(1)
If you don't like to have kids with someone because of his/her looks, then don't. If you want to get people off of your back for thinking someone is too ugly for you, then you must do something other than hiding behind all this objective beauty and population genetics arguments, which aren't tenable and aren't relevant anyway. Ugly people have it bad all the time, whether getting help or looking for jobs; I doubt it would be as difficult for you to speak your mind.
(2)
No genes or phenotypes "belong" to any "race", and no one should be suggesting any evolutionary relations simply because of what happens when White males marry non-White females nowadays. The race concept is merely the co-occurence of certain features among people living in certain places. It doesn't exist beyond identifying a subset of people in a subset of regions in the world. Refer to point (1) and think of a White yet ugly person. No one, including Erik (this site IS about feminine beauty and not race right?), should have even brought up race and/or ethnicity.
(3)
You can communicate what you think (eg regarding the high-fashion industry), what you do (eg regarding choice of mate), without generalizing, even a little, about people. Because now they have to deal with not only being ugly, but also being whatever race and/or ethnicity, meaning you have made it worse for them.
(4)
Otherwise, for those of you who don't feel comfortable reading the rest of this site, feel free not to. If dating etc. definitely sucks for you because of your looks, then don't do it. If people were to blame it on your character, then make things clear for them (see part (1)--people like Emily would definitely help in this regard). I think that some sections here pointing out what affects beauty, at least in Erik's view, can be informative; just that all the unnecessary, untenable stuff should be removed.
What Erik is trying to convey is how many beholders, but it might be too late to change the title into "In the eyes of how many beholders does your beauty lie?" Just run your own pageants and your own magazines if you want to do more than having this site up and promoting whatever other Web sites you like. In the U.S., even though people don't want looks to run their lives, they wouldn't do anything to you as long as you don't deceive them (hint: drop all the sketchy arguments) or threaten their basic freedoms.
The success rate of eating disorder prevention programs is indeed quite abysmal. However, one must also not forget the importance of choosing the right program that suits one's needs. Inevitably, it depends very much on individual whether s/he wants to recover or not. So, it is very important to understand that an effective program is the one that takes into consideration both the physical and psychological aspect of a person. Cheers!
I disagree. First of all, most of the people you've named--feminists, straight women, engineers or mathematicians looking for technical information, especially the elderly LOL--are not affected by the high-fashion industry to start with.
Second, it's unacceptable to MANIPULATE the public into seeing beautiful women who are already turning heads. Your life, your freedoms are not remotely endangered to the extent that you would need to exacerbate the disadvantage of a significant number of people through such means. Go start your own pageants or your own, dedicated literature, get coverage, but I'm not going to read an article for one reason, only to have other stuff forced on me between pages.
In the second face, the middle ~1/3 of the face appears shorter vertically compared to the distance from the eye level to the top of the head. The nose appears more tapered. The eyes appear wider and larger while keeping their shapes. A shorter middle face also seems less droopy and more energetic. Search the Internet for mouth breathing, dental arch, and facial growth to see some arguments that actually have a bit of evidence to them on aesthetics and factors affecting it.
Regarding averageness, I think some part of it has to do with the brain processing simple, salient images easier.
Part of it has to do with some prototype we expect to see. From the front, I notice right away the forehead, the eyebrows, sockets, and eyeballs (sorry for being so deconstructionist LOL), the jaw line and the chin. The face is reinforced by having the features close to their expected positions, shapes, highlights and shadows (depth cues). The mouth, nostrils, ears kinda complicates this "face". Any feature that detracts (in the sense that the brain fills in the information that it doesn't notice at first, but later finds out that the fill-in (which I assume is what we are most comfortable with) contradicts the actual image being processed following a short delay) from "the face" might make the person look weird or sickly.
Part of it might also have to do with what we might have as an instinct to decide whether or not another person have some of the same genes with ourselves. An average face could have induced our brain into thinking that hey, it's a relative. Cooperation among organisms having the same genes might have helped whole sets of their genes survive. Of course, this aspect of attraction would be different from sexiness, cuteness, etc., but we so far haven't been differentiating the many aspects of attraction.
This comment is for Erik. Sooner or later, this site needs a do-over, and here are my most imperative suggestions.
(1) things to stay
(a) If you don't like how high-fashion models look and would like to share examples of whom you find attractive, then by all means do so. Even point out anatomical features if you want to.
(b) If you'd like to communicate your ideal of femininity and physical beauty (in women), then it would be best to make a separate site and link the two. Again, point out anatomical features if you want to.
(2) things that should be removed
(a) In general, research papers involving race and/or ethnicity should not be included because too many implicit assumptions and misconceptions are communicated. As an imaginary example, if a research paper were to state that more people prefer the average of all the facial portraits of New Yorkers to the Los Angeles counterpart, then the audience might be reinforced of a large array of assumptions (such as certain features somehow "belong to" and "originated from" New Yorkers and have been "taken" by Angelinos), whereas the only scientific part of the study were how many people liked picture A versus how many people liked picture B given how the research was conducted. It would be necessary yet difficult to clarify all such misconceptions. In fact, the research papers are irrelevant if what you're trying to communicate is simply what I have stated in part (1).
(b) Remove all attempts at definition (eg that of femininity) and generalization (eg how a people look), because definitions (besides the very concrete terms we use to communicate) are irrelevant and generalizations are false by their nature.
(c) Suggestions that the high-fashion industry is run by homosexual men who have affected how the models are selected should be removed because that is not the point of your Web sites. Doing so greatly and unnecessarily distracts from your purposes.
(d) The self-esteem section and the diet section should be removed because they are not what you're trying to do here. If you have something related to say, then you might want to put that in the FAQs.
(3) things that could use some re-organization
(a) The FAQs would be greatly simplified. Depending on the site, put either "This Web site is to present my criticism of how models are selected in the high-fashion industry and to encourage related discussions." or "This Web site is to present my ideal of female physical beauty and to encourage related discussions." You can get rid of your disclaimers and simply put "Even though presenting my ideal of female physical beauty inevitably hurts the self-esteem of some visitors, encourages the cruel behavior of certain individuals, etc., and (if you actually do) I hope it could be done without hurting anyone, I am doing this for the sake of open, healthy discussion and understanding (That's the only reason I could think of)."
(b) The lay-out of the sites should be greatly simplified. Have one consolidated feature article on either the models in the high-fashion industry or your ideal of female physical beauty. There should be a more organized forum feature where the threads are categorized, the categories displayed in table format, and the threads displayed by topic under their respective category once expanded.
IN A NUTSHELL, all posts should be restricted to experiences (eg what you've seen, what you like, what you dislike), images, and arguments based on experiences and images. Get your point across, keep the forum threads and comments organized, and get rid of everything else! You'll have sites whose contents are more tenable, and are more user-friendly to people who want to read or post.
Well, the USA are overwhelmingly northern concerning heritage.
Northerners are not idolized simply because they are not gods. They are simply a better look people. No need to idolize them.
You still do not understand what northern europeans are. Northerners are not a hair color or a bone structure. They are simply the purest europeans out there. All phenotyps are found in northern countries. All ranges of europenas kinds are found in North in their authentic form. Northerners have long and short noses, brown or blond hair, brown or blue eyes, robust or thin faces.
As I have stated It's an common behaviour on anthroboads to depict northerners badly. No matter how many ugly people a person see in a north country. One is more likely to found a greater amount of ugly people in any other country. If northerners are not beautiful none other european can be. They define what europeans are.
If you don't like people with robust face, so find one with a thin face. Northerners have come in all shapes. These northerners women are routh and masculine are myths spread on anthroboards by people proud of their racial heritage. Just like the myth northern people are simply blond and blue-eyed. Ugly people and masculine woman are just types that can be found in north countries, they are part of the diversity.
You don't have to find them beautiful or even to like them to assume they are in the edge. Saying they drawn attention because of their color traits just display your prejudice.
Nordic people are not all that, most are ugly, the others are even worse. Go figure. Even their uglies seem less ugly.
That reminds me when we had exchange students come from Germany. All the guys at my school were so excited because they all wanted to meet the beautiful blue-eyed blonde Euro chick. Although I consider Germans more attractive than Finns or Swedes, there was maybe one or two attractive German girls out of 14. The guys were disapointed because we had more attractive girls here in America. There was one girl that was really attractive as she had large breasts, and hourglass shape. She had auburn hair. The guys loved the way she looked even though "auburn" hair isn't always the most attractive. It didn't matter though because she had such a nice body and pleasant face (very Nordic face). The rest of the women some with blue eyes and blonde hair and typical "Nordic" looks weren't attractive at all. It really put a new perspective on things. I mean I know that there shouldn't be a judgement on only a small sample of a population, however they all LOOKED very German, just not like attractive Germans.
You claim that Northern Europeans are so idolized everywhere, but I don't believe this to be so true. After all it is the Northern European blue eyes and blonde hair that is more often idolized than their bone structure. Because if you look at their bone structure the thin straight nose, thin long face, is what is mainly idolized too and you can find thin noses and long faces in other areas besides the Nordic country as well. Besides, you are correct. Northern Europe has taken over everything. Doesn't it make sense that they are now the standard for beauty? They are also the richest countries, where few people are malnourished and most people have the means to buy things to take care of themselves.
What I am trying to say is that I believe everyone has this idea that Northern Europeans are most attractive because:
A) They rule the world
B) They are rich countries. You see girls in Northern Europe with fake tans, abercrombie and fitch clothing, dyed hair, and all that jazz. Go to the south of europe and east of Europe and you will see almost no women that go fake tanning or buy fake tanner. You will see few women that dye their hair, and when they do, its always a cheap dye that doesn't look good. You will see few women that look in good shape, because they don't eat right. You will see few women with smooth skin, because they don't take care of it. Northern Europe is different.
Bone structure wise you have to agree that Southern Europeans often take the trophy. Not SouthEastern Europeans, but Southern Europeans. Southern Europeans have the most attractive skull shapes. Not too long, not too short, perfect. The women there have a nice skin tone, dark thick hair and dark thick lashes. They are generally curvy (of course Erik believe Northern European women to be the "most feminine", I agree they are AMONG the most feminine, but not more feminine than Southern European women). The only thing Southern European women don't have that NOrthern European women do, its the color palette. The color palette of blue eyes, blonde hair, red hair, green eyes, etc. However, that is a small loss compared to the bone structure of Southern European women.
It is my conclusion that culture is what makes 'Northern European' women soo beautiful. That and coloring. But coloring is a bit shallow isn't it?
I feel that a lot of this "Northern European" beauty stuff is just a bunch of crap run by Northern Europeans. After all, Erik claims the fashoin industry has done this with masculine women, I believe that culture has done this with Northern European women...
I find to be funny is that northern europeans wherever you go are depicted as the most beautiful direct or indirectly. Even haters once in their lives prized the beauty of northerners.
On another hand on anthropoly or racial forums throughout internet terms as piggish nose, piggish-cancer skin, lifeless eyes are used to describe them. So the once beautiful people are no longer beautiful. Now even arabs, japaneses or indians look better. Racial communities are filled with people proud of their racial heritage trying to convince others that northerners don't live up to their fame. Once those haters realize northerners look better on average they begin to spread they are mixed with something else non-white or non-northerner. I'm aware sometimes It makes them to act boastfully and arrogant, but It's not reason to deny they are aesthetically superior on average.
Youy know what. I don't give a shit. I don't have to be the most beautifull or even beautiful to succeed in life. I see no problem on assuming they look better on average. I don't have inferiority complex. Also I'm able to assume they are better look without look down other heritages like the owner of this site has done, despite the fact he can't perceive that. And It does't matter how many ugly northern people you haters will always bring up, because there will always be a greater amount of ugly people in your country.
Northern people are not a race apart. They are not simply blond blue-eyed people, they are brunet and brown eyed too. They are simply people living in northern countries. What makes them differ from other europeans is their european autheticity. Northerners represent what Europe has got of more authentic. Although admixture took place, they are purer and racially more europeans than other europeans. If northerners are not beautiful so none other european is.
Currently northerner people rule the world. Southern people had their time, now It's the northerners turn. So let It be and lasts up to changes.
Not all easterners are alike. Northerners ones like russias differ from balkan. Northern slavics have got shorter noses, while southerners longers ones.
Southeasterners according to my observation have wave noses, not hooked. I think that they have loger noses too, but of course within the european mean (no way as long as the arab one). Even though the hooked nose is found on a higher average when compared to other European countries. I think it will stand out depending on the eastern country that is being refered.
Another fact is that photos on internet are not prove of anything. Many southeasterners europeans being described as gypsoids are indeed real gypsies. The same way many people show photos of swedish and describe their looks when in reality they are displaying pictures of finns. Also pics of lapps visiting Finland are used to prove finns look like that, when in reality they don't. The same with north african and spaniards, tartars and russias, etc.
As to the country who leads in number of people owning a hooked nose, definitivally greeks takes the prize.
"You can't counteract every argument I have by posting photos of specifically Romanians. I target Scandinavian groups because you claim that Nordics have the most attractive noses. You then proceed to post photos of only Swedes up as your examples. I have concluded from this you claim that Swedes or Scandinavians have the most attractive noses and therefore I target Swedes in my argument to counteract yours."
Don't tell me what I can and cannot do in terms of arguments. You, who troll, flame, personally attack and call me "whore and "cow" are in no position AT ALL to give me any lectures. Do you understand?
So, you admit that you "target" Scandinavians. What else is new. You write nonsense. "Piggish" is not an argument. It is an insult.
You only make a fool of yourself. You forget that people have eyes and that they can see..
You forget that pictures are viewed objectively, without taking your nonsense into account. Writing a derogatory word under a picture won't change how people see that photo. Sorry.
"I have not stated that Romanians specifically have the most attractive noses. I have just stated that there are attractive noses among Romanians, sometimes more attractive than certain Scandinavian noses. This was all done to"
You wish. That highly subjective opinoion is not shared by most people, hardly by any, in fact. The exceptions will always be there, those won't change the rule, however.
"counteract your argument that all Eastern Europeans have hooked big noses. This is simply not true."
No, not all of them. I never said so. Many of them do have very unattractive noses. It was shockingly evident when I started looking at their photos. I run into them VERY quickly when I look for pictures. They are very common.
"You are making a much bigger argument here by claiming all Scandinavians have the MOST ideal nose. I have never "
Don't put words in my mouth. I never use the word "all". Generally speaking, the Nordic nose found in Scandinavia in Hallstatt and Borreby types here, is the most beautiful one. It is generally straight, fine, not large, and feminine. It is the ideal to most people. So what? Writing piggish under a perfect nose won't make it less perfect. It will make you look like a fool, however.
Show me someone who goes to the plastic surgeon asking for a gypsy- or Indian-type nose, a large Slavic nose, or a broad and flat Asian one. Why don't they? Tell me! Why don't they?
Why do they ask for the Nordic type..fine, straight, smallish, maybe with a slightly upward-pointing tip, or just a straight one, instead of a droopy tip, if it is not the ideal? You are in a serious state of denial.
As for cherry-picking photos, it is not a valid argument on your part since they are COMMON, FREQUENT, NORMAL, REPRESENTATIVE. They are not anomalies, not rarely occurring, not exceptions. They are valid examples of what Romanian noses usually look like.
I don't show noses of only one type. I show straight noses, too. As a rule they are much larger, often but not always hooked, much longer and more massive and dominating than Scandinavian noses.
Ps. I didn't sign the previous comment but it was mine.
LOL Emily. Thanks for posting what you just posted. It just reveals EXACTLy how mest up you are. You have to be one of the most ignorant people I know. You don't have any points. You get so much pleasure out of imagining me as a gypsy/slavic mix with an ugly hooked nose. LOL Keep on dreaming honey... The reality is not so... LMAO it's actually so funny. I realized that you just find comfort in hoping everyone that argues with you looks hideous. OK.
"The photo of the woman you posted was misleading. I concluded that her nose looked piggish"
No, it was not. It was just a nice picture. Not intended to lead or mislead. There was no proof of a "pig nose" anywhere in that picture. You just ASSUMED the worst. You rushed to judgment since you HATE, absolutely hate, Nordic women. Everyone who reads your nonsense here sees that.
"Romanians are not in any way related to Indians/gypsies. Only SOME Romanians are mixed with gypsies/Indians."
Contradict yourself much? Yes, the majority of them are related, more or less. You only have to look at them to see that. The first time I saw pictures of Romanians, and I have seen many by now, I though, wow, they look just like the gypsy shoplifters in Sweden!
"I gave you a whole history lesson on this. "
History lesson? You? Don't make me laugh. You are a GYPSY people, mixed with Slavs, basically. There are exceptions, but you are very swarthy, and many have huge, enormous, as in MASSIVE, noses that don't even EXIST in ethnic Nordics.
And I didn't have to look long and hard, either. Oh no, there are millions..tons..of these pictures of women with ugly noses the size of Mount Everest out there. Adn those are the ones who post their pictures! What do the other ones look like? No wonder you are so full of hate.
"When the Ottoman Empire took over you could say they gave some Romanians a more "middle eastern" look. However, then you should claim that Romanians are somewhat related to "middle eastern" people and not"
Yeah, the Turks work miracles for the looks, don't they? Turks and gypsies/hindus mixed with Slavs...what a combo! Get real, before you trash Nordics, probably the most beautiful girls on earth, take a look at the MESS in your own back-yard, nitwit.
If you continue your pig nose labelling of PERFECT Nordic women I will certainly continue to show what YOU look like in Romania, and trust me..that picture will not be pretty since it IS not pretty.
Russian or Polish girls look like beauty queens in comparison to Romanians, for example. The fact that you have the utter stupidity and audacity to even begin to criticise Nordic noses in that derogatory and UGLY manner, is HILARIOUS. My god, look at yourselves!
Erik has a whole section devoted to Nordic noses and the beauty and perfection of the Nordic nose. Do you think any of your Romanian Slavic/gypsy/hindu noses will appear in any such section any time soon...except in the awful "before" section in the plastic surgery photos, that is?
"You try to point out that Eastern Europeans have hooked noses. Is there a reason that you constantly bring up Romanians? You say that personal attacks are uncalled for, however what is this? I have not claimed that Romanians "
You bring up Scandinavians in particular, over and over. So I will bring up Romanians, as they are perfect examples of noses people DON'T want.
Your noses are some of THE most unattractive and large ones I have EVER seen in my life, so if you think that your comments that reek with envy and hatred against my people, thinly veiled, will keep me from pointing out your obvious envy, and the physical shortcomings that are the obvious motivation behind your envy, you are mistaken.
"You have no really good points."
And what are yours? You, a Romanian with a large, hooked nose that you call "roman", say you don't like Nordic noses. You make me laugh. Fine, you don't like them, in fact, you hate them. Gee, I wonder why. You say the fact that you don't like them is the reason why you point it out all the time. Guess, what. I'll throw that right back at you. I don't LIKE your noses either, so that's why I point out what they generally look like and why I don't like them. Just like you do. The difference between us is that most people share my taste - not yours.
You can't counteract every argument I have by posting photos of specifically Romanians. I target Scandinavian groups because you claim that Nordics have the most attractive noses. You then proceed to post photos of only Swedes up as your examples. I have concluded from this you claim that Swedes or Scandinavians have the most attractive noses and therefore I target Swedes in my argument to counteract yours.
I have not stated that Romanians specifically have the most attractive noses. I have just stated that there are attractive noses among Romanians, sometimes more attractive than certain Scandinavian noses. This was all done to counteract your argument that all Eastern Europeans have hooked big noses. This is simply not true.
You are making a much bigger argument here by claiming all Scandinavians have the MOST ideal nose. I have never made an argument that any specific group has the MOST IDEAL NOSE. Therefore, it is a personal attack on me that you post photos up of Romanians that have bumpy noses. This doesn't even work because those photos do not represent an entire population, however you try to give the impression that they do. You believe that the best way to prove your point is with photos, however it is not. Photos can be cherry picked and they never represent a whole population. Even if you were to compare two photos of people in the same setting from a different ethincity, it would still not be an accurate representation. The fact that you believe your own arguments shows how ignorant you are even though you know better...
"To get some perspective on things, these are Romanians. No risk of any pig noses there. More likely gigantic, hooked, droopy, loooong, masculine noses that stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe since Romanians are closely related to gypsies/ Indians."
Romanians are not in any way related to Indians/gypsies. Only SOME Romanians are mixed with gypsies/Indians. I gave you a whole history lesson on this. Bascially Romanians are Indo-Europeans. Gypsies/Indians ARE NOT Indo-Europeans. When the Ottoman Empire took over you could say they gave some Romanians a more "middle eastern" look. However, then you should claim that Romanians are somewhat related to "middle eastern" people and not Indians/gypsies since they are two different things... Indians/Gypsies were not part of the Ottoman Empire. You are not stupid so either A) You don't read my comments and jump to conclusions or B) You just like to bask in ignorance...
The photo of the woman you posted was misleading. I concluded that her nose looked piggish because it seemed that her head was not tilted enough to display her nostrils like that, so therefore her nose must have been upturned to start out with. I like that woman's nose. Her nose is more romantic and elegant in my opinion. However, this doesn't really make a point. It seems from the examples you post that most Scandinavian Nords have the upturned noses, that sometimes can even be a bit robust even when they are small. There are many Scandinavians with nice noses, however in no way do they ALL have extremely attractive noses. I mentioned before that in my opinions Nordics like Germans, Irish, even English often display nice noses than specifically Scandinavian noses...
You try to point out that Eastern Europeans have hooked noses. Is there a reason that you constantly bring up Romanians? You say that personal attacks are uncalled for, however what is this? I have not claimed that Romanians have the most attractive noses, only that you can find more "elegant" noses among groups like Romanians over Scandinavians. I have not stated that more Romanians have better noses than Scandinavians however. Besides, I believe the noses in Italy and Germany to be overall nicer than most Romanian and Eastern European noses...
I just personally do not like Scandinavian noses. I like Nordic noses, like German or Irish noses. However, not Scandinavian noses. I am sure many people would agree with me...
You have no really good points. My assumption is that you posted the photo of that woman in such a misleading way, because in that photo her nose looks shorter compared to her other photos. When I comment on what a more "ideal" nose is, you then post photos of her with a longer more elegant nose. You try to paint a picture in a biased way. It doesn't work.
The girl whose nose you wrote "piggish" under has a perfect and straight nose. In no way is it piggish. You seem very..eager..to find faults with drop-dead gorgeous Nordic girls, however perfectly outrageous and ridiculous the claims may be.
I suppose when you have a large, hooked, sorry.."roman" nose, it is more comfortable to find faults in others than to see one's own physical shortcomings.
Now, this was the picture you wrote "piggish" under. A shot from an angle that will expose the nose from underneath. As anyone can see it is a gorgeous girl with a perfect, cute and straight nose. It is not Slavic, not hooked, droopy, three miles long, large or masculine. That's why you had to write something negative about it. That's obvious to everybody. Envy disgusts me.
Here are more pictures of this girl;
To get some perspective on things, these are Romanians. No risk of any pig noses there. More likely gigantic, hooked, droopy, loooong, masculine noses that stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe since Romanians are closely related to gypsies/ Indians.
Saying these types of noses are romantic is a joke. Nordic perfect noses are romantic, Eastern European/ Slavic ones are not. They are often the types they operate on in order to get a decent look, and when they do, guess what type of nose they try to emulate? The Nordic one. Go figure.
I think I understand why Erik's views come across as so off-base to people who find Victoria's Secret models highly attractive. The facial and body features that Erik labels "masculine" are what most people would call "androgynous". When he complains that high-fashion models often resemble (lean) adolescent boys, he has simply noticed that they share many androgynous features in common. Males and females come in a wide variety of body types, and there is a broad range of overlapping features that both sexes share.
Erik appears to assume that masculine and feminine attributes develop in opposition, and that any degree of masculinity in a female detracts from her feminine qualities. This leads him to react negatively to models who exhibit elegantly androgynous features in an unmistakably feminine context. Highly defined cheekbones and a sharp, delicate jawline do not make a petite, feminine face look masculine, they give the woman who possesses them strikingly androgynous looks which most people find more attractive than a typically bland female face.
In short, Erik is a "heterosexual-exclusive" man who finds anything other than completely feminine women to be unattractive. He thinks that any woman with androgynous features looks transsexual, and suspects any man who finds her attractive is potentially "gay".
An eating disorder is very similar to an addiction treatment. Eating in a bad manner is an automatism built with time and because of certain events. This can be changed, but don't think it will go away by snapping your fingers. You need a while to rewrite the bad patterns.
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.
Swedish women;
As for longer noses there are Nordic noses that are longer, too, but they are not too long and therefore don't lose their femininity like Slavic noses often do. Sure, a larger and longer nose adds strenght but it makes the overall impression more masculine.
I don't think very long noses, like the ones seen in Eastern Europe, are appealing in women, especially not when also droopy or hooked. Ekaterina's nose is an example of this.
Diana was very pretty but not at all with a typical Scandinavian nose. The British have much larger and more often hooked noses, so they don't compare to Scandinavian/Germanic noses. Her nose was not her best feature, and the one making her face more masculine.
Princess Diana's nose was very elegant although not straight. However, it added to her ethereal beauty. She is a classic and so is her beautiful and attractive nose:
Princess Diana is the classic Nordic princess. She had such a beauty. It was a very soft, refined beauty, and a very strong beauty. She looks classic, elegant, romantic, and refined. This is the beauty we all strive for.
See this girl doesn't have an upturned or upcurved nose. It is more attractive because of this. It is also slighty longer, making it more attractive. A nose like this is really attractive in my opinion:
Although, if you want a more "recognizable" different face I would suggest a nose with a bit more character than this one. It would still be attractive and make the face more unique and recognizable.
I think often what people don't understand either is that facial features that make a face "different" or "recognizable" are more attractive to people. Yes, there are features everyone is attracted to. However, many times a feautre with character can overide that because we find that unusal feature to add to the person more.
My boyfriend squints when he laughs! I guess the ideal attractive thing is when you keep your eyes open when you laugh, and it looks good. I used to hate it when people squinted and laughed, I didn't find it attractive... However, when my boyfriend does it it looks soo cute and I find it very attractive. He is very masucline (really tall) so that adds to him because it does go against his masculinity it seemes. Although his masculinity is what attracted me to him, that part of him that makes him less masculine at that time also attracts me...These are things people are attracted to...
I truly believe that more elegant, less upturned, a bit longer noses (than the examples you post,not long in general), are more attractive. They make the face look graceful,refined,elegant and romantic, especially if the rest of your face goes well with this nose. My face for example is rounded as I have a rounded jaws, low cheekbones that are full. My nose is more romanesque and thin like Roman noses. Therefore a round face and thin nose don't seem to match that well, although my nose is one of the features that makes me look a bit more adult...
Yes upturned noses are more feminine, however too much femininity is not always good and is not ideally attractive. I believe attractive people are farther on the feminine scale, however too far and you lose appeal. An upturned nose that is too upturned is really really feminine in my opinion and loses its appeal. You want to see some nostril, but not too much. Even if the nostrils are small, it doesn't matter. For example, my boyfriend showed me he likes noses that show a bit of nostril (not totally absolutley downturned), but not too much, and aren't too small...
Marilyn Monroe had a nose on the more elegant side:
It is longer, although not LONG, it is not upturned or curved upward, but straight. And yes I do believe a nose with a slight bump on it, or even some hooked noses are more elegant than too curved upturned noses...
(1)
If you don't like to have kids with someone because of his/her looks, then don't. If you want to get people off of your back for thinking someone is too ugly for you, then you must do something other than hiding behind all this objective beauty and population genetics arguments, which aren't tenable and aren't relevant anyway. Ugly people have it bad all the time, whether getting help or looking for jobs; I doubt it would be as difficult for you to speak your mind.
(2)
No genes or phenotypes "belong" to any "race", and no one should be suggesting any evolutionary relations simply because of what happens when White males marry non-White females nowadays. The race concept is merely the co-occurence of certain features among people living in certain places. It doesn't exist beyond identifying a subset of people in a subset of regions in the world. Refer to point (1) and think of a White yet ugly person. No one, including Erik (this site IS about feminine beauty and not race right?), should have even brought up race and/or ethnicity.
(3)
You can communicate what you think (eg regarding the high-fashion industry), what you do (eg regarding choice of mate), without generalizing, even a little, about people. Because now they have to deal with not only being ugly, but also being whatever race and/or ethnicity, meaning you have made it worse for them.
(4)
Otherwise, for those of you who don't feel comfortable reading the rest of this site, feel free not to. If dating etc. definitely sucks for you because of your looks, then don't do it. If people were to blame it on your character, then make things clear for them (see part (1)--people like Emily would definitely help in this regard). I think that some sections here pointing out what affects beauty, at least in Erik's view, can be informative; just that all the unnecessary, untenable stuff should be removed.
What Erik is trying to convey is how many beholders, but it might be too late to change the title into "In the eyes of how many beholders does your beauty lie?" Just run your own pageants and your own magazines if you want to do more than having this site up and promoting whatever other Web sites you like. In the U.S., even though people don't want looks to run their lives, they wouldn't do anything to you as long as you don't deceive them (hint: drop all the sketchy arguments) or threaten their basic freedoms.
The success rate of eating disorder prevention programs is indeed quite abysmal. However, one must also not forget the importance of choosing the right program that suits one's needs. Inevitably, it depends very much on individual whether s/he wants to recover or not. So, it is very important to understand that an effective program is the one that takes into consideration both the physical and psychological aspect of a person. Cheers!
I disagree. First of all, most of the people you've named--feminists, straight women, engineers or mathematicians looking for technical information, especially the elderly LOL--are not affected by the high-fashion industry to start with.
Second, it's unacceptable to MANIPULATE the public into seeing beautiful women who are already turning heads. Your life, your freedoms are not remotely endangered to the extent that you would need to exacerbate the disadvantage of a significant number of people through such means. Go start your own pageants or your own, dedicated literature, get coverage, but I'm not going to read an article for one reason, only to have other stuff forced on me between pages.
In the second face, the middle ~1/3 of the face appears shorter vertically compared to the distance from the eye level to the top of the head. The nose appears more tapered. The eyes appear wider and larger while keeping their shapes. A shorter middle face also seems less droopy and more energetic. Search the Internet for mouth breathing, dental arch, and facial growth to see some arguments that actually have a bit of evidence to them on aesthetics and factors affecting it.
Regarding averageness, I think some part of it has to do with the brain processing simple, salient images easier.
Part of it has to do with some prototype we expect to see. From the front, I notice right away the forehead, the eyebrows, sockets, and eyeballs (sorry for being so deconstructionist LOL), the jaw line and the chin. The face is reinforced by having the features close to their expected positions, shapes, highlights and shadows (depth cues). The mouth, nostrils, ears kinda complicates this "face". Any feature that detracts (in the sense that the brain fills in the information that it doesn't notice at first, but later finds out that the fill-in (which I assume is what we are most comfortable with) contradicts the actual image being processed following a short delay) from "the face" might make the person look weird or sickly.
Part of it might also have to do with what we might have as an instinct to decide whether or not another person have some of the same genes with ourselves. An average face could have induced our brain into thinking that hey, it's a relative. Cooperation among organisms having the same genes might have helped whole sets of their genes survive. Of course, this aspect of attraction would be different from sexiness, cuteness, etc., but we so far haven't been differentiating the many aspects of attraction.
This comment is for Erik. Sooner or later, this site needs a do-over, and here are my most imperative suggestions.
(1) things to stay
(a) If you don't like how high-fashion models look and would like to share examples of whom you find attractive, then by all means do so. Even point out anatomical features if you want to.
(b) If you'd like to communicate your ideal of femininity and physical beauty (in women), then it would be best to make a separate site and link the two. Again, point out anatomical features if you want to.
(2) things that should be removed
(a) In general, research papers involving race and/or ethnicity should not be included because too many implicit assumptions and misconceptions are communicated. As an imaginary example, if a research paper were to state that more people prefer the average of all the facial portraits of New Yorkers to the Los Angeles counterpart, then the audience might be reinforced of a large array of assumptions (such as certain features somehow "belong to" and "originated from" New Yorkers and have been "taken" by Angelinos), whereas the only scientific part of the study were how many people liked picture A versus how many people liked picture B given how the research was conducted. It would be necessary yet difficult to clarify all such misconceptions. In fact, the research papers are irrelevant if what you're trying to communicate is simply what I have stated in part (1).
(b) Remove all attempts at definition (eg that of femininity) and generalization (eg how a people look), because definitions (besides the very concrete terms we use to communicate) are irrelevant and generalizations are false by their nature.
(c) Suggestions that the high-fashion industry is run by homosexual men who have affected how the models are selected should be removed because that is not the point of your Web sites. Doing so greatly and unnecessarily distracts from your purposes.
(d) The self-esteem section and the diet section should be removed because they are not what you're trying to do here. If you have something related to say, then you might want to put that in the FAQs.
(3) things that could use some re-organization
(a) The FAQs would be greatly simplified. Depending on the site, put either "This Web site is to present my criticism of how models are selected in the high-fashion industry and to encourage related discussions." or "This Web site is to present my ideal of female physical beauty and to encourage related discussions." You can get rid of your disclaimers and simply put "Even though presenting my ideal of female physical beauty inevitably hurts the self-esteem of some visitors, encourages the cruel behavior of certain individuals, etc., and (if you actually do) I hope it could be done without hurting anyone, I am doing this for the sake of open, healthy discussion and understanding (That's the only reason I could think of)."
(b) The lay-out of the sites should be greatly simplified. Have one consolidated feature article on either the models in the high-fashion industry or your ideal of female physical beauty. There should be a more organized forum feature where the threads are categorized, the categories displayed in table format, and the threads displayed by topic under their respective category once expanded.
IN A NUTSHELL, all posts should be restricted to experiences (eg what you've seen, what you like, what you dislike), images, and arguments based on experiences and images. Get your point across, keep the forum threads and comments organized, and get rid of everything else! You'll have sites whose contents are more tenable, and are more user-friendly to people who want to read or post.
Well, the USA are overwhelmingly northern concerning heritage.
Northerners are not idolized simply because they are not gods. They are simply a better look people. No need to idolize them.
You still do not understand what northern europeans are. Northerners are not a hair color or a bone structure. They are simply the purest europeans out there. All phenotyps are found in northern countries. All ranges of europenas kinds are found in North in their authentic form. Northerners have long and short noses, brown or blond hair, brown or blue eyes, robust or thin faces.
As I have stated It's an common behaviour on anthroboads to depict northerners badly. No matter how many ugly people a person see in a north country. One is more likely to found a greater amount of ugly people in any other country. If northerners are not beautiful none other european can be. They define what europeans are.
If you don't like people with robust face, so find one with a thin face. Northerners have come in all shapes. These northerners women are routh and masculine are myths spread on anthroboards by people proud of their racial heritage. Just like the myth northern people are simply blond and blue-eyed. Ugly people and masculine woman are just types that can be found in north countries, they are part of the diversity.
You don't have to find them beautiful or even to like them to assume they are in the edge. Saying they drawn attention because of their color traits just display your prejudice.
Nordic people are not all that, most are ugly, the others are even worse. Go figure. Even their uglies seem less ugly.
This to me isn't attractive:
lol Brazilian
That reminds me when we had exchange students come from Germany. All the guys at my school were so excited because they all wanted to meet the beautiful blue-eyed blonde Euro chick. Although I consider Germans more attractive than Finns or Swedes, there was maybe one or two attractive German girls out of 14. The guys were disapointed because we had more attractive girls here in America. There was one girl that was really attractive as she had large breasts, and hourglass shape. She had auburn hair. The guys loved the way she looked even though "auburn" hair isn't always the most attractive. It didn't matter though because she had such a nice body and pleasant face (very Nordic face). The rest of the women some with blue eyes and blonde hair and typical "Nordic" looks weren't attractive at all. It really put a new perspective on things. I mean I know that there shouldn't be a judgement on only a small sample of a population, however they all LOOKED very German, just not like attractive Germans.
You claim that Northern Europeans are so idolized everywhere, but I don't believe this to be so true. After all it is the Northern European blue eyes and blonde hair that is more often idolized than their bone structure. Because if you look at their bone structure the thin straight nose, thin long face, is what is mainly idolized too and you can find thin noses and long faces in other areas besides the Nordic country as well. Besides, you are correct. Northern Europe has taken over everything. Doesn't it make sense that they are now the standard for beauty? They are also the richest countries, where few people are malnourished and most people have the means to buy things to take care of themselves.
What I am trying to say is that I believe everyone has this idea that Northern Europeans are most attractive because:
A) They rule the world
B) They are rich countries. You see girls in Northern Europe with fake tans, abercrombie and fitch clothing, dyed hair, and all that jazz. Go to the south of europe and east of Europe and you will see almost no women that go fake tanning or buy fake tanner. You will see few women that dye their hair, and when they do, its always a cheap dye that doesn't look good. You will see few women that look in good shape, because they don't eat right. You will see few women with smooth skin, because they don't take care of it. Northern Europe is different.
Bone structure wise you have to agree that Southern Europeans often take the trophy. Not SouthEastern Europeans, but Southern Europeans. Southern Europeans have the most attractive skull shapes. Not too long, not too short, perfect. The women there have a nice skin tone, dark thick hair and dark thick lashes. They are generally curvy (of course Erik believe Northern European women to be the "most feminine", I agree they are AMONG the most feminine, but not more feminine than Southern European women). The only thing Southern European women don't have that NOrthern European women do, its the color palette. The color palette of blue eyes, blonde hair, red hair, green eyes, etc. However, that is a small loss compared to the bone structure of Southern European women.
It is my conclusion that culture is what makes 'Northern European' women soo beautiful. That and coloring. But coloring is a bit shallow isn't it?
I feel that a lot of this "Northern European" beauty stuff is just a bunch of crap run by Northern Europeans. After all, Erik claims the fashoin industry has done this with masculine women, I believe that culture has done this with Northern European women...
I find to be funny is that northern europeans wherever you go are depicted as the most beautiful direct or indirectly. Even haters once in their lives prized the beauty of northerners.
On another hand on anthropoly or racial forums throughout internet terms as piggish nose, piggish-cancer skin, lifeless eyes are used to describe them. So the once beautiful people are no longer beautiful. Now even arabs, japaneses or indians look better. Racial communities are filled with people proud of their racial heritage trying to convince others that northerners don't live up to their fame. Once those haters realize northerners look better on average they begin to spread they are mixed with something else non-white or non-northerner. I'm aware sometimes It makes them to act boastfully and arrogant, but It's not reason to deny they are aesthetically superior on average.
Youy know what. I don't give a shit. I don't have to be the most beautifull or even beautiful to succeed in life. I see no problem on assuming they look better on average. I don't have inferiority complex. Also I'm able to assume they are better look without look down other heritages like the owner of this site has done, despite the fact he can't perceive that. And It does't matter how many ugly northern people you haters will always bring up, because there will always be a greater amount of ugly people in your country.
Northern people are not a race apart. They are not simply blond blue-eyed people, they are brunet and brown eyed too. They are simply people living in northern countries. What makes them differ from other europeans is their european autheticity. Northerners represent what Europe has got of more authentic. Although admixture took place, they are purer and racially more europeans than other europeans. If northerners are not beautiful so none other european is.
Currently northerner people rule the world. Southern people had their time, now It's the northerners turn. So let It be and lasts up to changes.
lol no matter what I say you will twist it and turn it and find something wrong with it. So why should I care anymore?
I'd rather not say anything and leave you to enjoy your miserable self...
My opinion:
Not all easterners are alike. Northerners ones like russias differ from balkan. Northern slavics have got shorter noses, while southerners longers ones.
Southeasterners according to my observation have wave noses, not hooked. I think that they have loger noses too, but of course within the european mean (no way as long as the arab one). Even though the hooked nose is found on a higher average when compared to other European countries. I think it will stand out depending on the eastern country that is being refered.
Another fact is that photos on internet are not prove of anything. Many southeasterners europeans being described as gypsoids are indeed real gypsies. The same way many people show photos of swedish and describe their looks when in reality they are displaying pictures of finns. Also pics of lapps visiting Finland are used to prove finns look like that, when in reality they don't. The same with north african and spaniards, tartars and russias, etc.
As to the country who leads in number of people owning a hooked nose, definitivally greeks takes the prize.
"You can't counteract every argument I have by posting photos of specifically Romanians. I target Scandinavian groups because you claim that Nordics have the most attractive noses. You then proceed to post photos of only Swedes up as your examples. I have concluded from this you claim that Swedes or Scandinavians have the most attractive noses and therefore I target Swedes in my argument to counteract yours."
Don't tell me what I can and cannot do in terms of arguments. You, who troll, flame, personally attack and call me "whore and "cow" are in no position AT ALL to give me any lectures. Do you understand?
So, you admit that you "target" Scandinavians. What else is new. You write nonsense. "Piggish" is not an argument. It is an insult.
You only make a fool of yourself. You forget that people have eyes and that they can see..
You forget that pictures are viewed objectively, without taking your nonsense into account. Writing a derogatory word under a picture won't change how people see that photo. Sorry.
"I have not stated that Romanians specifically have the most attractive noses. I have just stated that there are attractive noses among Romanians, sometimes more attractive than certain Scandinavian noses. This was all done to"
You wish. That highly subjective opinoion is not shared by most people, hardly by any, in fact. The exceptions will always be there, those won't change the rule, however.
"counteract your argument that all Eastern Europeans have hooked big noses. This is simply not true."
No, not all of them. I never said so. Many of them do have very unattractive noses. It was shockingly evident when I started looking at their photos. I run into them VERY quickly when I look for pictures. They are very common.
"You are making a much bigger argument here by claiming all Scandinavians have the MOST ideal nose. I have never "
Don't put words in my mouth. I never use the word "all". Generally speaking, the Nordic nose found in Scandinavia in Hallstatt and Borreby types here, is the most beautiful one. It is generally straight, fine, not large, and feminine. It is the ideal to most people. So what? Writing piggish under a perfect nose won't make it less perfect. It will make you look like a fool, however.
Show me someone who goes to the plastic surgeon asking for a gypsy- or Indian-type nose, a large Slavic nose, or a broad and flat Asian one. Why don't they? Tell me! Why don't they?
Why do they ask for the Nordic type..fine, straight, smallish, maybe with a slightly upward-pointing tip, or just a straight one, instead of a droopy tip, if it is not the ideal? You are in a serious state of denial.
As for cherry-picking photos, it is not a valid argument on your part since they are COMMON, FREQUENT, NORMAL, REPRESENTATIVE. They are not anomalies, not rarely occurring, not exceptions. They are valid examples of what Romanian noses usually look like.
I don't show noses of only one type. I show straight noses, too. As a rule they are much larger, often but not always hooked, much longer and more massive and dominating than Scandinavian noses.
Ps. I didn't sign the previous comment but it was mine.
LOL Emily. Thanks for posting what you just posted. It just reveals EXACTLy how mest up you are. You have to be one of the most ignorant people I know. You don't have any points. You get so much pleasure out of imagining me as a gypsy/slavic mix with an ugly hooked nose. LOL Keep on dreaming honey... The reality is not so... LMAO it's actually so funny. I realized that you just find comfort in hoping everyone that argues with you looks hideous. OK.
"The photo of the woman you posted was misleading. I concluded that her nose looked piggish"
No, it was not. It was just a nice picture. Not intended to lead or mislead. There was no proof of a "pig nose" anywhere in that picture. You just ASSUMED the worst. You rushed to judgment since you HATE, absolutely hate, Nordic women. Everyone who reads your nonsense here sees that.
"Romanians are not in any way related to Indians/gypsies. Only SOME Romanians are mixed with gypsies/Indians."
Contradict yourself much? Yes, the majority of them are related, more or less. You only have to look at them to see that. The first time I saw pictures of Romanians, and I have seen many by now, I though, wow, they look just like the gypsy shoplifters in Sweden!
"I gave you a whole history lesson on this. "
History lesson? You? Don't make me laugh. You are a GYPSY people, mixed with Slavs, basically. There are exceptions, but you are very swarthy, and many have huge, enormous, as in MASSIVE, noses that don't even EXIST in ethnic Nordics.
And I didn't have to look long and hard, either. Oh no, there are millions..tons..of these pictures of women with ugly noses the size of Mount Everest out there. Adn those are the ones who post their pictures! What do the other ones look like? No wonder you are so full of hate.
"When the Ottoman Empire took over you could say they gave some Romanians a more "middle eastern" look. However, then you should claim that Romanians are somewhat related to "middle eastern" people and not"
Yeah, the Turks work miracles for the looks, don't they? Turks and gypsies/hindus mixed with Slavs...what a combo! Get real, before you trash Nordics, probably the most beautiful girls on earth, take a look at the MESS in your own back-yard, nitwit.
If you continue your pig nose labelling of PERFECT Nordic women I will certainly continue to show what YOU look like in Romania, and trust me..that picture will not be pretty since it IS not pretty.
Russian or Polish girls look like beauty queens in comparison to Romanians, for example. The fact that you have the utter stupidity and audacity to even begin to criticise Nordic noses in that derogatory and UGLY manner, is HILARIOUS. My god, look at yourselves!
Erik has a whole section devoted to Nordic noses and the beauty and perfection of the Nordic nose. Do you think any of your Romanian Slavic/gypsy/hindu noses will appear in any such section any time soon...except in the awful "before" section in the plastic surgery photos, that is?
"You try to point out that Eastern Europeans have hooked noses. Is there a reason that you constantly bring up Romanians? You say that personal attacks are uncalled for, however what is this? I have not claimed that Romanians "
You bring up Scandinavians in particular, over and over. So I will bring up Romanians, as they are perfect examples of noses people DON'T want.
Your noses are some of THE most unattractive and large ones I have EVER seen in my life, so if you think that your comments that reek with envy and hatred against my people, thinly veiled, will keep me from pointing out your obvious envy, and the physical shortcomings that are the obvious motivation behind your envy, you are mistaken.
"You have no really good points."
And what are yours? You, a Romanian with a large, hooked nose that you call "roman", say you don't like Nordic noses. You make me laugh. Fine, you don't like them, in fact, you hate them. Gee, I wonder why. You say the fact that you don't like them is the reason why you point it out all the time. Guess, what. I'll throw that right back at you. I don't LIKE your noses either, so that's why I point out what they generally look like and why I don't like them. Just like you do. The difference between us is that most people share my taste - not yours.
Marilyn had a nose job.
http://www.celebrityplasticpics.com/img/monro_before_rhinoplasty.jpg
You can't counteract every argument I have by posting photos of specifically Romanians. I target Scandinavian groups because you claim that Nordics have the most attractive noses. You then proceed to post photos of only Swedes up as your examples. I have concluded from this you claim that Swedes or Scandinavians have the most attractive noses and therefore I target Swedes in my argument to counteract yours.
I have not stated that Romanians specifically have the most attractive noses. I have just stated that there are attractive noses among Romanians, sometimes more attractive than certain Scandinavian noses. This was all done to counteract your argument that all Eastern Europeans have hooked big noses. This is simply not true.
You are making a much bigger argument here by claiming all Scandinavians have the MOST ideal nose. I have never made an argument that any specific group has the MOST IDEAL NOSE. Therefore, it is a personal attack on me that you post photos up of Romanians that have bumpy noses. This doesn't even work because those photos do not represent an entire population, however you try to give the impression that they do. You believe that the best way to prove your point is with photos, however it is not. Photos can be cherry picked and they never represent a whole population. Even if you were to compare two photos of people in the same setting from a different ethincity, it would still not be an accurate representation. The fact that you believe your own arguments shows how ignorant you are even though you know better...
"To get some perspective on things, these are Romanians. No risk of any pig noses there. More likely gigantic, hooked, droopy, loooong, masculine noses that stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe since Romanians are closely related to gypsies/ Indians."
Romanians are not in any way related to Indians/gypsies. Only SOME Romanians are mixed with gypsies/Indians. I gave you a whole history lesson on this. Bascially Romanians are Indo-Europeans. Gypsies/Indians ARE NOT Indo-Europeans. When the Ottoman Empire took over you could say they gave some Romanians a more "middle eastern" look. However, then you should claim that Romanians are somewhat related to "middle eastern" people and not Indians/gypsies since they are two different things... Indians/Gypsies were not part of the Ottoman Empire. You are not stupid so either A) You don't read my comments and jump to conclusions or B) You just like to bask in ignorance...
The photo of the woman you posted was misleading. I concluded that her nose looked piggish because it seemed that her head was not tilted enough to display her nostrils like that, so therefore her nose must have been upturned to start out with. I like that woman's nose. Her nose is more romantic and elegant in my opinion. However, this doesn't really make a point. It seems from the examples you post that most Scandinavian Nords have the upturned noses, that sometimes can even be a bit robust even when they are small. There are many Scandinavians with nice noses, however in no way do they ALL have extremely attractive noses. I mentioned before that in my opinions Nordics like Germans, Irish, even English often display nice noses than specifically Scandinavian noses...
You try to point out that Eastern Europeans have hooked noses. Is there a reason that you constantly bring up Romanians? You say that personal attacks are uncalled for, however what is this? I have not claimed that Romanians have the most attractive noses, only that you can find more "elegant" noses among groups like Romanians over Scandinavians. I have not stated that more Romanians have better noses than Scandinavians however. Besides, I believe the noses in Italy and Germany to be overall nicer than most Romanian and Eastern European noses...
I just personally do not like Scandinavian noses. I like Nordic noses, like German or Irish noses. However, not Scandinavian noses. I am sure many people would agree with me...
You have no really good points. My assumption is that you posted the photo of that woman in such a misleading way, because in that photo her nose looks shorter compared to her other photos. When I comment on what a more "ideal" nose is, you then post photos of her with a longer more elegant nose. You try to paint a picture in a biased way. It doesn't work.
The girl whose nose you wrote "piggish" under has a perfect and straight nose. In no way is it piggish. You seem very..eager..to find faults with drop-dead gorgeous Nordic girls, however perfectly outrageous and ridiculous the claims may be.
I suppose when you have a large, hooked, sorry.."roman" nose, it is more comfortable to find faults in others than to see one's own physical shortcomings.
Now, this was the picture you wrote "piggish" under. A shot from an angle that will expose the nose from underneath. As anyone can see it is a gorgeous girl with a perfect, cute and straight nose. It is not Slavic, not hooked, droopy, three miles long, large or masculine. That's why you had to write something negative about it. That's obvious to everybody. Envy disgusts me.
Here are more pictures of this girl;
To get some perspective on things, these are Romanians. No risk of any pig noses there. More likely gigantic, hooked, droopy, loooong, masculine noses that stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe since Romanians are closely related to gypsies/ Indians.
Saying these types of noses are romantic is a joke. Nordic perfect noses are romantic, Eastern European/ Slavic ones are not. They are often the types they operate on in order to get a decent look, and when they do, guess what type of nose they try to emulate? The Nordic one. Go figure.
Romanian woman from Satu-Mare;
I think I understand why Erik's views come across as so off-base to people who find Victoria's Secret models highly attractive. The facial and body features that Erik labels "masculine" are what most people would call "androgynous". When he complains that high-fashion models often resemble (lean) adolescent boys, he has simply noticed that they share many androgynous features in common. Males and females come in a wide variety of body types, and there is a broad range of overlapping features that both sexes share.
Erik appears to assume that masculine and feminine attributes develop in opposition, and that any degree of masculinity in a female detracts from her feminine qualities. This leads him to react negatively to models who exhibit elegantly androgynous features in an unmistakably feminine context. Highly defined cheekbones and a sharp, delicate jawline do not make a petite, feminine face look masculine, they give the woman who possesses them strikingly androgynous looks which most people find more attractive than a typically bland female face.
In short, Erik is a "heterosexual-exclusive" man who finds anything other than completely feminine women to be unattractive. He thinks that any woman with androgynous features looks transsexual, and suspects any man who finds her attractive is potentially "gay".
An eating disorder is very similar to an addiction treatment. Eating in a bad manner is an automatism built with time and because of certain events. This can be changed, but don't think it will go away by snapping your fingers. You need a while to rewrite the bad patterns.
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.
Swedish women;
As for longer noses there are Nordic noses that are longer, too, but they are not too long and therefore don't lose their femininity like Slavic noses often do. Sure, a larger and longer nose adds strenght but it makes the overall impression more masculine.
I don't think very long noses, like the ones seen in Eastern Europe, are appealing in women, especially not when also droopy or hooked. Ekaterina's nose is an example of this.
Diana was very pretty but not at all with a typical Scandinavian nose. The British have much larger and more often hooked noses, so they don't compare to Scandinavian/Germanic noses. Her nose was not her best feature, and the one making her face more masculine.
"Long-nosed" Swedish girls,
Princess Diana's nose was very elegant although not straight. However, it added to her ethereal beauty. She is a classic and so is her beautiful and attractive nose:
Princess Diana is the classic Nordic princess. She had such a beauty. It was a very soft, refined beauty, and a very strong beauty. She looks classic, elegant, romantic, and refined. This is the beauty we all strive for.
Compare her nose to Camilla's nose:
Diana's nose is far more elegant...
See this girl doesn't have an upturned or upcurved nose. It is more attractive because of this. It is also slighty longer, making it more attractive. A nose like this is really attractive in my opinion:
Although, if you want a more "recognizable" different face I would suggest a nose with a bit more character than this one. It would still be attractive and make the face more unique and recognizable.
I think often what people don't understand either is that facial features that make a face "different" or "recognizable" are more attractive to people. Yes, there are features everyone is attracted to. However, many times a feautre with character can overide that because we find that unusal feature to add to the person more.
My boyfriend squints when he laughs! I guess the ideal attractive thing is when you keep your eyes open when you laugh, and it looks good. I used to hate it when people squinted and laughed, I didn't find it attractive... However, when my boyfriend does it it looks soo cute and I find it very attractive. He is very masucline (really tall) so that adds to him because it does go against his masculinity it seemes. Although his masculinity is what attracted me to him, that part of him that makes him less masculine at that time also attracts me...These are things people are attracted to...
I truly believe that more elegant, less upturned, a bit longer noses (than the examples you post,not long in general), are more attractive. They make the face look graceful,refined,elegant and romantic, especially if the rest of your face goes well with this nose. My face for example is rounded as I have a rounded jaws, low cheekbones that are full. My nose is more romanesque and thin like Roman noses. Therefore a round face and thin nose don't seem to match that well, although my nose is one of the features that makes me look a bit more adult...
Yes upturned noses are more feminine, however too much femininity is not always good and is not ideally attractive. I believe attractive people are farther on the feminine scale, however too far and you lose appeal. An upturned nose that is too upturned is really really feminine in my opinion and loses its appeal. You want to see some nostril, but not too much. Even if the nostrils are small, it doesn't matter. For example, my boyfriend showed me he likes noses that show a bit of nostril (not totally absolutley downturned), but not too much, and aren't too small...
Marilyn Monroe had a nose on the more elegant side:
It is longer, although not LONG, it is not upturned or curved upward, but straight. And yes I do believe a nose with a slight bump on it, or even some hooked noses are more elegant than too curved upturned noses...
Pages