Your comment on self esteem is correct and i agree with it, however emily is not in my opinion an example of someone with high self esteem. She is an open fraud. Emily gives the impression through her insults/non stop negative comments on east asians that she is proud of her nordic looks and dissasociates herself from east asians on the basis of there looks but through insulting them she actually associates herlself/race on there level and puts her races beauty on there level. Her arrogance is open where as a truly proud person who believed there race/group of people were the best looking would have a silent arrogance about them and the last thing they would do is associate themselves in any way to that group whoose looks they so detested. On reading all her posts one cannot fail to genuinely wonder weather emily is playing a semantic game and weather she actually believes nordics are as good looking as people of some other races/groups out there or weather simply that is what she would like to believe.....
Thats the widest nose Ive ever seen..How shes become a supermodel beats me!
Her eyebrws are ridiculously thick, and its because her facial efatres are so large, even her teeth, that she must have big eyebrows to make her eyes not look so bad..Imagibe her witrh thin eyebrows..It would look bad..Also, because her nose is so broad, thats why she always her hair flowitn over the isde and never pulled backk..She doesnt have a strong jawbone like other models and thats why its always out..I saw a picon the covber of Glamour and slick back doesnt suit her because of her profile..her hair is always in the same way because her features are so braod that its the only look she can pull off..Hair draping over the side gives lenght to the face and makes it appear longer..length she doesnt have..she has width..too much of it, and somehow,. hasd made it far in modelling..i ahave seen her nose profile on facebook, and itshorrible..shes got a bump on her top nose..I think she needs it done badly..
Ive seen her in real life..Ive seen hottergirls, and her feautures look like someone has compressed her face length wise..Definitely an abnormality..who made her supermodel tell me!! im sick of seeing her in magazines she has no place in..Reserve it for cat eye strong jawed model\s with medium noses..Adrainna loks very similar to Miranda, without the wierd wideness.Miranda look worng if you ask me!
You also adress that you appreciate masculine men and feminine women? Why is something not adding up?
Because a masculine man must have a masculine mother to be masculine and attractive. Therefore you indirectly VALUE masculine women.
A feminine woman has to have a feminine daughter. However a feminine woman has feminine sons as well. So since Nordic women on average are the most feminine do they have the highest frequency of feminine men?
This is interesting. Please explain how it is related to genetics. Please explain why Nordics frown upon pride, etc.
I honestly have not noticed this trend. I do have some Nordic family, although I myself am not Nordic, only a little bit but not fully. They are probably your typical Nords: blue eyes, blonde hair, long oval faces, tall, etc. They DO NOT have low-self esteem. They have high-self esteem. All of them are pretty successful and all of them are proud of themselves. They don't rub it in your face, but you can tell that they are proud of what they have accomplished and there is nothing wrong with that. There might be one or two of them that don't have the best self-esteem, but this is normal within any family of any background. Most of my family on my Nordic side have a healthy self-esteem, healthy lifestyle,are successful, etc.
Erik,
I don't know how this is possible but today the tone of your message was ....nice. So you can be nice :)
I can speak personally and say i have never once said/generalized that Nordics are "ugly or this and that". After all most of the attention i get is from Nordics (to my utter delight) lol
I need to go back and refresh my memory on who "started" the exchange of words BUT if some person did say something "negative" about Nordics. That does not give Emily any right to speak "ill" of other races and that too on different posts (if you are aware) and continuously.
For example, I have not said anything offensive about your family (some people referred to it) or anything too bad to you even though you made unflattering and "unimpressive"/already known conclusions/equivalents about nonheterosexuals.
Regarding self esteem, yes i am aware that mental illness "supposedly" runs in families. But Erik my "message" is one of empowerment and betterment of humanity. I had everything working against me - mental illness, low self esteem, poverty, homophobia, racism etc etc BUT i rose beyond all that. I think sometimes telling people that their low self esteem is due to genetics, gives a sense of "hopelessness" after all its in your genes and you can't change that. We as people can empower ourselves against all odds.
So yes you can show me peer reviewed journals of scientists who tell me that my low self esteem is genetic (high likelihood) But i as a person can sulk with that information or try to improve myself and maybe prove that notion false........which i have done brilliantly!
Lastly i wanted to add, Godis mentioned she is 20 and i am 24. You are 34, well versed in statistics, some science and research - keep this in mind when you say things like "you won't understand"
Peter: I have not exactly defended Emily. She has committed some sins, and I will discuss them in response to an earlier comment by you, later. And there is nothing along the lines of dual standards by me. Emily’s first comments were on an article addressing the Nordic nose. She was responding to disparaging comments on Nordics. I had let those disparaging comments stand without any comment by me. So no dual standards here. I will explain more later.
Of course, self-esteem can vary within an individual and across time in a population, and I did not imply otherwise, but it is meaningful to talk about baseline averages (especially affected by genetics) and population averages. I didn’t say Nordics have low self-esteem; I said it is on average lower than in many populations. Again, you, like Godis, cannot see a reason why it has to be this way. But there do not have to be any reasons related to education or achievements or colonial history or other things along these lines. Think of genetics.
Erik,
Now before you start to attack/bully me i just wanted to add my two cents. NOTE: I am not starting anything off-topic, I simply responding to some issues brought on this page.
First of all .... good job "defending" Emily. I expected this of you. If you want i can post her exact words to show you how offensive and "racist" they are towards East Asians....and i am not even East Asian. But i am sure you don't want that or even want to consider warning her not to do so.
Secondly in regards to self esteem. Again like mental illness it can be variable through out life. I myself had below average self esteem when i was 16 or something but now at 24 i have above average confidence and this has been steady the past few years. Getting older, becoming more comfortable with oneself, education etc are contributors.
Thirdly please don't use/rely on statistics/equivalents so much! The vast majority of Nordics i have met, did not have low self esteem and i do not see any reason why Nordics should have low self esteem. They are lovely people :)
The days of Erik (no "pun" intended) the red settling Greenland, European colonialism etc are over. Some Nordics shouldn't look to these as means of self evaluation/self worth etc.
Erik please don't be angry with me....I stuck to in topic "discussions" and made this post short and sweet :)
Godis: Honey, I gave you an extensive, fairly recent, scientific literature review on self-esteem, published by mainstream academics in a peer-reviewed science journal. You told me it is bullshit! Incidentally, the review I cited doesn’t go into the genetics part, and I can only think of how much you will be pleased by coming across it.
Why will I claim that Northern Europeans are born with higher self-esteem? The reality is that Northern Europeans on average have lower self-esteem than many, possibly most populations, including those populations that compared to Northern Europeans have effectively no accomplishments or features to celebrate or be proud of. Nordic culture frowns upon pride. Why is this so? Think of genetic involvement.
Northern European achievement speaks for itself. Think how much of it is due to a disproportionate number among them not contended with who they are such that they strive to better themselves and exceed themselves in order to find themselves or life worthy.
I actually happen to think that Deborah from Karupspc is really attractive. I'm a straight girl so what do I know? But she has an extremely pleasant face. I think if you are going to show an example of how Nordics are attractive, she would be a good face for it. Why is she taken out? Her face is so pretty and feminine!
Let me state it again: You're views of self-esteem ARE an embarrassment to the concept of self-esteem. The research you gave me was bullshit, much like any evidence you provide on this website to support your claims! Self-esteem is NOT genetic. I suppose now you are going to claim that "Nordics" are born with higher self-esteem as well? Get your head out of your ass Erik.
I am a middle-aged woman, and stumbled on this site while researching facial feminization surgery. For those who don't know, FFS is a series of cosmetic surgical procedures recommended for male-to-female transsexuals in order to create a convincing feminine face. Some good examples here: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/FFS/LynnsFFS.html
The reason I am researching FFS is that I am a masculine-looking woman. My father had very hypermasculine features; i.e. a large nose and chin, prominent brow line and sharp jaw, and I am a chip off the old block. I am in no way ugly, and have never been accused of being so; I just don't look feminine or "pretty." Having recently entered menopause, the effect is becoming exaggerated. I have been called "sir" twice in the last month when I was out without makeup. Since my current relationship is on the rocks and I anticipate being out there on the market soon, I am wondering if the procedures used for FFS could help improve my odds with the male sex.
In any event, I believe the only objectionable thing I have seen on here is your insistence on a specific body aesthetic. Research has shown that men are attracted to hourglass figures, but I believe the face is actually much more significant, since being with an attractive woman conveys social status and the face is easily visible. And, I have known several male-to-female transsexuals, and as long as they had convincingly feminine faces, men overlooked broad shoulders and narrow hips and found them quite attractive.
"You can abase yourself and insult me all you want to. This site deals with shallow issues such as beauty and physical appearance. So why are YOU here?"
Are you telling me this whole issue has no importance? And besides, why are you crying about being insulted when YOU'RE trashing virtually all non-nordics in existence?
"Femininity is not the same thing as arrested physical development, or women looking like pubescent girls. Sometimes the truth is not what you want to hear."
I know what femininity it is. And there you go comparing all east asian women posted here to "little girls". That must just be your own vitrolically biased, idiotic perceptions.
"It is still the truth."
If you had actually read a damn thing I said, I didn't deny women with facial features shifted towards a northern european average aren't universally desired. I just take qualms with your ridiculous assumption of almost ANYTHING outside of this mythical "nordic ideal" being lousy compared to it. That's exactly what you're doing.
"I am sick of the false information about Nordic women that I saw here in many threads."
And in my case, I'm sick of much of the false information spread about non-nordic women spread around here. You, though, seem to be going to an extremity by attacking the looks of virtually all non-nordic women.
"This bashing had been going on without ANYONE saying a thing, except Erik."
There's been plenty of nordic fetishists on this site.
"Had I been negative towards Nordics you wouldn't have said a thing since my views then would have been in line with your preferred version of the truth."
You assume too much. I'm against any of these idiotic ideals of racial beauty espoused in this kind of debate. You're just one type of extremist. For example, I've often seen people who go on about how poorly whites age compared to other races, attributing this almost entirely to their lower melanin levles, when this is due to innumerable other factors, such as facial fat loss rates etc. East asians have only slightly to moderately darker skin than nordics on average, yet they age almost as well as black africans.
"Indians, blacks and Asians cannot get over the fact that the Nordic/Germanic white woman is the standard of beauty."
Must be hard to get over something that doesn't exist. See, there's a difference between "shifted towards northern european norms" and "entirely within northern european norms". You're arguing for the insane former.
"How sad. I must be a terrible person for speaking the truth. Political correctness doesn't allow that, you see, while bashing of white women seems to be encouraged and is never criticized."
There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth. It just so happens you're full of shit. And you EMBRACE this idiocy. You act so hilariously arrogant, childish, snobbish and crude. You're despicable.
"Asians are not most people's idea of beauty. With few exceptions they need to be mixed with whites in order to look truly attractive, as do Indians and blacks."
Hahhaha, asians needing white admixture to look attractive? I've often heard people from your camp saying blacks need white admixture to look attractive, but never in the case of east asians. Where's your evidence for any of this bullshit?
"A pure Nordic girl doesn't need black, Asian, Indian and slavic blood in order to enhance her appearance."
Proof of this? I've provided concise anthropological evidence, from THIS VERY SITE, on how women considered attractive by koreans fall greatly outside of attractive white female averages. You just keep providing your own personal bial.
And you mention slavics as well? Slavs are pretty closely related to northern europeans. There's not much of a difference between the two physically either. You sure are one elitist little shit, aren't you?
"They need ours, apparently, or why else do they always show pictures of half-white models and actresses when they purport to show Asian, black and Indian beauty?"
"Asians constantly remodel their faces in order to look less Asian, so what does that say about Asian beauty? An ideal face doesn't need a complete make-over in order to look like something it is not."
And are these shifted so heavily within attractive northern european averages? Answer me. I've often seen people like you remark on the case of eyelid surgery among east asians, often ignoring how east asians barely had a preference, if any, for this prior to western contact, and how many east asians only have very partial eyelid surgeries overall.
"By the way, the girls you posted look like the ones pedophiles are attracted to, so I don't think they help your case in any way."
"Oooooh, only pedophiles would like girls like these!"
There you go again with your arrogant bullshit. Those women only had their faces showing, so pray tell, what looks so childish about them? I swear to god, I could probably throw as many attractive east asian women at you as possible, and you'd still be screaming they look like something a pedophile would go for.
"The "little girl" stereotype is heavily underlined. I don't think women who look like they popped out from the womb in embryo form and never developed are feminine or attractive."
Jesus christ. They look like babies to you? What would be a good-looking east asian woman to you, then? You're such a ridiculous asshole.
"In the beginning they look like this...
And that doesn't change much over time..."
I've already mentioned how testosterone differences account for much of the differences in femininity between whites and east asians. While having such low testosterone levels can cause a significant amount of population's women- and males as well- to look too pedomorhpic, this is a genetic trait that can change greatly over a period of a few generations, even within someone's life time, and thus can't be considered a true "racial average", such as the case of cranio-facial structure, skin color, hair color and structure, and eye color. It's pointless for you to mention this, as is the case of body proportions and other such physical differences.
"Even Nordic athletes look better than Asian cheerleaders whose job it is to look good."
Uh, yeah, and none of those nordic cheerleaders look attractive at all. At best, some of them are average- others are very homely, masculine, or have very asymmetrical facial features. While they're much alot better than those east asian cheerleaders, some whom look outright repulsive, those nordic cheerleaders aren't attractive either.
Remember, we've been talking about "ideals" the entire time here. You act as if the vast majority of nordic women fall within a racial ideal respective to their ethnic group. That's not even remotely true at all.
Erik,
Ok Thank you and good luck. I hope you put your intelligence to "good use". Some facts are better not brought to light for "ethical" reasons such as Nordics having the highest frequency of good looking/fine featured people, homosexuals most likely suffering from mental illness, molesting children etc.
I ask you how would you feel if some scientists came to the conclusion that the "group" you belong to has the most likelihood of child molestors? mentally ill people? and people's general opinion of your ethnic group's looks was not high? Can you imagine how it feels? especially when one did not choose to be born that way. I think i can imagine what some "masculine" women might be feeling after reading material from this site. I am sorry to you all but please be comforted by the fact that there is someONE out there for you even though the majority seemingly "prefer" something else.
I will not be bothering you again Erik.
Peter: I gave you a link to a website where you can post your homosexuality-related questions and asked you to not post off-topic issues here. But you have not listened. Your kind of questions waste my time and I have no choice but to defend myself. Consider yourself warned. No more off-topic questions at this website.
I am compelled to answer your questions because I strongly reject accusations of misusing statistical data.
I gave you a link about the data showing a clear strong relation between nonheterosexuality and sexual interest in children. You have not disputed anything in it, and you must not dispute it at this website, but at the homosexuality site. What you have brought up is molestations within heterosexual families, but the fact remains that heterosexual families do not necessarily comprise of heterosexuals. As I have mentioned repeatedly, most homosexual interests have occurred in predominantly heterosexual people, and these individuals are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, obviously. The tendency for same-sex attraction to cluster with sexual interest in children is strong and very clear. Try disputing this. It is clear that either factors leading to same-sex attraction increase the odds of sexual interest in children or vice versa. This is an empirical find and the homosexuals can do nothing but come up with sophistry to refute this.
In the U.S. the promiscuity of whites is intermediate; some ethnic groups are more promiscuous, other less. So what? This is not an issue under discussion. It does not show that I am misusing statistics. It does nothing to refute the contention that sexual interest in children is more common among nonheterosexuals. Why do you digress?
Beliefs about white promiscuity held by Asians are of no relevance. The data from probability samples is of relevance. I am not citing people’s beliefs about nonheterosexuals being more likely to be child molesters, but published data.
Why should I be explaining to you why mental illness is more common in homosexuals? There is much on this that I have written and a lot of it, including the gist, is freely accessible online. You must make the effort to read it and I can be of no help to you if you are unable to understand it.
Of course, I do realize that mental illnesses do not have to be a permanent condition. There is nothing that I have ever written that implies otherwise. One can certainly have a meaningful comparison of two groups with respect to any mental illness diagnosis in lifetime or symptoms within the past year. Any way you look at it, the nonheterosexuals are more mentally ill.
The 50% divorce statistic in America is likely false. The true figure should be still substantial, but this statistic and your other examples about rates of mental illnesses are irrelevant since you are using them as examples of statistical data that should not be used to target groups. Your assumption is that I am using the data on homosexuals to ‘target’ them as a group. My intentions with the data have been to seek an understanding of nonheterosexuality. Just because I have come to unflattering conclusions does not mean that my intentions have been to ‘target’ the group. What the public thinks of mental illness is of no relevance. I have used notions of mental illnesses in modern psychiatry even though a conclusion of mine is not consistent with a gay-lobby-concocted position statement of official psychiatry organizations.
There is nothing in the statistics that I have presented that should make you ‘a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces".’ The statistics that I have presented are about differences in prevalence, and you have again ignored the note about statistical distribution I left in a comment above. Do you realize why I recommend that you should avoid reading my arguments on homosexuality? The answer is that you do not have sufficient background for the understanding. People with an interest in homosexuality, an open mind and sufficient education will want to read it regardless of their orientation, profession or beliefs . You seem to have the interest but not the education, and I am not sure about the open mind part.
Other issues: Don’t waste my time asking about the Spice girls. Yes, I am exclusively heterosexual. I don’t need polls about the women I am selecting. Most people going through this site will not bother and malicious individuals will not provide their honest opinion. What I need is free time to improve this site, and you must not waste my time or your comments are unwelcome.
Erik,
alright now that you have "clarified" yourself. You don't like feminine looks in men and i don't like men with below average to average self confidence. Confidence level being more important to me than looks, I myself have above average confidence. Just out of curiousity and this is a personal question. What is your orientation? strictly heterosexual, narrowly escaped heterosexual etc?
About Statistics....Lets see if i can explain this. If i am looking at child molestors, most of them happen to be related to children. (As well most incestuous child relationships happen in "heterosexual" families). So i can come up with a statistic that a child is more likely to be molested by someone "heterosexual" in the family. Do you understand what i am trying to say?
As well if i am looking for "uninhibited" sex across ethnic groups even in North America...what do you suspect my findings might reveal? White heterosexuals and homosexuals are more likely to engage in such behaviour compared to their ethnic counterparts. So must i conclude from this that White people are more "promiscuous"? I know your aware that this is the "belief" held by many Middle Easterns/South Asians/East Asians of White people.
Looking at this mental illness that you have mentioned about homosexuals. Why do you think that is? Do you think homosexuals have an easy life.....family acceptance, societal abuse, jobs etc. So is it surprising that many have mental illnesses???
Do you realize mental illness does not have to be a permenant, life long situation? A person interviewed about mental illness can not suffer from its symptoms a few years later? So using that person as a "statistic" a few years later is ok?
Consider this information....About 50% of marriages end in divorce in North America (mostly white), children of divorce/single families have higher rates of mental illness, new immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, women of ethnic minorities (such as Muslim women facing cultural constraints by their male realtives) have higher rates of mental illness.....WOMEN have a higher rate of mental illness than men!
So if i use some of the statistics and "target" a group is that good? What if that target is non heterosexual men?
I personally don't let statistics cloud my judgement. Mental illness is very "easily" used these days. For example i can say you "suffer" from some kind of mental illness based on what i know about you. When people think of mental illness they think of extremes....psychiatric hospitals, locked up etc. Mental illness is very variant and indefinite. So i don't think targeting a group is fair. I can come up with a statistic saying African Americans are more likely to suffer from mental illness because of poverty, lack of jobs etc.
According to "your statistics" I should be a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces" BUT i am far removed from it.
i did not say USE polls from those websites. I meant using polls on this site!!! Such as in the attractive women category where people can leave their opinion in terms of polls. It will make for a more "unbiased" opinion. You are choosing and posting pics of women that you think are feminine/attractive. What if there was a poll and most people found one to be more/less attractive. At least it will tell you how uninformed we regular people are? Its a good way to get more interactive with this website.
"I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it." ~ ERIK
Do you realize what you just wrote?
So your saying somethings about homosexuals/bisexuals through "data/statistics" you have collected and it should not be of concern to another homosexual? So who is this information directed at? Homophobic white male population? religious groups?
Erik you mention many times ...you won't understand this....you won't understand that. I do WANT to understand/learn. I know some homosexuals/bisexuals who will flat out reject it and never bother with it but i want to understand. I don't believe its a good idea to tell people not to come back to your site, stop reading, not understanding etc. If you are trying to bring your point across whatever it might be (feminine beauty/homosexuals). Do you think academia visit your website? or do you just want "yes men"/ people who agree with you to be on this site and anyone who doesn't obviously hasn't read everything or "stupid" enough not to figure it out.
I like learning from you Erik...oh i forgot to ask you
I mentioned Spice girls before (I was/am a huge fan obviously) did you "appreciate" any of their looks?
Cheers
Godis: You think my views on self-esteem are an embarrassment to the concept of self-esteem? Read the research for yourself. I know of more hard-hitting research findings. Your conceptualization of self-esteem has been widely held and still harbored by many, but debunked in recent years. Self-esteem levels have a lot to do with genetics, and this is the reason why you can’t think of a reason why my self-esteem levels are somewhere from below average to average in spite of having “a good head.” There does not have to be a reason; genetics is involved. And you must understand the clear finding: prejudice against others or a lower opinion of others tends to go with high self-esteem, not low self-esteem.
If you insist that Emily is trying to put down non-Nordics in the looks department, then her self-esteem is most likely high, but Emily could just very well be stating factual matters. How does one decide? By having a proper debate, not attacking the character or motives of a person. Emily has never made an argument that she looks good because she is a Nordic. Her argument is that she looks good because that is how it is; she also happens to be a Nordic and finds that Nordics have a much higher frequency of good looking people among them compared to other populations, based on widely shared criteria of beauty. Anyone who disputes this should engage her in sound debate.
You believe that Hitler fed on the low-self-esteem of Germans? Before the Nazis came to power, Germany was in shambles economically. Many countries today are heading toward the situation in Weimar Germany. Do you see an epidemic of low self-esteem or people rioting because of anger? Look at what happened in Iceland. A prosperous country went bankrupt on short notice. Did the Icelanders start brooding over how they have failed their society or did they take to the streets, well-aware that banking parasites caused the collapse? In its pure form, the Vikings’ spirit would have resulted in the banking parasites and their acolytes in the government being publicly hung. The spirit has unfortunately apparently mellowed or these filthy parasites would have been sent to Hell, but the mellowing has little to do with self-esteem.
The Nazis also clearly admired the Northern European phenotype but only half of Germans were ethnically Northern European. So do you think that Hitler and the Nazis were trying to make the Germans feel superior to non-Germans? And if you believe that the Nazis regarded even those Germans who didn’t measure up as superior because they were German, you surely have not heard of the “Untermensch” or the undermen or specifically the undesirables among white Germans.
Peter: Your emails were sent to an address I use for this site. I will not be responding to off-topic comments in it either. This has nothing to do with you but I don’t have the time to respond to matters related to this site, let alone off-topic issues. I will get around to answering your emails when I have the time.
I have a site on homosexuality where you can challenge my views, and in some form or the other it has been around much longer than this site, but I have not responded to comments or updated it for over an year. So your comments there will have to wait for a response, and chances are very high that my response, not anytime soon for sure, will be a dismissal of your straw men or caricatures. I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it.
I have never appreciated feminine looks in men. So rest assured I will not like your looks, and this has nothing to do with deviation from the norm; just my preference. The only looks in men that I have any respect or liking for are very masculine looks; mere masculine looks are only acceptable to me in the face. This is in contrast to my liking for women’s looks, which ranges from the slightly masculine to the feminine but not extremely feminine, leaning overwhelmingly toward the feminine side of average. I have stated my preferences here but when I talked about people’s preferences in general, there was a need to mention them.
Your comment mentions the scenario “… More feminine women are accepted into porn …” Pornographers are not declining feminine women; there just is a natural shortage of them. In any case, pornographers would rather sell 5 videos with one attractive woman each than one video with 5 attractive women…business interests are play. So it is unlikely that we will see a lot of porn full of attractive feminine women, which heterosexual men will surely appreciate if it came out. The “good girl to take home to Mom” is irrelevant to enjoying pornography or appreciating the physical attractiveness of a nude model. The goal of this site is to go mainstream with feminine beauty promotion, and this means definitely avoiding porn stars and preferably also nude models. This is the reason why I am not pleased to come across a model that I could use but it turns out she is a porn star; her porn work does nothing to change my opinion of her physical attractiveness. At some point I will come up with a mainstream version of this site, minus the science and the nudity. I will avoid nude models there.
Married men with children who have sex with men are obviously not exclusively heterosexual. One of the groups I mentioned comprised of people who are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but had homosexual interests in the past, which went away. This has repeatedly been documented in probability sampling of the general population. It is not like all these people are liars. Some have lost their homosexual inclinations completely, and some people reporting this are older individuals that did not seek homosexual encounters even though they could have. You want to take a look at these studies… you know where to look them up. This is an off-topic issue for this website.
Statistics are not just “that.” They are required for making one’s case empirically, and if they are misused, then it is possible to document misuse. Polling askmen or bastardly is a waste of time. They will not yield probability samples. I have much better data: controlled laboratory studies, data from probability sampling, etc.
I have never gone from “finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females.” Finer facial features are a different matter from narrowness-breadth, and I have never wavered from a preference for finer facial features. And the breadth issue is a shape one, the feminine ones being wider if other things are held constant, and again I have never wavered from overwhelmingly preferring feminine faces in women; the only examples where you would see me with appreciation for somewhat masculinized faces in women is when the masculinization is accompanied by fine facial features.
Petite: I don’t care how intellectual you are as long as you exhibit an understanding of my arguments. I am not one who responds to dissent by saying that the person is incapable of understanding me, but this is my response when I encounter straw men or caricatures of my arguments.
You acknowledge that men will generally like the more feminine women, with hourglass figures, over other women. So there should be no exchange between the two of us. The reason there is an exchange is because you are ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold.
Again, you say, ‘I disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual"’ but where have I ever said this? Some homosexuals/bisexuals have told me they like the looks of the feminine women I have been showing over those of fashion models. But the statistical tendency should be clear…which group is more likely to prefer what. Group differences are what matter to this site in so far as the site purpose of promoting feminine beauty goes. For instance, the reason fashion models typically look the way they do is not because of the preference of a single individual but because of the central tendency of the preferences of the dominant fashion designers, the manifestation of which is constrained by what they can get away with it, and it should be very clear that this central tendency has nothing whatsover to do with the central tendency of women’s looks preferences among heterosexual men. The existence of heterosexual men attracted to less feminine or slightly masculinized women does nothing to change this.
I also have not declared some men as nonheterosexual no matter what kind of women they are attracted to. You again forget the existence of bisexuals, some of whom are predominantly heterosexual but harbor some homosexual attraction. Some men are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but have experienced some homosexual attraction as teenagers. What is so difficult in understanding that if these men are attracted to men and women (or were at some point) then they could be attracted to masculinized women? I am not going to judge someone’s sexual orientation based on his woman, but sometimes you get multiple cues and then you can wonder.
I know that many homosexual men are into effeminate men just as many of them are into masculine men. So what? The effeminate men are still more masculine than masculine women, on average. The preferences of homosexuals are more variable than those of heterosexuals (among whom there also is plenty of variability). So what? Don’t just focus on homosexuals. Focus on the two groups: lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals and others (conveniently labeled nonheterosexuals; 15-20% of the population). Do you think there are no central tendency differences between these groups? Should this central tendency difference not be intuitive? I know it would be nice to cite some scholarly studies that show these differences regarding ratings of women’s looks, but science-oriented researchers usually ignore the phenomenon that the majority of people that have experienced homosexual interests at some point are predominantly or exclusively heterosexual in adulthood, and the methods they employ are often close to useless for discerning the nuances of attraction.
Don’t waste you time with individual preferences when they are not relevant to this site’s purpose, and you must make an effort to understand my arguments.
Erik
I fogot to mention something. There are other ways of enhancing breast size. I know many transgendered people who have larger breasts than real women. There is such a thing as "pills" you know what i am talking about...that can make a woman more feminine looking.
I personally like this idea of videos that you post some of them with sound. I enjoyed the video of Dasha and another girl who had a feminine voice. I think fcr people to fully appreciate feminine beauty as much as they can it would be great to post more videos...where you can hear there voice, see them in motion. Synesthesia!
I am sorry Erik for calling you somethings...but some of the comments you made/make hurt me.
Ahhh so its come to this :(
Ok i understand, this is your website and you have asked me...so i will try my best to stick to the topic BUT in my defense what other means did i have of bringing up some of the off topic issues? I e-mailed you twice but did not hear from you, plus you don't have a similar site on homosexuality where i can "challenge" some of your ideas. I notice that you usually respond to messages that "attack" you or your reasoning.
That was a little interesting you mentioning that you wouldn't find my "feminine" looks attractive. Can i say Ouch?..You have not even seen me? So how can you even answer this? "Most people find masculinity in men attractive"...and that is your reasoning for not finding my looks attractive?....because they deviate from the norm? Why do you always have to bring up/stick to the norm? Do you not have anything that stands out? (your intelligence comes to mind...)
That affected me ... a little. But then this is where we differ, I don't need statistics or media to "decide" what is or should be more attractive to me :)
Besides i was going to e-mail you pictures of me but didn't want to just send them without establishing contact.
Erik you did not understand my comments on promiscuous mascline and "boring" feminine (off course these terms are not representative). Many times on this site you have mentioned how it is hard to find "revealing" pictures of feminine women. Also you have mentioned that the women who you have used are not the "best" out there. Leading one to believe that somewhere out there, there is a heavenly feminine beauty who due to being "feminine" will not expose herself. You have also mentioned many times that masculinized women are more likely to engage in promiscous/more "open" sexual behaviours. And so lets say for arguments sake this is changed...More feminine women are accepted into porn but they are less likely to engage in more "sexy" behaviours. Do you think most heterosexual men would like that?
I am sure your aware of the term "good girl to take home to Mom" vs "girl id like to screw". Which would Jennifer Love Hewitt/ Sarah Michelle Geller fall in? Pamela Anderson? If the former posed nude would that change anything? (I am sure the two mentioned actresses must have done some nudity in movies but can't remember). I know many guys who like wholesome, feminine girls (much like some of the girls on this site) and any hint of promiscouity from them means interest lost. Yes we do categorize women just like you do :)
Hmmm i am reminded of a comment you made in a page about a glamour model you discovered did porn and how you were "not pleased" to find this out. Don't worry, there are many guys like you out there, who think the same way. So maybe some guys loose "interest" after knowing a particular woman/actress acted in a sex scene/equivalent. Back to the Pamela Anderson situation, during that era many men did find the "good girls" Jennifer and Sarah more attractive but if they did what Pamela did ...fans of "feminine" looks in them would not be as interested. Do you understand what i am trying to say? i can't quite put my finger on it....
Regarding the 20% "homosexual/bisexual/pansexual" statistic. Where are the statistics that men who have participated in homosexual activities in the past (most likely adolescent/teen years) are not going to repeat if the oppertunity presented itself? I know plenty of married men with children who sleep with guys and will never admit to it openly for obvious reasons.
Regarding the paedophilia and homosexuality, I have noticed you using these in the same sentence many times and will do more research into it. But I find it very hard to believe. Men deviate most from childlike characteristics compared to women. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is sexually attracted to children would be attracted to men...expecially with body/facial hair etc.
Statistics are just that! They can be used by anybody to prove a point. I do not entirely believe in these. Instead of using some "older, white, straight, North American men's biased" statistics why don't you do some of your own (would they be free of bias)? I am sure you are aware of polling/votes on sites such as askmen and Bastardly (which you must love?). Why have you never had a poll here? asking readers if they found a particular woman attractive??? You will be surprised! I only see that as an improvement and another way for the reader to get involved.
In the end, always a pleasure learning from you (I will admit to it) but please don't think i have not read or am not aware of your work. I know what you said a few years back. For example this change from the finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females is quite the change! I have not obviously read every single detail you mentioned but enough to remember many things you mentioned so i am not that bad...At least i am not coming and asking you why a woman with an angular chin/jaw has a masculine jawline/chin.
Coming to my looks again....Heterosexual men like femininity. Many "straight" men have said that i am pretty/feminine and if i was a girl they would...Not to mention many drunk straight guys coming on to me. So i definately don't agree with what you said, from the perspective of heterosexual men.
Anyways Have a good weekend end Erik :)
Muuuuaaaaahhh!
Peter: Your comment about feminine beauty being pointless or being inaccessible to heterosexual men is useless and does not follow from anything I have written.
You apparently have no understanding of statistical distributions. If two populations, A and B, differ in height and A is shorter on average, there would be no difficulty in finding members of A that are taller than most members of B or members of B that are shorter than most members of A. It is in this sense that an inclination toward a stronger libidio or greater promiscuity tends to go with greater masculinization. One could find some masculine women with hardly any interest in sex, just as one could find very promiscuous feminine women. So your comment about
Quote:
…why go for "boring" beautiful feminine women? Is that why many married men cheat on their wives with other women because these women are more open to fulfilling their sexual fantasies than housewives?...
and anything related to it is a useless one.
You must stop assigning beliefs to me unless there is clear evidence for it. You said that I believe that the insertion of a penis into the vagina is only for reproduction, not pleasure. How do you know this? This is not my belief.
Again, you bring in off-topic issues. The comments at this site are full of off-topic issues. I usually don’t mind, but when someone repeatedly does this, then it is time for me to ask this person to stop, and I am asking you to stop. Often I ignore off-topic issues because of lack of time, but if the off-topic issues involve misrepresenting my stances and assigning beliefs to me that I don’t harbor and dislike, then I have no choice but to waste my time responding.
The article you are commenting on has nothing to do with cross-dressers or pedophiles or anal sex or religious stances against oral sex. And even so, your arguments are very poor. Yes, most cross-dressers are straight men, but most men are straight. Per capita, nonheterosexuals are much more overrepresented among cross-dressers. Similarly, homosexuals and bisexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to be child molesters. The key is to look at the per capita statistic.
You asked, “So in other words your saying more masculine women in porn = more uninhibited sexual behaviour?” There is a tendency for more disinhibited sexual behavior to go with greater masculinization, and keep in mind the note about statistical distributions.
Cultural differences are an off-topic issue that I don’t have the time to address here, and in any case it does not follow by any stretch of the imagination that what I have written implies that “women in veils in Middle East are all feminine because they are non promiscous?” or that “a Middle Eastern person reading this should assume that Western women are the most masculinized?” Women in the Middle East are not as free to indulge their desires as Women in the West. So looking at behavior is of little relevance, and getting reliable statistics about sexual behaviors or inclinations in the Middle East would be a difficult job also.
You asked, “If breast size is irrelevant to femininity then why do you keep bringing it up so much?” This website is not about femininity. It is about feminine beauty. Breast size by itself is of little relevance to femininity but it is relevant to beauty. To the extent that female breasts are a secondary sexual feature, they need to be discussed.
Regarding breast implants vs. make-up, shaved body hair and tanning, tanning is a typically natural response to sun exposure, make-up is typically reversible minor enhancement, and shaving hair on the body except the pubes is a reversible minor enhancement of secondary sexual characteristics. Breast implants are a more drastic approach and not reversed without surgical intervention. In addition, well done make-up, shaving of non-pubic body hair and well-done tanning look natural, whereas breast implants rarely look natural when the woman is seen bare-breasted. So I am not applying double standards to breast implants.
Why do men watch masculinized women in porn? This should be obvious from the previous discussion. Some are into masculinized women and others don’t have much luck finding feminine women doing the things they wish to see.
I didn’t say that 20% of men have narrowly escaped heterosexuality and are not exclusively heterosexual. What I specifically said was that up to 20% of men have either experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior at some point of their life, i.e., this population is not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. This does not make a lot more men available to you. Most of this 20% comprises of men who are self-identified heterosexuals and no longer experience same-sex attraction or have any intentions of indulging in homosexual behavior.
When you see a man with a masculine woman, nothing about his sexual inclinations can be assumed upfront. Most men are heterosexual whereas a minority of women are feminine. So some heterosexual men are bound to end up with masculinized women. It is only when a rich/famous man or a man with plenty of choice has a history of dating masculinized women or ends up with one is it reasonable to question whether this man leans toward nonheterosexuality or is a nonheterosexual.
I will not find your feminine looks attractive. Most people find masculine looks in men attractive.
I did not say that there were no other females in the mainstream than Pamela Anderson. The other female competitors would be those shown in glamorous roles or as sex symbols. Sarah Michelle Gellar or Jennifer Love Hewitt didn’t go around posing nude in men’s magazines as far as I know, and you can bet many men preferred their looks to those Pamela Anderson. Another factor is willingness to sleep around. People like Hugh Hefner have made centerfolds out of women who have slept with him and women who would refuse to do this or sleep around with the producers of soap operas or movies wouldn’t get a role.
Anyway, I have asked you to comply with some requirements. I am going to ask you to comply with other requirements based on comments you have posted elsewhere. Please heed or I will ask you to leave. I also want you to not waste my time with comments that reflect a poor understanding of my arguments. If you don’t understand the issue or have not read enough of my arguments, don’t leave a comment.
Erik, Why do you feel the need to belittle me? I am easily just as intellectual as you are. It does not help your argument if you're just going to label anyone who disagrees with you as incapable of understanding you. If your points are so perfectly outlined and backed up, you should be able to convince me no problem. I'm not as stubborn as you are.
I definitely agree that men are more likely to like a feminine woman with an hourglass shape and other such features. I would say that this is true 9 out of 10 times. There is a standard in what most men prefer in women. It has been proven throughout history and even among different completely separate cultures. You have very clearly and undoubtedly proven this on this website. I simply disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual".
I also still think it's improper to declare some men as "leaning towards nonheterosexuality" no matter what kind of women they like. Being homosexual is defined by being attracted to members of the same sex. These men are still attracted to women, not men. Like I said, if you can show me a study that shows a consistency between men who like masculine women and how many men they are also attracted to, then I would start to feel differently, but most of these men never show bisexual tendencies, just the tenancy to like more masculine females. Just because a man likes a more masculine woman does not mean he's not actually heterosexual. He could just like women who looks strong and can dominate him? I don't know, but I wouldn't automatically assume they're bisexual.
I'd also like to note something: Did you ever notice that many gay men are actually attracted to effeminate men? As in, men that are overly feminine? If gay men are attracted to masculine qualities exclusively, why would they find such girly men so attractive? Why would the try to emulate females to the extent you can sometimes not be able to tell they're men at all? Could it not be possible that men, gay or straight, have various opinions on what makes an attractive partner?
Petite: You should not be commenting at websites that you are not capable of understanding. Again, you have stated, ‘Just before you "explained" men that like small breasts by saying they are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals".’ But I never did.
I said that one of the reasons for attraction toward small breasts is leaning toward nonheterosexuality or being a nonheterosexual. No evidence needs to be cited. Nonheterosexual males are bound to be more attracted to secondary sexual characteristics leaning toward the male. But this is not the same as saying that those attracted toward small breasts are bound to lean toward nonheterosexuality.
You have asked what about women who are overall very feminine but have small breasts or narrow hips? This has been clearly explained within this site. I am not here to spoon feed you. If you cannot make the effort to read around , or do so but don’t understand, you should not assign beliefs or motives to me and refrain from commenting.
It should be very clear to those who have gone through this site and are capable of understanding that femininity can only be judged by looking at overall features. A clearly overall feminine woman with either small breasts or hips on the narrower side still looks clearly feminine and will much more strongly – and more so than most women – attract exclusively heterosexual men than nonheterosexual men, on average. If a man finds a thin, shapeless girl attractive and then later a voluptuous feminine one attractive or switches back and forth, I would refrain from judging sexual orientation without more data. In case you didn’t know, some people don’t have stable erotic interests though these interests tend to stabilize with aging. Also, individual attraction could be due to non-looks factors.
And nonheterosexual doesn’t just include homosexuals; it includes all kinds of bisexuals. For technical reasons, it also includes people that may currently identify as heterosexual but have been nonheterosexual in the past.
Erik,
Your comment on self esteem is correct and i agree with it, however emily is not in my opinion an example of someone with high self esteem. She is an open fraud. Emily gives the impression through her insults/non stop negative comments on east asians that she is proud of her nordic looks and dissasociates herself from east asians on the basis of there looks but through insulting them she actually associates herlself/race on there level and puts her races beauty on there level. Her arrogance is open where as a truly proud person who believed there race/group of people were the best looking would have a silent arrogance about them and the last thing they would do is associate themselves in any way to that group whoose looks they so detested. On reading all her posts one cannot fail to genuinely wonder weather emily is playing a semantic game and weather she actually believes nordics are as good looking as people of some other races/groups out there or weather simply that is what she would like to believe.....
Thats the widest nose Ive ever seen..How shes become a supermodel beats me!
Her eyebrws are ridiculously thick, and its because her facial efatres are so large, even her teeth, that she must have big eyebrows to make her eyes not look so bad..Imagibe her witrh thin eyebrows..It would look bad..Also, because her nose is so broad, thats why she always her hair flowitn over the isde and never pulled backk..She doesnt have a strong jawbone like other models and thats why its always out..I saw a picon the covber of Glamour and slick back doesnt suit her because of her profile..her hair is always in the same way because her features are so braod that its the only look she can pull off..Hair draping over the side gives lenght to the face and makes it appear longer..length she doesnt have..she has width..too much of it, and somehow,. hasd made it far in modelling..i ahave seen her nose profile on facebook, and itshorrible..shes got a bump on her top nose..I think she needs it done badly..
Ive seen her in real life..Ive seen hottergirls, and her feautures look like someone has compressed her face length wise..Definitely an abnormality..who made her supermodel tell me!! im sick of seeing her in magazines she has no place in..Reserve it for cat eye strong jawed model\s with medium noses..Adrainna loks very similar to Miranda, without the wierd wideness.Miranda look worng if you ask me!
Erik,
You also adress that you appreciate masculine men and feminine women? Why is something not adding up?
Because a masculine man must have a masculine mother to be masculine and attractive. Therefore you indirectly VALUE masculine women.
A feminine woman has to have a feminine daughter. However a feminine woman has feminine sons as well. So since Nordic women on average are the most feminine do they have the highest frequency of feminine men?
This is interesting. Please explain how it is related to genetics. Please explain why Nordics frown upon pride, etc.
I honestly have not noticed this trend. I do have some Nordic family, although I myself am not Nordic, only a little bit but not fully. They are probably your typical Nords: blue eyes, blonde hair, long oval faces, tall, etc. They DO NOT have low-self esteem. They have high-self esteem. All of them are pretty successful and all of them are proud of themselves. They don't rub it in your face, but you can tell that they are proud of what they have accomplished and there is nothing wrong with that. There might be one or two of them that don't have the best self-esteem, but this is normal within any family of any background. Most of my family on my Nordic side have a healthy self-esteem, healthy lifestyle,are successful, etc.
Erik,
I don't know how this is possible but today the tone of your message was ....nice. So you can be nice :)
I can speak personally and say i have never once said/generalized that Nordics are "ugly or this and that". After all most of the attention i get is from Nordics (to my utter delight) lol
I need to go back and refresh my memory on who "started" the exchange of words BUT if some person did say something "negative" about Nordics. That does not give Emily any right to speak "ill" of other races and that too on different posts (if you are aware) and continuously.
For example, I have not said anything offensive about your family (some people referred to it) or anything too bad to you even though you made unflattering and "unimpressive"/already known conclusions/equivalents about nonheterosexuals.
Regarding self esteem, yes i am aware that mental illness "supposedly" runs in families. But Erik my "message" is one of empowerment and betterment of humanity. I had everything working against me - mental illness, low self esteem, poverty, homophobia, racism etc etc BUT i rose beyond all that. I think sometimes telling people that their low self esteem is due to genetics, gives a sense of "hopelessness" after all its in your genes and you can't change that. We as people can empower ourselves against all odds.
So yes you can show me peer reviewed journals of scientists who tell me that my low self esteem is genetic (high likelihood) But i as a person can sulk with that information or try to improve myself and maybe prove that notion false........which i have done brilliantly!
Lastly i wanted to add, Godis mentioned she is 20 and i am 24. You are 34, well versed in statistics, some science and research - keep this in mind when you say things like "you won't understand"
Peter: I have not exactly defended Emily. She has committed some sins, and I will discuss them in response to an earlier comment by you, later. And there is nothing along the lines of dual standards by me. Emily’s first comments were on an article addressing the Nordic nose. She was responding to disparaging comments on Nordics. I had let those disparaging comments stand without any comment by me. So no dual standards here. I will explain more later.
Of course, self-esteem can vary within an individual and across time in a population, and I did not imply otherwise, but it is meaningful to talk about baseline averages (especially affected by genetics) and population averages. I didn’t say Nordics have low self-esteem; I said it is on average lower than in many populations. Again, you, like Godis, cannot see a reason why it has to be this way. But there do not have to be any reasons related to education or achievements or colonial history or other things along these lines. Think of genetics.
Erik,
Now before you start to attack/bully me i just wanted to add my two cents. NOTE: I am not starting anything off-topic, I simply responding to some issues brought on this page.
First of all .... good job "defending" Emily. I expected this of you. If you want i can post her exact words to show you how offensive and "racist" they are towards East Asians....and i am not even East Asian. But i am sure you don't want that or even want to consider warning her not to do so.
Secondly in regards to self esteem. Again like mental illness it can be variable through out life. I myself had below average self esteem when i was 16 or something but now at 24 i have above average confidence and this has been steady the past few years. Getting older, becoming more comfortable with oneself, education etc are contributors.
Thirdly please don't use/rely on statistics/equivalents so much! The vast majority of Nordics i have met, did not have low self esteem and i do not see any reason why Nordics should have low self esteem. They are lovely people :)
The days of Erik (no "pun" intended) the red settling Greenland, European colonialism etc are over. Some Nordics shouldn't look to these as means of self evaluation/self worth etc.
Erik please don't be angry with me....I stuck to in topic "discussions" and made this post short and sweet :)
Godis: Honey, I gave you an extensive, fairly recent, scientific literature review on self-esteem, published by mainstream academics in a peer-reviewed science journal. You told me it is bullshit! Incidentally, the review I cited doesn’t go into the genetics part, and I can only think of how much you will be pleased by coming across it.
Why will I claim that Northern Europeans are born with higher self-esteem? The reality is that Northern Europeans on average have lower self-esteem than many, possibly most populations, including those populations that compared to Northern Europeans have effectively no accomplishments or features to celebrate or be proud of. Nordic culture frowns upon pride. Why is this so? Think of genetic involvement.
Northern European achievement speaks for itself. Think how much of it is due to a disproportionate number among them not contended with who they are such that they strive to better themselves and exceed themselves in order to find themselves or life worthy.
Hey Godis!
Glad to have you back. I also think Viv Thomas? Kimberly and Toni/Mandi look good...better than a few models in Erik's list.
The Nordic comment was directed to Emily. haha
I actually happen to think that Deborah from Karupspc is really attractive. I'm a straight girl so what do I know? But she has an extremely pleasant face. I think if you are going to show an example of how Nordics are attractive, she would be a good face for it. Why is she taken out? Her face is so pretty and feminine!
Erik,
Let me state it again: You're views of self-esteem ARE an embarrassment to the concept of self-esteem. The research you gave me was bullshit, much like any evidence you provide on this website to support your claims! Self-esteem is NOT genetic. I suppose now you are going to claim that "Nordics" are born with higher self-esteem as well? Get your head out of your ass Erik.
I am a middle-aged woman, and stumbled on this site while researching facial feminization surgery. For those who don't know, FFS is a series of cosmetic surgical procedures recommended for male-to-female transsexuals in order to create a convincing feminine face. Some good examples here: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/FFS/LynnsFFS.html
The reason I am researching FFS is that I am a masculine-looking woman. My father had very hypermasculine features; i.e. a large nose and chin, prominent brow line and sharp jaw, and I am a chip off the old block. I am in no way ugly, and have never been accused of being so; I just don't look feminine or "pretty." Having recently entered menopause, the effect is becoming exaggerated. I have been called "sir" twice in the last month when I was out without makeup. Since my current relationship is on the rocks and I anticipate being out there on the market soon, I am wondering if the procedures used for FFS could help improve my odds with the male sex.
In any event, I believe the only objectionable thing I have seen on here is your insistence on a specific body aesthetic. Research has shown that men are attracted to hourglass figures, but I believe the face is actually much more significant, since being with an attractive woman conveys social status and the face is easily visible. And, I have known several male-to-female transsexuals, and as long as they had convincingly feminine faces, men overlooked broad shoulders and narrow hips and found them quite attractive.
"You can abase yourself and insult me all you want to. This site deals with shallow issues such as beauty and physical appearance. So why are YOU here?"
Are you telling me this whole issue has no importance? And besides, why are you crying about being insulted when YOU'RE trashing virtually all non-nordics in existence?
"Femininity is not the same thing as arrested physical development, or women looking like pubescent girls. Sometimes the truth is not what you want to hear."
I know what femininity it is. And there you go comparing all east asian women posted here to "little girls". That must just be your own vitrolically biased, idiotic perceptions.
"It is still the truth."
If you had actually read a damn thing I said, I didn't deny women with facial features shifted towards a northern european average aren't universally desired. I just take qualms with your ridiculous assumption of almost ANYTHING outside of this mythical "nordic ideal" being lousy compared to it. That's exactly what you're doing.
"I am sick of the false information about Nordic women that I saw here in many threads."
And in my case, I'm sick of much of the false information spread about non-nordic women spread around here. You, though, seem to be going to an extremity by attacking the looks of virtually all non-nordic women.
"This bashing had been going on without ANYONE saying a thing, except Erik."
There's been plenty of nordic fetishists on this site.
"Had I been negative towards Nordics you wouldn't have said a thing since my views then would have been in line with your preferred version of the truth."
You assume too much. I'm against any of these idiotic ideals of racial beauty espoused in this kind of debate. You're just one type of extremist. For example, I've often seen people who go on about how poorly whites age compared to other races, attributing this almost entirely to their lower melanin levles, when this is due to innumerable other factors, such as facial fat loss rates etc. East asians have only slightly to moderately darker skin than nordics on average, yet they age almost as well as black africans.
"Indians, blacks and Asians cannot get over the fact that the Nordic/Germanic white woman is the standard of beauty."
Must be hard to get over something that doesn't exist. See, there's a difference between "shifted towards northern european norms" and "entirely within northern european norms". You're arguing for the insane former.
"How sad. I must be a terrible person for speaking the truth. Political correctness doesn't allow that, you see, while bashing of white women seems to be encouraged and is never criticized."
There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth. It just so happens you're full of shit. And you EMBRACE this idiocy. You act so hilariously arrogant, childish, snobbish and crude. You're despicable.
"Asians are not most people's idea of beauty. With few exceptions they need to be mixed with whites in order to look truly attractive, as do Indians and blacks."
Hahhaha, asians needing white admixture to look attractive? I've often heard people from your camp saying blacks need white admixture to look attractive, but never in the case of east asians. Where's your evidence for any of this bullshit?
"A pure Nordic girl doesn't need black, Asian, Indian and slavic blood in order to enhance her appearance."
Proof of this? I've provided concise anthropological evidence, from THIS VERY SITE, on how women considered attractive by koreans fall greatly outside of attractive white female averages. You just keep providing your own personal bial.
And you mention slavics as well? Slavs are pretty closely related to northern europeans. There's not much of a difference between the two physically either. You sure are one elitist little shit, aren't you?
"They need ours, apparently, or why else do they always show pictures of half-white models and actresses when they purport to show Asian, black and Indian beauty?"
"Asians constantly remodel their faces in order to look less Asian, so what does that say about Asian beauty? An ideal face doesn't need a complete make-over in order to look like something it is not."
And are these shifted so heavily within attractive northern european averages? Answer me. I've often seen people like you remark on the case of eyelid surgery among east asians, often ignoring how east asians barely had a preference, if any, for this prior to western contact, and how many east asians only have very partial eyelid surgeries overall.
"By the way, the girls you posted look like the ones pedophiles are attracted to, so I don't think they help your case in any way."
"Oooooh, only pedophiles would like girls like these!"
There you go again with your arrogant bullshit. Those women only had their faces showing, so pray tell, what looks so childish about them? I swear to god, I could probably throw as many attractive east asian women at you as possible, and you'd still be screaming they look like something a pedophile would go for.
"The "little girl" stereotype is heavily underlined. I don't think women who look like they popped out from the womb in embryo form and never developed are feminine or attractive."
Jesus christ. They look like babies to you? What would be a good-looking east asian woman to you, then? You're such a ridiculous asshole.
"In the beginning they look like this...
And that doesn't change much over time..."
I've already mentioned how testosterone differences account for much of the differences in femininity between whites and east asians. While having such low testosterone levels can cause a significant amount of population's women- and males as well- to look too pedomorhpic, this is a genetic trait that can change greatly over a period of a few generations, even within someone's life time, and thus can't be considered a true "racial average", such as the case of cranio-facial structure, skin color, hair color and structure, and eye color. It's pointless for you to mention this, as is the case of body proportions and other such physical differences.
"Even Nordic athletes look better than Asian cheerleaders whose job it is to look good."
Uh, yeah, and none of those nordic cheerleaders look attractive at all. At best, some of them are average- others are very homely, masculine, or have very asymmetrical facial features. While they're much alot better than those east asian cheerleaders, some whom look outright repulsive, those nordic cheerleaders aren't attractive either.
Remember, we've been talking about "ideals" the entire time here. You act as if the vast majority of nordic women fall within a racial ideal respective to their ethnic group. That's not even remotely true at all.
Erik,
Ok Thank you and good luck. I hope you put your intelligence to "good use". Some facts are better not brought to light for "ethical" reasons such as Nordics having the highest frequency of good looking/fine featured people, homosexuals most likely suffering from mental illness, molesting children etc.
I ask you how would you feel if some scientists came to the conclusion that the "group" you belong to has the most likelihood of child molestors? mentally ill people? and people's general opinion of your ethnic group's looks was not high? Can you imagine how it feels? especially when one did not choose to be born that way. I think i can imagine what some "masculine" women might be feeling after reading material from this site. I am sorry to you all but please be comforted by the fact that there is someONE out there for you even though the majority seemingly "prefer" something else.
I will not be bothering you again Erik.
Peter: I gave you a link to a website where you can post your homosexuality-related questions and asked you to not post off-topic issues here. But you have not listened. Your kind of questions waste my time and I have no choice but to defend myself. Consider yourself warned. No more off-topic questions at this website.
I am compelled to answer your questions because I strongly reject accusations of misusing statistical data.
I gave you a link about the data showing a clear strong relation between nonheterosexuality and sexual interest in children. You have not disputed anything in it, and you must not dispute it at this website, but at the homosexuality site. What you have brought up is molestations within heterosexual families, but the fact remains that heterosexual families do not necessarily comprise of heterosexuals. As I have mentioned repeatedly, most homosexual interests have occurred in predominantly heterosexual people, and these individuals are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, obviously. The tendency for same-sex attraction to cluster with sexual interest in children is strong and very clear. Try disputing this. It is clear that either factors leading to same-sex attraction increase the odds of sexual interest in children or vice versa. This is an empirical find and the homosexuals can do nothing but come up with sophistry to refute this.
In the U.S. the promiscuity of whites is intermediate; some ethnic groups are more promiscuous, other less. So what? This is not an issue under discussion. It does not show that I am misusing statistics. It does nothing to refute the contention that sexual interest in children is more common among nonheterosexuals. Why do you digress?
Beliefs about white promiscuity held by Asians are of no relevance. The data from probability samples is of relevance. I am not citing people’s beliefs about nonheterosexuals being more likely to be child molesters, but published data.
Why should I be explaining to you why mental illness is more common in homosexuals? There is much on this that I have written and a lot of it, including the gist, is freely accessible online. You must make the effort to read it and I can be of no help to you if you are unable to understand it.
Of course, I do realize that mental illnesses do not have to be a permanent condition. There is nothing that I have ever written that implies otherwise. One can certainly have a meaningful comparison of two groups with respect to any mental illness diagnosis in lifetime or symptoms within the past year. Any way you look at it, the nonheterosexuals are more mentally ill.
The 50% divorce statistic in America is likely false. The true figure should be still substantial, but this statistic and your other examples about rates of mental illnesses are irrelevant since you are using them as examples of statistical data that should not be used to target groups. Your assumption is that I am using the data on homosexuals to ‘target’ them as a group. My intentions with the data have been to seek an understanding of nonheterosexuality. Just because I have come to unflattering conclusions does not mean that my intentions have been to ‘target’ the group. What the public thinks of mental illness is of no relevance. I have used notions of mental illnesses in modern psychiatry even though a conclusion of mine is not consistent with a gay-lobby-concocted position statement of official psychiatry organizations.
There is nothing in the statistics that I have presented that should make you ‘a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces".’ The statistics that I have presented are about differences in prevalence, and you have again ignored the note about statistical distribution I left in a comment above. Do you realize why I recommend that you should avoid reading my arguments on homosexuality? The answer is that you do not have sufficient background for the understanding. People with an interest in homosexuality, an open mind and sufficient education will want to read it regardless of their orientation, profession or beliefs . You seem to have the interest but not the education, and I am not sure about the open mind part.
Other issues: Don’t waste my time asking about the Spice girls. Yes, I am exclusively heterosexual. I don’t need polls about the women I am selecting. Most people going through this site will not bother and malicious individuals will not provide their honest opinion. What I need is free time to improve this site, and you must not waste my time or your comments are unwelcome.
Erik,
alright now that you have "clarified" yourself. You don't like feminine looks in men and i don't like men with below average to average self confidence. Confidence level being more important to me than looks, I myself have above average confidence. Just out of curiousity and this is a personal question. What is your orientation? strictly heterosexual, narrowly escaped heterosexual etc?
About Statistics....Lets see if i can explain this. If i am looking at child molestors, most of them happen to be related to children. (As well most incestuous child relationships happen in "heterosexual" families). So i can come up with a statistic that a child is more likely to be molested by someone "heterosexual" in the family. Do you understand what i am trying to say?
As well if i am looking for "uninhibited" sex across ethnic groups even in North America...what do you suspect my findings might reveal? White heterosexuals and homosexuals are more likely to engage in such behaviour compared to their ethnic counterparts. So must i conclude from this that White people are more "promiscuous"? I know your aware that this is the "belief" held by many Middle Easterns/South Asians/East Asians of White people.
Looking at this mental illness that you have mentioned about homosexuals. Why do you think that is? Do you think homosexuals have an easy life.....family acceptance, societal abuse, jobs etc. So is it surprising that many have mental illnesses???
Do you realize mental illness does not have to be a permenant, life long situation? A person interviewed about mental illness can not suffer from its symptoms a few years later? So using that person as a "statistic" a few years later is ok?
Consider this information....About 50% of marriages end in divorce in North America (mostly white), children of divorce/single families have higher rates of mental illness, new immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, women of ethnic minorities (such as Muslim women facing cultural constraints by their male realtives) have higher rates of mental illness.....WOMEN have a higher rate of mental illness than men!
So if i use some of the statistics and "target" a group is that good? What if that target is non heterosexual men?
I personally don't let statistics cloud my judgement. Mental illness is very "easily" used these days. For example i can say you "suffer" from some kind of mental illness based on what i know about you. When people think of mental illness they think of extremes....psychiatric hospitals, locked up etc. Mental illness is very variant and indefinite. So i don't think targeting a group is fair. I can come up with a statistic saying African Americans are more likely to suffer from mental illness because of poverty, lack of jobs etc.
According to "your statistics" I should be a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces" BUT i am far removed from it.
i did not say USE polls from those websites. I meant using polls on this site!!! Such as in the attractive women category where people can leave their opinion in terms of polls. It will make for a more "unbiased" opinion. You are choosing and posting pics of women that you think are feminine/attractive. What if there was a poll and most people found one to be more/less attractive. At least it will tell you how uninformed we regular people are? Its a good way to get more interactive with this website.
"I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it." ~ ERIK
Do you realize what you just wrote?
So your saying somethings about homosexuals/bisexuals through "data/statistics" you have collected and it should not be of concern to another homosexual? So who is this information directed at? Homophobic white male population? religious groups?
Erik you mention many times ...you won't understand this....you won't understand that. I do WANT to understand/learn. I know some homosexuals/bisexuals who will flat out reject it and never bother with it but i want to understand. I don't believe its a good idea to tell people not to come back to your site, stop reading, not understanding etc. If you are trying to bring your point across whatever it might be (feminine beauty/homosexuals). Do you think academia visit your website? or do you just want "yes men"/ people who agree with you to be on this site and anyone who doesn't obviously hasn't read everything or "stupid" enough not to figure it out.
I like learning from you Erik...oh i forgot to ask you
I mentioned Spice girls before (I was/am a huge fan obviously) did you "appreciate" any of their looks?
Cheers
Godis: You think my views on self-esteem are an embarrassment to the concept of self-esteem? Read the research for yourself. I know of more hard-hitting research findings. Your conceptualization of self-esteem has been widely held and still harbored by many, but debunked in recent years. Self-esteem levels have a lot to do with genetics, and this is the reason why you can’t think of a reason why my self-esteem levels are somewhere from below average to average in spite of having “a good head.” There does not have to be a reason; genetics is involved. And you must understand the clear finding: prejudice against others or a lower opinion of others tends to go with high self-esteem, not low self-esteem.
If you insist that Emily is trying to put down non-Nordics in the looks department, then her self-esteem is most likely high, but Emily could just very well be stating factual matters. How does one decide? By having a proper debate, not attacking the character or motives of a person. Emily has never made an argument that she looks good because she is a Nordic. Her argument is that she looks good because that is how it is; she also happens to be a Nordic and finds that Nordics have a much higher frequency of good looking people among them compared to other populations, based on widely shared criteria of beauty. Anyone who disputes this should engage her in sound debate.
You believe that Hitler fed on the low-self-esteem of Germans? Before the Nazis came to power, Germany was in shambles economically. Many countries today are heading toward the situation in Weimar Germany. Do you see an epidemic of low self-esteem or people rioting because of anger? Look at what happened in Iceland. A prosperous country went bankrupt on short notice. Did the Icelanders start brooding over how they have failed their society or did they take to the streets, well-aware that banking parasites caused the collapse? In its pure form, the Vikings’ spirit would have resulted in the banking parasites and their acolytes in the government being publicly hung. The spirit has unfortunately apparently mellowed or these filthy parasites would have been sent to Hell, but the mellowing has little to do with self-esteem.
The Nazis also clearly admired the Northern European phenotype but only half of Germans were ethnically Northern European. So do you think that Hitler and the Nazis were trying to make the Germans feel superior to non-Germans? And if you believe that the Nazis regarded even those Germans who didn’t measure up as superior because they were German, you surely have not heard of the “Untermensch” or the undermen or specifically the undesirables among white Germans.
Peter: Your emails were sent to an address I use for this site. I will not be responding to off-topic comments in it either. This has nothing to do with you but I don’t have the time to respond to matters related to this site, let alone off-topic issues. I will get around to answering your emails when I have the time.
I have a site on homosexuality where you can challenge my views, and in some form or the other it has been around much longer than this site, but I have not responded to comments or updated it for over an year. So your comments there will have to wait for a response, and chances are very high that my response, not anytime soon for sure, will be a dismissal of your straw men or caricatures. I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it.
I have never appreciated feminine looks in men. So rest assured I will not like your looks, and this has nothing to do with deviation from the norm; just my preference. The only looks in men that I have any respect or liking for are very masculine looks; mere masculine looks are only acceptable to me in the face. This is in contrast to my liking for women’s looks, which ranges from the slightly masculine to the feminine but not extremely feminine, leaning overwhelmingly toward the feminine side of average. I have stated my preferences here but when I talked about people’s preferences in general, there was a need to mention them.
Your comment mentions the scenario “… More feminine women are accepted into porn …” Pornographers are not declining feminine women; there just is a natural shortage of them. In any case, pornographers would rather sell 5 videos with one attractive woman each than one video with 5 attractive women…business interests are play. So it is unlikely that we will see a lot of porn full of attractive feminine women, which heterosexual men will surely appreciate if it came out. The “good girl to take home to Mom” is irrelevant to enjoying pornography or appreciating the physical attractiveness of a nude model. The goal of this site is to go mainstream with feminine beauty promotion, and this means definitely avoiding porn stars and preferably also nude models. This is the reason why I am not pleased to come across a model that I could use but it turns out she is a porn star; her porn work does nothing to change my opinion of her physical attractiveness. At some point I will come up with a mainstream version of this site, minus the science and the nudity. I will avoid nude models there.
Married men with children who have sex with men are obviously not exclusively heterosexual. One of the groups I mentioned comprised of people who are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but had homosexual interests in the past, which went away. This has repeatedly been documented in probability sampling of the general population. It is not like all these people are liars. Some have lost their homosexual inclinations completely, and some people reporting this are older individuals that did not seek homosexual encounters even though they could have. You want to take a look at these studies… you know where to look them up. This is an off-topic issue for this website.
Statistics are not just “that.” They are required for making one’s case empirically, and if they are misused, then it is possible to document misuse. Polling askmen or bastardly is a waste of time. They will not yield probability samples. I have much better data: controlled laboratory studies, data from probability sampling, etc.
I have never gone from “finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females.” Finer facial features are a different matter from narrowness-breadth, and I have never wavered from a preference for finer facial features. And the breadth issue is a shape one, the feminine ones being wider if other things are held constant, and again I have never wavered from overwhelmingly preferring feminine faces in women; the only examples where you would see me with appreciation for somewhat masculinized faces in women is when the masculinization is accompanied by fine facial features.
Petite: I don’t care how intellectual you are as long as you exhibit an understanding of my arguments. I am not one who responds to dissent by saying that the person is incapable of understanding me, but this is my response when I encounter straw men or caricatures of my arguments.
You acknowledge that men will generally like the more feminine women, with hourglass figures, over other women. So there should be no exchange between the two of us. The reason there is an exchange is because you are ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold.
Again, you say, ‘I disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual"’ but where have I ever said this? Some homosexuals/bisexuals have told me they like the looks of the feminine women I have been showing over those of fashion models. But the statistical tendency should be clear…which group is more likely to prefer what. Group differences are what matter to this site in so far as the site purpose of promoting feminine beauty goes. For instance, the reason fashion models typically look the way they do is not because of the preference of a single individual but because of the central tendency of the preferences of the dominant fashion designers, the manifestation of which is constrained by what they can get away with it, and it should be very clear that this central tendency has nothing whatsover to do with the central tendency of women’s looks preferences among heterosexual men. The existence of heterosexual men attracted to less feminine or slightly masculinized women does nothing to change this.
I also have not declared some men as nonheterosexual no matter what kind of women they are attracted to. You again forget the existence of bisexuals, some of whom are predominantly heterosexual but harbor some homosexual attraction. Some men are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but have experienced some homosexual attraction as teenagers. What is so difficult in understanding that if these men are attracted to men and women (or were at some point) then they could be attracted to masculinized women? I am not going to judge someone’s sexual orientation based on his woman, but sometimes you get multiple cues and then you can wonder.
I know that many homosexual men are into effeminate men just as many of them are into masculine men. So what? The effeminate men are still more masculine than masculine women, on average. The preferences of homosexuals are more variable than those of heterosexuals (among whom there also is plenty of variability). So what? Don’t just focus on homosexuals. Focus on the two groups: lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals and others (conveniently labeled nonheterosexuals; 15-20% of the population). Do you think there are no central tendency differences between these groups? Should this central tendency difference not be intuitive? I know it would be nice to cite some scholarly studies that show these differences regarding ratings of women’s looks, but science-oriented researchers usually ignore the phenomenon that the majority of people that have experienced homosexual interests at some point are predominantly or exclusively heterosexual in adulthood, and the methods they employ are often close to useless for discerning the nuances of attraction.
Don’t waste you time with individual preferences when they are not relevant to this site’s purpose, and you must make an effort to understand my arguments.
Erik
I fogot to mention something. There are other ways of enhancing breast size. I know many transgendered people who have larger breasts than real women. There is such a thing as "pills" you know what i am talking about...that can make a woman more feminine looking.
I personally like this idea of videos that you post some of them with sound. I enjoyed the video of Dasha and another girl who had a feminine voice. I think fcr people to fully appreciate feminine beauty as much as they can it would be great to post more videos...where you can hear there voice, see them in motion. Synesthesia!
I am sorry Erik for calling you somethings...but some of the comments you made/make hurt me.
Ahhh so its come to this :(
Ok i understand, this is your website and you have asked me...so i will try my best to stick to the topic BUT in my defense what other means did i have of bringing up some of the off topic issues? I e-mailed you twice but did not hear from you, plus you don't have a similar site on homosexuality where i can "challenge" some of your ideas. I notice that you usually respond to messages that "attack" you or your reasoning.
That was a little interesting you mentioning that you wouldn't find my "feminine" looks attractive. Can i say Ouch?..You have not even seen me? So how can you even answer this? "Most people find masculinity in men attractive"...and that is your reasoning for not finding my looks attractive?....because they deviate from the norm? Why do you always have to bring up/stick to the norm? Do you not have anything that stands out? (your intelligence comes to mind...)
That affected me ... a little. But then this is where we differ, I don't need statistics or media to "decide" what is or should be more attractive to me :)
Besides i was going to e-mail you pictures of me but didn't want to just send them without establishing contact.
Erik you did not understand my comments on promiscuous mascline and "boring" feminine (off course these terms are not representative). Many times on this site you have mentioned how it is hard to find "revealing" pictures of feminine women. Also you have mentioned that the women who you have used are not the "best" out there. Leading one to believe that somewhere out there, there is a heavenly feminine beauty who due to being "feminine" will not expose herself. You have also mentioned many times that masculinized women are more likely to engage in promiscous/more "open" sexual behaviours. And so lets say for arguments sake this is changed...More feminine women are accepted into porn but they are less likely to engage in more "sexy" behaviours. Do you think most heterosexual men would like that?
I am sure your aware of the term "good girl to take home to Mom" vs "girl id like to screw". Which would Jennifer Love Hewitt/ Sarah Michelle Geller fall in? Pamela Anderson? If the former posed nude would that change anything? (I am sure the two mentioned actresses must have done some nudity in movies but can't remember). I know many guys who like wholesome, feminine girls (much like some of the girls on this site) and any hint of promiscouity from them means interest lost. Yes we do categorize women just like you do :)
Hmmm i am reminded of a comment you made in a page about a glamour model you discovered did porn and how you were "not pleased" to find this out. Don't worry, there are many guys like you out there, who think the same way. So maybe some guys loose "interest" after knowing a particular woman/actress acted in a sex scene/equivalent. Back to the Pamela Anderson situation, during that era many men did find the "good girls" Jennifer and Sarah more attractive but if they did what Pamela did ...fans of "feminine" looks in them would not be as interested. Do you understand what i am trying to say? i can't quite put my finger on it....
Regarding the 20% "homosexual/bisexual/pansexual" statistic. Where are the statistics that men who have participated in homosexual activities in the past (most likely adolescent/teen years) are not going to repeat if the oppertunity presented itself? I know plenty of married men with children who sleep with guys and will never admit to it openly for obvious reasons.
Regarding the paedophilia and homosexuality, I have noticed you using these in the same sentence many times and will do more research into it. But I find it very hard to believe. Men deviate most from childlike characteristics compared to women. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is sexually attracted to children would be attracted to men...expecially with body/facial hair etc.
Statistics are just that! They can be used by anybody to prove a point. I do not entirely believe in these. Instead of using some "older, white, straight, North American men's biased" statistics why don't you do some of your own (would they be free of bias)? I am sure you are aware of polling/votes on sites such as askmen and Bastardly (which you must love?). Why have you never had a poll here? asking readers if they found a particular woman attractive??? You will be surprised! I only see that as an improvement and another way for the reader to get involved.
In the end, always a pleasure learning from you (I will admit to it) but please don't think i have not read or am not aware of your work. I know what you said a few years back. For example this change from the finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females is quite the change! I have not obviously read every single detail you mentioned but enough to remember many things you mentioned so i am not that bad...At least i am not coming and asking you why a woman with an angular chin/jaw has a masculine jawline/chin.
Coming to my looks again....Heterosexual men like femininity. Many "straight" men have said that i am pretty/feminine and if i was a girl they would...Not to mention many drunk straight guys coming on to me. So i definately don't agree with what you said, from the perspective of heterosexual men.
Anyways Have a good weekend end Erik :)
Muuuuaaaaahhh!
Peter: Your comment about feminine beauty being pointless or being inaccessible to heterosexual men is useless and does not follow from anything I have written.
You apparently have no understanding of statistical distributions. If two populations, A and B, differ in height and A is shorter on average, there would be no difficulty in finding members of A that are taller than most members of B or members of B that are shorter than most members of A. It is in this sense that an inclination toward a stronger libidio or greater promiscuity tends to go with greater masculinization. One could find some masculine women with hardly any interest in sex, just as one could find very promiscuous feminine women. So your comment about
Quote:
and anything related to it is a useless one.
You must stop assigning beliefs to me unless there is clear evidence for it. You said that I believe that the insertion of a penis into the vagina is only for reproduction, not pleasure. How do you know this? This is not my belief.
Again, you bring in off-topic issues. The comments at this site are full of off-topic issues. I usually don’t mind, but when someone repeatedly does this, then it is time for me to ask this person to stop, and I am asking you to stop. Often I ignore off-topic issues because of lack of time, but if the off-topic issues involve misrepresenting my stances and assigning beliefs to me that I don’t harbor and dislike, then I have no choice but to waste my time responding.
The article you are commenting on has nothing to do with cross-dressers or pedophiles or anal sex or religious stances against oral sex. And even so, your arguments are very poor. Yes, most cross-dressers are straight men, but most men are straight. Per capita, nonheterosexuals are much more overrepresented among cross-dressers. Similarly, homosexuals and bisexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to be child molesters. The key is to look at the per capita statistic.
You asked, “So in other words your saying more masculine women in porn = more uninhibited sexual behaviour?” There is a tendency for more disinhibited sexual behavior to go with greater masculinization, and keep in mind the note about statistical distributions.
Cultural differences are an off-topic issue that I don’t have the time to address here, and in any case it does not follow by any stretch of the imagination that what I have written implies that “women in veils in Middle East are all feminine because they are non promiscous?” or that “a Middle Eastern person reading this should assume that Western women are the most masculinized?” Women in the Middle East are not as free to indulge their desires as Women in the West. So looking at behavior is of little relevance, and getting reliable statistics about sexual behaviors or inclinations in the Middle East would be a difficult job also.
You asked, “If breast size is irrelevant to femininity then why do you keep bringing it up so much?” This website is not about femininity. It is about feminine beauty. Breast size by itself is of little relevance to femininity but it is relevant to beauty. To the extent that female breasts are a secondary sexual feature, they need to be discussed.
Regarding breast implants vs. make-up, shaved body hair and tanning, tanning is a typically natural response to sun exposure, make-up is typically reversible minor enhancement, and shaving hair on the body except the pubes is a reversible minor enhancement of secondary sexual characteristics. Breast implants are a more drastic approach and not reversed without surgical intervention. In addition, well done make-up, shaving of non-pubic body hair and well-done tanning look natural, whereas breast implants rarely look natural when the woman is seen bare-breasted. So I am not applying double standards to breast implants.
Why do men watch masculinized women in porn? This should be obvious from the previous discussion. Some are into masculinized women and others don’t have much luck finding feminine women doing the things they wish to see.
I didn’t say that 20% of men have narrowly escaped heterosexuality and are not exclusively heterosexual. What I specifically said was that up to 20% of men have either experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior at some point of their life, i.e., this population is not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. This does not make a lot more men available to you. Most of this 20% comprises of men who are self-identified heterosexuals and no longer experience same-sex attraction or have any intentions of indulging in homosexual behavior.
When you see a man with a masculine woman, nothing about his sexual inclinations can be assumed upfront. Most men are heterosexual whereas a minority of women are feminine. So some heterosexual men are bound to end up with masculinized women. It is only when a rich/famous man or a man with plenty of choice has a history of dating masculinized women or ends up with one is it reasonable to question whether this man leans toward nonheterosexuality or is a nonheterosexual.
I will not find your feminine looks attractive. Most people find masculine looks in men attractive.
I did not say that there were no other females in the mainstream than Pamela Anderson. The other female competitors would be those shown in glamorous roles or as sex symbols. Sarah Michelle Gellar or Jennifer Love Hewitt didn’t go around posing nude in men’s magazines as far as I know, and you can bet many men preferred their looks to those Pamela Anderson. Another factor is willingness to sleep around. People like Hugh Hefner have made centerfolds out of women who have slept with him and women who would refuse to do this or sleep around with the producers of soap operas or movies wouldn’t get a role.
Anyway, I have asked you to comply with some requirements. I am going to ask you to comply with other requirements based on comments you have posted elsewhere. Please heed or I will ask you to leave. I also want you to not waste my time with comments that reflect a poor understanding of my arguments. If you don’t understand the issue or have not read enough of my arguments, don’t leave a comment.
Erik, Why do you feel the need to belittle me? I am easily just as intellectual as you are. It does not help your argument if you're just going to label anyone who disagrees with you as incapable of understanding you. If your points are so perfectly outlined and backed up, you should be able to convince me no problem. I'm not as stubborn as you are.
I definitely agree that men are more likely to like a feminine woman with an hourglass shape and other such features. I would say that this is true 9 out of 10 times. There is a standard in what most men prefer in women. It has been proven throughout history and even among different completely separate cultures. You have very clearly and undoubtedly proven this on this website. I simply disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual".
I also still think it's improper to declare some men as "leaning towards nonheterosexuality" no matter what kind of women they like. Being homosexual is defined by being attracted to members of the same sex. These men are still attracted to women, not men. Like I said, if you can show me a study that shows a consistency between men who like masculine women and how many men they are also attracted to, then I would start to feel differently, but most of these men never show bisexual tendencies, just the tenancy to like more masculine females. Just because a man likes a more masculine woman does not mean he's not actually heterosexual. He could just like women who looks strong and can dominate him? I don't know, but I wouldn't automatically assume they're bisexual.
I'd also like to note something: Did you ever notice that many gay men are actually attracted to effeminate men? As in, men that are overly feminine? If gay men are attracted to masculine qualities exclusively, why would they find such girly men so attractive? Why would the try to emulate females to the extent you can sometimes not be able to tell they're men at all? Could it not be possible that men, gay or straight, have various opinions on what makes an attractive partner?
Petite: You should not be commenting at websites that you are not capable of understanding. Again, you have stated, ‘Just before you "explained" men that like small breasts by saying they are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals".’ But I never did.
I said that one of the reasons for attraction toward small breasts is leaning toward nonheterosexuality or being a nonheterosexual. No evidence needs to be cited. Nonheterosexual males are bound to be more attracted to secondary sexual characteristics leaning toward the male. But this is not the same as saying that those attracted toward small breasts are bound to lean toward nonheterosexuality.
You have asked what about women who are overall very feminine but have small breasts or narrow hips? This has been clearly explained within this site. I am not here to spoon feed you. If you cannot make the effort to read around , or do so but don’t understand, you should not assign beliefs or motives to me and refrain from commenting.
It should be very clear to those who have gone through this site and are capable of understanding that femininity can only be judged by looking at overall features. A clearly overall feminine woman with either small breasts or hips on the narrower side still looks clearly feminine and will much more strongly – and more so than most women – attract exclusively heterosexual men than nonheterosexual men, on average. If a man finds a thin, shapeless girl attractive and then later a voluptuous feminine one attractive or switches back and forth, I would refrain from judging sexual orientation without more data. In case you didn’t know, some people don’t have stable erotic interests though these interests tend to stabilize with aging. Also, individual attraction could be due to non-looks factors.
And nonheterosexual doesn’t just include homosexuals; it includes all kinds of bisexuals. For technical reasons, it also includes people that may currently identify as heterosexual but have been nonheterosexual in the past.
Pages