
I believe it is the fat content that makes a big difference in attractiveness. Some women have thicker or more muscular bodies, but they maintain themselves in good shape and still know how to be feminine. Beyonce Knowles is a perfect example of a thick-bodied woman who maintains a healthy body (no tires of fat around the middle) and puts out an extremely sexy, feminine vibe.
My wife and I were talking about this very thing last night during a television show. There were some ladies in their early 20s who were good looking and had decent bodies. However, the noticeable fat around their waists was in stark contrast to the rest of their body. When I see a woman with a good body, but fat rings around their waist (especially in young individuals), it leads me to believe that the person is lazy and will only add more weight as time goes by, leading them down a path of health problems that come with slight or gross obesity. There are, of course, exceptions to every situation. But for most, in today's Obese USA, this is more the norm, than the occasional exception due to diabetes, missing thyroid, etc.
I think a woman should work to stay healthy by having an exercise routine and staying away from fast-food places. The exercise routine doesn't need to be heavy. It should actually be light, so that the person can enjoy doing it. If they feel the need, they can increase it as time goes on. Staying away from high grease, high fat foods will really help. There are tons of foods that are healthy and good. We just have to break the habit of eating pizza, hamburgers, fried chicken, etc.
Well, someone who knew better than we do what this is about, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, seems to disagree with you. He used the words "bad habit", for god's sake. That is not bad hygiene or poverty, that is sloppiness and indifference.
The issue at hand - and this is something at seems to escape your unreceptive head - is how got from discussing looks to discussing sh*t and toilets. If you hate-filled little head can muster a reasonable explanation, do let us know.
Godis,
Regarding Keeley Hazel....she looks masculinized to me. But then, in Erik's case as long as they are North European looking and have fine facial features. Their masculinity level doesn't seem to be of much concern. He is still impressed! Have a look at some of the woman in the attractive women's category. Somce of them with short hair would approach the looks of boys. I can see that plain and clear!
Ahhh Godis...I think i might have a similar "issue" as you. I am not as promiscous/sexual as i would like to be...
I question if it has anything to do with me being feminine? But your confusing the two things i believe. Thinking and doing are two different things. Its good to have fantasies but you won't always act on them.
You must be blind. Keeley looks exactly the same from the front as she does from the back. Broad shouldered, with a wide rib cage and a short neck. Quite masculine.
The only thing air brushed about her photos is her skin. In the "natural" swimsuit photo she appears much older and less attractive, and has many moles.
"They're worse than blacks that talk about slavery all the time"
Seriously? At least now I know anything you have to say will be tainted with ignorance.
"Feminists need to stop talking about the problems that don't exist, and go change the ones that do, not only womens', but the ones of the entire human population"
I think that's why we're called FEMINISTS and not humanitarians. We focus on issues facing women. That's like saying vegans need to start focusing on human problems.
And also to the person who runs this website: You are a sexist, ignorant and delusional pig.
Erik, could you please tell me about the masculinity/femininity of this woman?
She is the author of the famous autobiographical sex blog "girl with a one track mind", her blog was made into a book and published in many countries around the world...
I am a young woman, and after reading her blog I thought... wow how can she enjoy being used for sex and discarded by so many random men?! and why does she have such a high sex drive?! but then i found some pictures of her on the net and the irony of the title "girl with a one track mind" all made sense....
The high testosterone looks of her face...
and another one...
It's just that I do not relate to her blog about seeking casual sex with a variety of men, her ONS's and fuck buddies... I would feel so used and hurt if that was me... I just can't seperate sex and love at all and I avoid casual sex at all costs. It is something I struggle with all the time, men lying to get me into bed and trying to use me, i feel nothing short of rage if a man lures me into bed and doesn't call again. I always try to wait as long as possible before sleeping with a guy... I feel more in love with a guy after sleeping with him, on the other hand, he is less likely to call after he gets what he wants...
Do you think women with high testosterone are normally a lot more promiscuous? like almost a nymphomaniac? Is it likely that she enjoys lots of casual sex and doesn't feel used, because she has high testosterone?
And if men are attracted to more feminine women and women more attracted to masculine men... what is the deal with the Kaulitz brothers? They are clearly effeminate, yet they have young girls around the world swooning over them. How do you explain that? This throws off your whole theory that masculinity makes men attractive and femininty women attractive. There is much more to the equation I am afraid:
Look:
I mean seriously. Looking at this chart you provide the first woman's face (that I posted) matches the "feminine" model face almost perfectly. She has the same chin, same cheekbones, same forehead. Her nose area and mouth area are very similair.
Then looking at the woman in your attractive section, she most definitley matches the more masculine face shape:
Then I see this woman in the feminine and attractive women section:
In all honesty if I compare this woman to a Victorias Secret model I would believe the Victorias Secret model is masculine, but I would believe this woman is literally a man. Please explain as to why you believe the woman in your attractive women section is attractive and feminine while you claim the woman above is more masculine?
Erik you mentioned that this woman is masculine:
What in particular about her face makes her more on the masculine side over the feminine side?
She has low cheekbones, fine facial features, her mouth is small not wide, her cheeks are rounded her forehead high and dome shaped. What makes her masculine at all?
Lets take a good look at Megan Fox:
Clearly, the woman is not feminine at all. She has higher set cheekbones, a small chest, wide shoulders, her cheeks are not very ample and she does not have the width aspect of beauty, she has broad shoulders, she is tall and her face is long.
She does have a beautiful face though and although her high cheekbones may be due to her half Native AMerican ancestry, the rest of her still just isn't feminine. period. She is attractive, but it is obviously not due to feminization but simply good bone structure and good genes. Her full lips, blue eyes, dark thick hair, good structure in general, symmetry, make her look good but feminization plays no part it seems in her attraction.
You look at this pic and it makes you think she is feminine but it is clearly airbrushed. Her breasts are practically non-existent without a wonder bra:
Well I like Northern European cheekbones. Anyways, I believe that robust cheekbones are most masculine period. Because whether your cheekbones are high or low if they are robust they will look masculine.
My Dear Erik!
So nice to hear from you :) Happy Easter!
Hope you had/will have a great Easter weekend!!!
I am very busy at the moment so will not be responding to everything but will do what little i can.
1. Regarding baiting...Ok you win! I am guilty. Please punish me?
2. "If you don’t know English well enough you must not waste my time by leaving comments here."
This is very poor coming from you Erik. Ad hominem?
Where have i exhibited poor English language skills? Yes i am no PHD in English but i have a Bachelor's of Science from an English university. I think you and other people can mostly understand what i am saying?
3. "So if some Swedes leaning more toward Slavic looks are throw in, then you cannot object to it. The woman in question was cited as an example of one with a fine nose. If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point"
Does her nose look fine to you? Tell me honestly does her nose tip possess thick cartilage/fleshy part? If you still think she has a fine nose then i must assume my nose is fine as well! Her nose and mine are similar at the tip in front view.
I am going to use the second pic in my response to Emily but i hope you can notice the slight hump clearer here. What about her tip? If you are not convinced then i can find more pics.
Off course i expect you to say her nose is fine so you won't have to negate what you said "If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point" BUT it is clear to me and maybe others that her nose is not "fine". I can post pictures of Nordics you have posted on this website and Emily has posted to clarify what is a fine nose :)
Ok i think this will be all for now.
Enjoy the weekend Erik
warm hugs!
Peter
Jules: Formal education in schools about sexuality can only be presented in a neutral manner, which would be dull to pre-pubescent children.
Besides, the younger children learn about sexuality the more responsible they will be doesn’t hold. There is plenty of literature on drug abuse prevention education that has shown no benefit or enhanced drug use. When you tell people about some allegedly pleasure-inducing activities that they are not aware of, some of them will be tempted to try it. Similar literature on sexual behavior will be difficult to cite because there are too many malicious individuals in the sex education field.
Britain introduced comprehensive sex education in schools in the 1990s. Ten years after, most indices of risky sexual behaviors, STDs and teenage pregnancy increased. There could be any of a number of reasons behind the correlation, but the malicious sex educators will not consider the possibility that sex education prompted some individuals to engage in sexual practices before they would have otherwise or that sex education made them engage in practices that they would not have without hearing them talked about.
I will give you an anecdote. Once a 9-year-old girl developed a crush on me; I was 25. One day when I was in bed in shorts only, she jumped into bed with the text book that was given to her in sex education class. She opened the page that depicted a penis getting erect and started going over the explicit details, edging closer to me and giving me the look. There was no one else in the house. I made her close the book and shifted to a different topic. What if I were interested in girls her age? I could have easily taken advantage of the situation and she happened to be a good looking girl.
If you saw her you would guess she is between 8 and 11 and pre-pubescent. I doubt precocious puberty was at play. Whereas it is not unusual for 9- or 10-year-old girls to develop a crush on an adult man, it was the sex education class that provided her with the explicit book, the explicit knowledge and a means to convey her sexual interest to an adult man in a blatantly obvious manner. I fail to see any good purpose in giving such explicit sex education to pre-pubescents. If you as a parent want to provide explicit sex education to your own pre-pubescent children, you can go ahead; I have no objections. But I am not in favor of such education as part of the school curriculum.
Hotsauce: The impossibility of the dimensions is the wrong issue. What if Barbie looked like an ogre, the equivalent of a 4,000-pound human or like an ape-woman? All of these dimensions would be impossible also, but would feminists object similarly? The feminist objections are to exaggerations of some features widely considered to be attractive.
Mike: The article is about not being tricked by muscle mass. I am not being fooled by the muscle mass of Dorian Yates. Tom Cruise does not have an effeminate physique in terms of muscle mass. Tom Cruise has made an effort to work out and attain decent muscle mass, but take a look at his shoulder width, especially in relation to hip width.
Godis: The article is not about what women find attractive in men. It is about the subtlety of masculinity-femininity in men.
You said, “Besides, the whole feminine masculine scale in my opinion doesn't have to do as much with attraction as you claim.” The evidence suggests, cited within this site, that in the absence of physical defects, the extent of femininity is the most powerful correlate of beauty in women for a given ethnic group. I agree that “a woman with nice features that isn’t particularly feminine can be more attractive than a feminine woman with boring, bland, or just bad features.” Nothing within this site refutes this notion and the site also offers plenty of evidence in its favor. Why don’t you read enough of this site before leaving comments?
There is nothing for me to say regarding your bringing in Keeley Hazell. I have passed her as an attractive woman, which doesn’t mean that all aspects of her looks have to be in the feminine range.
Peter: You said that your criticism of Marilyn Monroe was along the same lines as my comments about some models. Wrong.
You cited two examples: Tyra Banks and Veronika. I wrote:
There are two clauses. The semi-colon suggests that the clauses are presented as separate. There is nothing that suggests that the first clause is inferred from the second.
So your objection about what breast implants have to do with femininity does not follow. You also wrote, “An otherwise feminine woman will still look feminine with small breasts,” which I have mentioned on numerous occasions. What is the point?
You left out what my statement was in response to. It was in response to the following comment.
This person suggested that Tyra is feminine and that she had prominent breasts and buttocks. I appropriately responded that Tyra is not feminine and she has had breast implants.
If you don’t know English well enough you must not waste my time by leaving comments here.
Your second example was about the nose of Veronika vs. Gisele Bundchen. The comparison is not solely about femininity but it is also about attractiveness. So addressing the nose is appropriate.
You said that you never disputed that Marilyn does not look Nordic or that her face shape is not found in Nordic countries. You are wasting my time. This was never the issue. You said that you disagreed with the gorgeous label. But this is an issue that came later.
Here is Emily’s comment to which you responded.
Note that there is no “gorgeous” in the statement.
Your response to Emily was
I appropriately responded that you are baiting Emily and wasting our time because your comment does nothing to undermine the two contexts of Emily’s statement: to make the argument that Marilyn was basically a Nordic type and that her concave nose profile is found among many Nordic women.
The gorgeous comment by Emily came later. You must not waste my time with such poor arguments.
As to how do we know that her nose profile was concave before surgery, it is your responsibility to do the investigation. The issue is irrelevant to Emily’s quote cited within this comment to which you responded inappropriately. It is irrelevant because Marilyn’s nose is used as an example of a profile more common in Scandinavia compared to other parts of Europe. How Marilyn got her nose does not change this fact.
You said that the tip of the nose defines whether a nose is hooked or not. There is more to a hook than a mere tip. There will be a convex profile in a hooked nose involving the region above the tip. If the nose tip is pulled downward when someone is smiling and there is no convex profile to the nose, then it is ridiculous to be describing this as a hook-nosed tendency.
You do not need to post again the Swedish actress’ face to show me that you don’t see shadows suggesting a concave nose profile. I see them. Reposting the pictures would not make me fail to see them or help you see the shadows.
You said, “I doubt she would admit to posting a picture of a Swedish woman who "looked Slavic" as she has clearly pointed them out and expressed her dislike of them.” Whatever she posts, there will not be no overlap with Slavic women’s looks. So your comment is pointless. Emily has made a point to show a wide variety of Swedes to give people an idea of what Swedes look like. So if some Swedes leaning more toward Slavic looks are throw in, then you cannot object to it. The woman in question was cited as an example of one with a fine nose. If she didn’t have a fine nose, you would have a point, but your objection to her more Slavic looks is not a valid objection and a waste of time for the readers.
I don’t believe that Emily has glorified hair and eye color. Again, her comments on these matters have been responses to others.
Of course, if someone wanted to malign a group (create negative propaganda, as you put it), then this person will seek negative data on this group. But the issue is irrelevant because it does not follow that if someone has come up with a negative argument about a group then it implies that this person has come up with this argument because he sought a negative argument. An unbiased approach can easily lead to a negative portrayal of a group if that is what the reality is.
Accusing different people of being the same person is foulness because it doesn’t address the arguments of these persons. If your responses are on topic, you address your opponent’s arguments and then wonder whether this opponent is also posting under other names, it would be a different matter. But in your case you have resorted to numerous foul techniques, ignored many arguments and used the accusation of different people being the same to put down/rebut/undermine the arguments of others, an unambiguous example of foulness.
I am not assuming like Brazilian. How could he have been clearly referring to nostril shape when he didn’t see them? Assuming he had your nostrils in mind, what made him infer their shape without looking at them? Obviously, the fleshy alar structure, which notwithstanding it being thicker in men, isn’t Nordic in your case. You left a statement about your being able to find Nordic men with alae as thick as yours and other nose shapes, but as it should be clear from previous arguments, this does not matter. A Nordic nose can only have meaning in terms of a cluster of features present in high frequency in Nordic populations. It is self-evident that your nose is outside this cluster, and by a comfortable margin, and you have acknowledged this.
Regarding baiting you have done a very poor job of defending yourself, but then you can’t really defend yourself because you really are guilty of baiting. If you are guilty of baiting others, you cannot defend yourself by pointing out that others are doing the same; you remain guilty. Emily’s note about Indians’ hygiene was irrelevant, in very bad taste and clearly out of frustration. You are responsible for baiting and frustrating her and making her go over the top. Also, your baiting precedes Brazilian saying bad things about Indians’ noses. And you are the one who posted your pictures, on your own, at a website that addresses physical attractiveness though not of men. What did you expect? That no one will comment on your looks and have negative things to say about them if your face has shortcomings or if your arguments are frustrating them?
b: Why would the fashion industry or more specifically the movers and shakers in it be fixated on adolescence? Think of aesthetic preference. There could be alternative possibilities, but there is much evidence for aesthetic preferences explaining the preference for adolescent looks, and I will let you figure out why this aesthetic preference exists. The dominant designers couldn’t get away with using 13- or 14-year-old boys to market clothes to adult men but they push the boundaries.
Emily: First of all, your initial comment on the Indians’ hygiene was inappropriate. Then you ended up defending your viewpoint. What is this? You must learn to spot provocateurs and control your temper. When I was a teenager I approached debate with enthusiasm and was strongly interested in making a logical and empirical case to win the argument. But I soon learned that there are people who debate to win for the sake of winning not for the sake of making a rational argument for their viewpoint. One cannot debate these individuals because they will resort to all sorts of logical fallacies and obnoxious behaviors to win. If I had no administrative control over this site, like you, then I would ignore Peter the provocateur. But you have taken his bait, repeatedly, and self-destructed.
Attacking the group to which your opponent belongs is a bad idea. And if you are going to do it then you better have a decent argument. Mohandas Gandhi was an upper caste Hindu and presumably was raised in a sub-culture that held defecating in the open and leaving the mess for something else to clean up as irresponsible. You also have to consider that the British occupation of India helped greatly expand the non-upper-caste/class population of India. Normally, starvation/food shortage/disease outbreaks would cull a burgeoning lower class, but foreigners industrializing the country and introducing modern medicine would facilitate great expansion of the lower class. This will serve to greatly increase the proportion of the population behaving in an irresponsible manner. Trashing one’s own neighborhood is common among Third World people around the world. Here in the United States you see trash lying all over some neighborhoods settled by Third World people; the people could clean up the mess but they act as if it is someone else’s job. Were it not for toilets made available to them a number of them would be defecating in the open and leaving it for others to clean up. In China you see people openly vomiting and spitting on the streets. There is no need to single out Indians, and no need to be addressing their hygiene in the first place. Don’t take Peter’s bait.
This website allows anyone to leave comments on this article on Ekaterina and also other 18-year-olds. This is being consistent; nothing hypocritical here. It cannot be inferred from this that I care less about others than about Ekaterina. To prove hypocrisy you have to start with finding similar examples involving other 18-year-olds that I have featured such that I didn’t intervene.
As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the nasty comments on other girls, they are usually much milder than the dog comparison, and often a one-time incident by a commentator. Some of these comments are left by individuals hostile toward this website, and the context makes it clear that the nasty comments are not exactly aimed toward the woman being commented on but toward me or are simply an expression of anger that is misplaced. The nasty comments are also ameliorated by either my using the women’s pictures in the context of women I like or the fashion industry calling them attractive and singing peans to their beauty.
On the other hand, your case has been without parallel. You agree with most of my arguments and have resorted to a dog comparison and comparison with babies in the case of East Asians. My intervention in the form of asking you to stop acting in this manner is not being hypocritical or indicative of special concern for Ekaterina.
You mentioned my making money off of the nude pictures. This is irrelevant and not a valid criticism. The women have posed nude voluntarily with the understanding that people will be selling the pictures. I am legally required to identify the source of the pictures as in linking to them and if these websites offer an affiliate program, then signing up takes cares of legal issues, provides me with the pictures that I need and brings in an earnings bonus, which goes toward running this site. You should not have a reason to complain given lots of high quality information within this site that is freely accessible to the public.
You think I would have a difficult time proving lower self-esteem in Northern Europeans than in many other populations, on average?
Quote:
If you feel the need to correct misconceptions of how Romanians look and apparently have a lot of spare time, post plenty of group pictures and cut the crude remarks.
I am not Richards. If you are wondering about the similarity, that is where I got some of the anthropological literature from, which I verified before citing it. On the other hand, Richards’ articles themselves are not citable because they tarnish neutral and excellent scientific information by integrating it with a political agenda that is unsavory in many aspects.
z: You asked whether a woman with high cheekbones, broad face, flat or hook nose, dark skin and coarse hair can be feminine. The answer is yes.
Godis: Gruendl et al. didn’t say that masculinization results in high cheekbones. I said that, and you are right that the correct statement is that masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones. I wasn’t careful enough when I wrote the sentence. But you have committed a worse error: “The thin lips of many Germans for example are a masculine trait.” The correct notion is that controlling for other factors, thinner lips look more masculine. Your note on ethnic differences is irrelevant. All referenced comparisons are within an ethnic group. And your statements about cheekbone height are mistaken. Cheekbones are shrunk in Northern Europeans compared to East Asians. This means a higher-cheekboned appearance in Northern Europeans on average. You are confusing “high cheekbones” for wide cheekbones.
In a less formal investigation of this topic, I notice that men have longer torso to leg length than women. And I think women generally prefer taller men and visa versa for many reasons, including convenience, as I will try to point out here. Tall men with short legs are able to have greater success with pressing their genitailia against the women in standing poses with a shorter women with longer legs. This may again explain why men prefer women with shorter legs to wear heals, so that when they are standing or dancing they can press their genitals together with less effort. If the couples legs are of equal length heels are unnecessary. In this case heels would complicate the matter.
I agree Kristin. A woman can look athletic and still look sexy.
I believe it is the fat content that makes a big difference in attractiveness. Some women have thicker or more muscular bodies, but they maintain themselves in good shape and still know how to be feminine. Beyonce Knowles is a perfect example of a thick-bodied woman who maintains a healthy body (no tires of fat around the middle) and puts out an extremely sexy, feminine vibe.
My wife and I were talking about this very thing last night during a television show. There were some ladies in their early 20s who were good looking and had decent bodies. However, the noticeable fat around their waists was in stark contrast to the rest of their body. When I see a woman with a good body, but fat rings around their waist (especially in young individuals), it leads me to believe that the person is lazy and will only add more weight as time goes by, leading them down a path of health problems that come with slight or gross obesity. There are, of course, exceptions to every situation. But for most, in today's Obese USA, this is more the norm, than the occasional exception due to diabetes, missing thyroid, etc.
I think a woman should work to stay healthy by having an exercise routine and staying away from fast-food places. The exercise routine doesn't need to be heavy. It should actually be light, so that the person can enjoy doing it. If they feel the need, they can increase it as time goes on. Staying away from high grease, high fat foods will really help. There are tons of foods that are healthy and good. We just have to break the habit of eating pizza, hamburgers, fried chicken, etc.
cool. you soo should put makeup on everyday rather than leave it till the last minute
Well, someone who knew better than we do what this is about, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, seems to disagree with you. He used the words "bad habit", for god's sake. That is not bad hygiene or poverty, that is sloppiness and indifference.
The issue at hand - and this is something at seems to escape your unreceptive head - is how got from discussing looks to discussing sh*t and toilets. If you hate-filled little head can muster a reasonable explanation, do let us know.
Alex,
That woman has a very masculine face.
Godis,
Regarding Keeley Hazel....she looks masculinized to me. But then, in Erik's case as long as they are North European looking and have fine facial features. Their masculinity level doesn't seem to be of much concern. He is still impressed! Have a look at some of the woman in the attractive women's category. Somce of them with short hair would approach the looks of boys. I can see that plain and clear!
Ahhh Godis...I think i might have a similar "issue" as you. I am not as promiscous/sexual as i would like to be...
I question if it has anything to do with me being feminine? But your confusing the two things i believe. Thinking and doing are two different things. Its good to have fantasies but you won't always act on them.
Godis-
You must be blind. Keeley looks exactly the same from the front as she does from the back. Broad shouldered, with a wide rib cage and a short neck. Quite masculine.
The only thing air brushed about her photos is her skin. In the "natural" swimsuit photo she appears much older and less attractive, and has many moles.
"They're worse than blacks that talk about slavery all the time"
Seriously? At least now I know anything you have to say will be tainted with ignorance.
"Feminists need to stop talking about the problems that don't exist, and go change the ones that do, not only womens', but the ones of the entire human population"
I think that's why we're called FEMINISTS and not humanitarians. We focus on issues facing women. That's like saying vegans need to start focusing on human problems.
And also to the person who runs this website: You are a sexist, ignorant and delusional pig.
Very true.
Very true.
Erik, could you please tell me about the masculinity/femininity of this woman?
She is the author of the famous autobiographical sex blog "girl with a one track mind", her blog was made into a book and published in many countries around the world...
I am a young woman, and after reading her blog I thought... wow how can she enjoy being used for sex and discarded by so many random men?! and why does she have such a high sex drive?! but then i found some pictures of her on the net and the irony of the title "girl with a one track mind" all made sense....
The high testosterone looks of her face...
and another one...
It's just that I do not relate to her blog about seeking casual sex with a variety of men, her ONS's and fuck buddies... I would feel so used and hurt if that was me... I just can't seperate sex and love at all and I avoid casual sex at all costs. It is something I struggle with all the time, men lying to get me into bed and trying to use me, i feel nothing short of rage if a man lures me into bed and doesn't call again. I always try to wait as long as possible before sleeping with a guy... I feel more in love with a guy after sleeping with him, on the other hand, he is less likely to call after he gets what he wants...
Do you think women with high testosterone are normally a lot more promiscuous? like almost a nymphomaniac? Is it likely that she enjoys lots of casual sex and doesn't feel used, because she has high testosterone?
I do like her face though Erik, she's a bit strange looking and a bit pale, but her face is a perfect oval and looks youthful and pretty..
Pages