This has one been one of the most interesting reads in a long time, despite your very ignorant (and probably insulting) use of the words transsexual/transvestite/eunuch.
It's very ignorant not to know what the difference between transsexual and transvestite is but you probably don't like shemale porn i would assume haha.
I actually have had similar thoughts about the tan craze because tan is a *very* masculine characteristic (and what is even more important it can make you look 40ish even before like 25, so yeah...)
but you fail to understand that this show is intended for women and women like fierceness this word summarizes so much and these models are the very epitome of that, women don't want to be some low testosterone exposure grown skeletons with strategically displaced high amounts of adipose fat tissue to please the eye of some fundamentalist men they want to be fierce.
You say "lifetime heterosexual male" like it's a black/white thing. But sexuality isn't. More girls than guys are willing to admit to homosexual fantasies, and if you look at cultures both in modern and historic times where homosexuality was accepted more than it is today, I have to believe that a majority of men probably have slight to moderate homosexual leanings (though they probably wouldn't speak of them because of societies' influence.) Kinsey ranked sexuality from 1-10, and if sexuality is thought of as a bell curve, it's much more likely that there are more people in the middle, then at the very extreme ends.
I think the problem with your arguments- because they are in fact well written and I understand what you're saying- is that you seem to be trying to make "feminine beauty" and male sexuality in regards to it, a very black and white thing. Giselle is a beautiful women. So is Adriana Lima, Alessandra, etc. And so are the others you have posted. They're all beautiful in different ways, and because humans have such a wide range of beauty, they all appeal. Also, all of the VS models have the WH ratio that is most appealing to men, under .70. WH Ratio is pretty much the ONLY standard of feminine beauty that scientists have determined to be WORLD WIDE. In Asia, it tends to be a little lower, compared to the West. All the models possess that, however, so to say that they aren't feminine or are highly masculine is a bit inaccurate.
Also, in regards to lingerie. Most women are the ones buying lingerie. Women are the ones that do most of the shopping at VS. And going off of your theory of "masculine" models as VS, it makes SENSE that they would have more masculine models selling lingerie. I'm a women, consider myself heterosexual (though if I were ranking on Kinsey's scale I'd probably have moderate homosexual leanings), so then I would imagine that looking at a slightly masculine women would be attractive TO ME.
Finally, I do think that you aren't giving cultural beauty standards any credit. Today, our society by large favors slim and "fit." Most women, when buying lingerie, want to see bodies like Giselle, someone who looks like she goes to the gym. We want to look that way. The adult site girls are attractive, feminine, whatever. But they don't have that "I go to the gym everyday and work it" look that is currently considered attractive- by women at least.
Brazilian: I am not being bitter toward non-European populations. Some arguments may be unflattering, but this is not the same as bitterness. And don’t accuse me of throwing in personal opinion. I try to avoid making major arguments while heavily relying on personal opinion.
You said I made a mistake comparing Europeans to non-European populations, but what has been the need for a comparison? The need has been to determine whether beauty can be objectively compared across populations. This is relevant to international beauty pageants. This comparison cannot by itself be racist. It could be racist if the comparison concluded with assigning groups along superior-inferior lines without empirical justification, but the conclusion offered within this site is that the objective comparison is not possible.
You said that masculine and feminine women are found in all populations. What is the point? Everyone knows this. And this has nothing to do with eugenics.
You talked about fake anthropology from the 1930s and terms such as Nordic, Alpine, etc. not being accepted by current academics. On the other hand, you also wrote, “Heidi looks more nordic than Karoline because her phenotype is more likely to be found in germanic countries.” So you do realize, as does anyone that has observed people from different geographic populations, that people resemble more closely related people more than more distantly related individuals. Before the mid-20th century, some anthropologists described the nuances of geographic variation in physical appearance and came up with various terms, based on a cluster of features, to describe this variation. The terms are less important than the reality the terms are trying to capture.
And what is this reality? The reality is that as long as you pick a sufficient number of features, long-nosed Swedes will cluster with short-nosed Swedes before clustering with long-nosed non-Swedes. This was as true in the 1930s as it is today. So a change in terminology is irrelevant, and the terms you refer to were dropped for political reasons, not because they didn’t correspond to reality.
You have written things like “A long nose and a long face alone doesn't make a person looks Nordic” and “1930 fake anthroplogy describes nordic people as a tall, slender, dolicocephalic, long-faced, blond, straight-nosed, blue-eyed people.” But these are strawmen. No serious physical anthropologist in the 1930s, just as today, would base ethnic classification on the twin features comprising of nose and face length. Neither could any physical anthropologist have failed to notice that 40% or more of Nordic people don’t have blue eyes or that two-thirds of Nordic adults don’t have blond hair. But they noticed that the Nordics were among the taller and less likely to be obese Europeans. They also noticed that some geographic regions in Scandinavia, such as Southern Sweden, tended to have more of the light-haired and fine-featured people, and so on. So they proposed terms describing regional population clusters within the Nordic lands, acknowledging the overlap between clusters. One could debate these terms provided that straw men are set aside but one cannot dispute the existence of regional clusters. They are there for all to see. Your beef should be with the amateurs abusing early- and mid-twentieth century anthropological literature at various bulletin boards.
I am not bashing women who don’t fit my “feminine standards.” Unflattering comparisons are not the same as bashing, and the goal is to promote feminine beauty rather than to undermine the others.
You should not put words in my mouth. You have accused me of making the argument that high cheekbones and broad facial traits make a woman look manly, whereas I have said that higher cheekbones contribute to a more masculine look though high cheekbones by themselves will not make a woman look masculine, and I have also said that more feminine faces tend to be wider in shape.
You even wrote that according to me, Asian women are masculine because they have high cheekbones! You think someone capable of coming up with this site would make an argument like this? The differences between European and East Asian faces are overwhelmingly due to factors unrelated to masculinity-femininity, and as everyone should know, masculine and feminine women are found in all populations. And you better understand what is meant by high cheekbones.
You must not accuse me of misrepresenting and making up facts without justifying these charges.
Ching Chang: Geographic breast size distribution is hardly a topic worthy of scientific investigation, but a company that makes bras needs the information for inventory control and better allocation of resources. So citing a survey by such a company is appropriate. The survey results were reported in many places apart from The Sun. So the find stands that Northern European women lean toward larger breasts among European women. I have had a discussion about this issue previously, and you should start here and not bring up this topic unless you have something new to say.
You also said that “one major reason blonde hair and blue eyes were so selected in Nordic countries is because the soft colors softened and feminized the look of otherwise small breasted angular sharp featured women.” Firstly you have no citations about the smaller breasts. Secondly, as to the need for light hair and light eye coloring to soften the hard facial appearance of Nordic women, this is ridiculous. I am not a fan of Emily’s approach, namely posting individual pictures since one could be accused of selection bias, but average facial features are better compared in group photographs drawn from similar settings. I happened to come across some pictures from an international meet showing group photos of representatives from different countries, all being young adults. This is a good example of employing controls: people drawn from a similar setting and representing regular or ordinary individuals from their nations.
So here are four relevant group photographs from this setting, along a north-south gradient: Swedes, Greeks, people from Bahrain and Moroccans (these are large pictures, and the reader may want to right-click and download them to a folder).
It should be obvious that the Swedes have finer facial features than the other groups in the pictures, on average. You can seek other venues that offer suitable controls and the general find would be finer facial features in the Nordic populations, on average.
As I said you are there to get into fights. I don't like such attitude: people dressed in good intentions to cause mess. Saying I sound as Emily posing as a brazilian will just make others that dislike her want to bash me.
I disagree so much with this site. Trying to compare "races" sound so childsh and backward. I think there should be a feminine beauty site only for black and another for asians. I do think this site is racist towards blacks and I also think many black guests are racist concerning whites. This site's author also bash too much the women who don't fit his feminine standards. Erik semms not able to understand that high cheekbones and broad facial traits don't make a woman looks manly. He simply goes too far trying to split feminine from masculine. According to Erik asian women are masculine because they have high ckeekbones. Absurdity! I'll never take him seriously.
Moreover this site isn't totally pointless. Although Erik misinterprets and make up facts, he has got some good points about the bizarre fashion world.
I do think you have some good points though. The people on this website, which is clearly racist especially to black people (did you see those pictures! OMG! so not cool), should not fight with racism. Two wrongs do not make a right, so you have a good point there
You sound like that Emily chick posing to be someone from Brazil lmao
I never said it was racist. I just said I never heard anyone actually say the words: football head to describe anything, especially a head shape or a certain groups head shape! lmao I just think its a funny and semi-retarded way of looking at something lol
Acctually I'm not calling them football heads. I'm just describing what I have heard from others who are not even related to myself. It's not even a racial slur. If you simply interprets things that way I suppose you visit this blog in order to get into fights. WTF?
Well, I'm not european and I live in Brazil. Saying it as common was really a guess of mine. I'm not sure about that. I've heard that from a few germans and swedish. Maybe they were some very isolated cases.
I have never heard anyone call any race "football heads." Seriously, how do expect to make an intelligent point using retarded terminology? LMAO! I have seriously never heard anyone say the words football head. WTF?
I disagree. I think that Amy is one of the most attractive women he has on this site! I mean seriously compare her to the other women he has on here! Some of them are gorgeous, okay that is an overstatent... some of them are okay looking, but she is one of the better looking ones and if I were a guy I def. would go for her in a heartbeat. She has a beautiful body and face! She doesn't look like a saggy chubby retarded wide eyed loser like the rest of the women on here, she looks really beautiful and cute.
I am very confused because I personally am a very slender woman with C cup breasts, a small waist, large butt, hourglass figure, light, blonde hair, dark hazel-brown eyes, round face, fine features. However, I am athletic, I can run fast and I can hit a baseball. I get straight As. People say my mannerisms are very strange because they are very feminine with a masculine twist as though I am dominating but submissive in everything I do. I have very feminine features but can act and be very masculine as well. I have a high sex drive too. How do you explain this? I look like the women you have on this site, very soft and curvy yet toned and not flabby... So what am I?
Well, now, the lingerie model debate. Dana would be a fine choice if she had smaller breasts, OR a great choice if she was selling bras in special sizes. The average cup size is between a B and C. Most common sizes are A B C. Most women would like to see themselves represented, or else they won't buy the lingerie.
I agree that someone like Maria would be a great model for lingerie. Maybe even a bit chubbier. Again, most women like to see themselves reflected in the models, and most women are a bit fatter than Maria. If you put a woman of average weight, with wide hips, medium/small breasts, small waist and gorgeous face wearing gorgeous lingerie and make her look sexy, then women are going to buy it. I would. It'd be more realistic.
My god erik, I'm about as girly girl as you can get little boys and girls come up to me and ask "are you a princess"?
but damn, I have the smallest breasts and thin shape, so how come children and adults alike think I am "ultimate feminine?"
I doubt anyone in their sane minds could look at me and say I am "masculine" yet somehow your site suggests that because of my body shape I am! I think it's the most bizarre thing i've ever heard. As if you can even classify something such as feminine by jaw shape or skull shape, just look at 1500s venetian courtesans, the ultimate female beauty of the time was obese shapely women with very large but flat bums. Here are some of the hottest venetian courtesans of that era. http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/uafcollection/shoehist/Mvc-008f.jpg http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/wardrobe/DTintorettoCourtesan.jpg
Beauty is simply something in the eye of beholder, and for you, it's female looking faces with rounded breasts, and somehow you are off on this cause to try and win other people into believing this two is the ultimate beauty, honestly for all your logistics, who are you to say what is feminine and what is not, it's entirely up to the individual's tastes. We are all wired differently, hence fetishes.
Someone called you a pedophile earlier, I will say now you are anything but that, you hate small breasts! And why? Because they represent in your mind, what homosexuals like as models within the fashion community, and you so clearly detest this with an obsessive passion that you make an entire site practically devoted to the topic of slashing and slandering various female images which you have hoarded off the net. Surely you have something more worthwhile to do with that fine intelligent little mind of yours?
More than anything you seem to be highly well read and informed, but alongside this, highly homophobic, so much so, that you cannot bare women with small breasts and masculine features, because they remind you of this constant nagging factor. Perhaps there are deeper issues Erik? Perhaps it's time we seeked help in order to get on with our lives in a productive manner, for as long as you live, those small breasted masculine women will be haunting you, every time you walk down the street you can't help but scan them trying to work out who is the most feminine, then you'll see one, with broad shoulders and an invisible bust, you'll cringe in horror.
Your site gives hope for larger women on advice how to loose weight but maintain healthy muscle/body mass. But what about for those of us with A cups? Is there no hope? Should we then go drown ourselves in masculine shame, that we are somehow boarder line transexuals? Have you ever seen transexuals? Some are more "feminine" than most women could ever hope to be.
So what is your advice for the small breasted girls? We need implants in order to snare heterosexual men? That without them we are no longer female? I'm pretty sure I look more like a girl than most women with implants.
Anyway Erik, never fear, there is help for those such as yourself, local clinics in the area can provide the answers.
And if that fails, there is always drugs, and of course, failing that, you could actually get a boyfriend.
Kindest Regards
Isibella
I get what you're saying, Vincent, but those weren't exactly my words, those are things that posters above me said, and those are practically the main ideas in this site.
J SAID:
He said "Beauty is by its very nature exclusive and exists within a narrow range." I am glad someone is willing to actually say this. I'm pretty tired of the "everyone is beautiful" game. If everyone is, no one is. It's like saying everyone is tall.
JAMES SAID:
For me no matter what the size: 8 , 12, 16 or more, I like to see an hourglass figure. A-cup or D-cup, big booty or small, I like to look up from the feet to see that curvy swell of hips, then moving narrower to the waist and then out again as it goes up. And big, captivating eyes
Concerning the ongoing subject. Heidi Klum is by far more nordic looking than the fake-lipped russian top model. People out there still rely so much on FAKE anthropology to describe what europeans are and are not. Classification as nordic, alpine, dinaric, boberry, faelid and med don't stand as a solid science. It's junk 1930 anthropology not even accepted by current academics. Read serious papers and you will never see these terms being cited.
1930 fake anthroplogy describes nordic people as a tall, slender, dolicocephalic, long-faced, blond, straight-nosed, blue-eyed people. It even goes far trying to connect for example a long-nosed from England with a long-nosed from India when in reality they developed such traits independently. Pure junk "science". Nordic people are simply the people of Northern Europe. They come up in different shapes, hair and eyes color. Swedish people possess either thin or broad traits as long as spaniards, portugueses, french, english and on.
Heidi looks more nordic than Karoline because her phenotype is more likely to be found in germanic countries. A long nose and a long face alone doesn't make a person looks nordic. I can bring up some long faced-nosed swendish woman to contrast with Karoline and all you see how they differ too much. Nordic although diverse usually have very sharper traits. There is something so eastern about Karoline that simply doens't fit the western phenotype. To be honest Karoline doesn't look like a classic slavic at all. The prevalent phenotype in slavic countries display bulbous and rounded traits while in the Western It's more rectangular. Of course rounded traits as much as rectangular forms can be found vastly in either slavic or western countries. Have you never heard of the expression football heads used to describe slavic people sometimes?
A long faced-nosed slavic usually looks different from a long faced-nosed nordic. I'm able to found Spaniards (even brunettes) that match the scandinavian traits more than those of slavic people. Slavics, although not always, usually don't fit in Western Europe. If long traits are a ticket for nordic label then a blond arab would be even more nordic than nordic people themselves.
Even slavics differ between them. Polish for example look way more western than russian although in a eastern way.
As a brazilian person I've got my points about this site.
This site is racist (at least partially). Erik brings to us some interesting discussions. He even provides some delightful scientifical studies and facts. The problem concerning this site is when Erik turn off science and starts throwing PERSONAL opinion. I have no problem accepting nordic woman as the most feminine as long as this "fact" stick to science. But very usually Erik is bitter to other "races", so the uncountable bitter response he gets by the guests.
You Erick, commited a mistake when you started to compare white people to asiat and black people. You should always keep to your own. You should just talk of white people and no other "race" else. You receive acid response because you are bitter and offensive to others
Another problem are the guests. You simply combat racism with racism. To talk shit about nordic and white people will not get things better. Nordic people are indeed a BEAUTIFUL and blessed. Triying to prove otherwise will make you look like a clown and envious. Instead you should prove that your own people is also beautiful and your women are feminine al well in order to debunke what Erik have said.
Masculinity and Feminity ins't a matter of racial origin. It's a matter of eugenics. There exist masculine and feminine woman all over the world. Some tribes or nations have got more masculine woman simply because their men were unsuccessful selecting the most feminine woman traits to give birth to a more femine offspring. It's the seletion of the fittest. Anyone adventuring through Africa will realize that among tribes there are those who possess more feminine women and other that lies on the masculine side. A successful eugenic is displayed in a tribe where the men look masculine and the women come up feminine.
Brazil isn't different. One can spot masculine and feminine woman wherever he goes.
From the way you think I can see why the best lovers are from France! Maybe if Erik thought like that he would get laid more often...
jk Erik, just a joke to lighten up the mood lol
I want to answer to "What?"
You say "not everyone can be beautiful, because beauty is narrow" : THAT'S NOT TRUE, beauty is wide
You say "HOURGLASSES ARE WHAT MEN WANT" : THAT'S NOT TRUE
WOMEN ARE WHAT MEN WANT
I'm a man and sure I like hourglasses BUT that's not important : lot of a girls whith flat breast or flat ass are nevertheless beautiful. Sometimes, just a mooth or a nice haircut or beautiful eyes makes a woman entirely beautiful.
Women are what men like, so if you are a woman, you're on the right way.
I think this is inaccurate bs, even scientifically. the beauty is in the eye of the beholder 100%, even if some biological measurements may lead us to this individual beauty.
but on the WHR thing; obviously men like some curves in women, but the matter of curviness is totally individual. a 0,63 waist is not at all better than a 0,76. women come in all forms and this is what makes people beautiful, in a 100% easthetic way. I´m an artist so I should know. some have large breasts, some have pretty smaller breasts with an apple form, some have pear-shaped midsize breasts etc etc..and they´re all sexy! some girls have broad shoulders and quite a big WHR like 0,78 but still look amazing. some are heavier and some are skinnier, and they are look pretty because you also have to consider volume and not just whr. volume, that is, which parts that catch your eye and make you relay on it, shapes is more important than WHR. and all women have different volume parts/shapes that are all beautiful. think which parts that catch light when shined on with a lamp in the dark.
also, a very small whr like 0,63 might just as well look unhealthy and not very pleasing. most girls have measurements around 0,74, and most girls are pretty whatever whr. everyone, especially if healthy and eating well, have beautiful and perfect bodies. this is unquestionable and the truth
Ok, so I don't think I'm beautiful by media standards. But I'm also not feminine enough according to this site either. Fine. So it's a universal truth that you need to be an hourglass to be a beautiful woman. But what happens when you didn't choose your damn genes? Is it my fault that I'm UGLY? Because if I'm not feminine enough, then if I'm not beautiful, then I'm UGLY.
I'm not an insecure girl with huge breasts, ugly dyed blonde hair and narrow hips (ie. Playboy wannabe). No. I have huge hips and small breasts, and I'm in my normal BMI, but not quite as thin as the models placed here. As I said, I don't have much hair. My jaw line is a bit strong. I'm not blonde. I'm latina. My skin isn't white.
Great. How am I supposed to feel good about myself if I'm being confirmed that I'm ugly?
James, congrats on you for being a man. Congrats for loving the curves of feminine women. Congrats on not having to feel bad about yourself because of a website that is telling you that your body is simply not enough.
Oh, but I'm a woman. And women are nagging bitches. And women take everything too personally and they shouldn't, they shouldn't feel bad because a bunch of "science" men are "promoting" this ideal of beauty. An ideal that we just can't achieve.
FFS people, NOBODY likes feeling ugly. Just as I have to accept that "not everyone can be beautiful, because beauty is narrow", just accept my feelings of inadequacy because I'm being told I'm ugly, and I didn't choose to. I'm not attacking Erik, I think I already stated that. Of course I know a waif is not attractive, I don't even buy women's magazines or strive to look like Adriana Lima, I'm not an idiot, I KNOW HOURGLASSES ARE WHAT MEN WANT. It just hurts not to be one. Because I look like a stupid pear.
Still, I think that just for scientifical interest, it would be nice to know what the standards of male beauty are. Not to make any man feel inadequate, but just to know why is it that wide shoulders and being tall are considered attractive in a man.
She is really feminine, how can you say she is not really that feminine? She is more feminine than most of the women in your attractive section. Honestly, you really have no clue what you are talking about in terms of femininty masculinity...
This has one been one of the most interesting reads in a long time, despite your very ignorant (and probably insulting) use of the words transsexual/transvestite/eunuch.
It's very ignorant not to know what the difference between transsexual and transvestite is but you probably don't like shemale porn i would assume haha.
I actually have had similar thoughts about the tan craze because tan is a *very* masculine characteristic (and what is even more important it can make you look 40ish even before like 25, so yeah...)
but you fail to understand that this show is intended for women and women like fierceness this word summarizes so much and these models are the very epitome of that, women don't want to be some low testosterone exposure grown skeletons with strategically displaced high amounts of adipose fat tissue to please the eye of some fundamentalist men they want to be fierce.
You say "lifetime heterosexual male" like it's a black/white thing. But sexuality isn't. More girls than guys are willing to admit to homosexual fantasies, and if you look at cultures both in modern and historic times where homosexuality was accepted more than it is today, I have to believe that a majority of men probably have slight to moderate homosexual leanings (though they probably wouldn't speak of them because of societies' influence.) Kinsey ranked sexuality from 1-10, and if sexuality is thought of as a bell curve, it's much more likely that there are more people in the middle, then at the very extreme ends.
I think the problem with your arguments- because they are in fact well written and I understand what you're saying- is that you seem to be trying to make "feminine beauty" and male sexuality in regards to it, a very black and white thing. Giselle is a beautiful women. So is Adriana Lima, Alessandra, etc. And so are the others you have posted. They're all beautiful in different ways, and because humans have such a wide range of beauty, they all appeal. Also, all of the VS models have the WH ratio that is most appealing to men, under .70. WH Ratio is pretty much the ONLY standard of feminine beauty that scientists have determined to be WORLD WIDE. In Asia, it tends to be a little lower, compared to the West. All the models possess that, however, so to say that they aren't feminine or are highly masculine is a bit inaccurate.
Also, in regards to lingerie. Most women are the ones buying lingerie. Women are the ones that do most of the shopping at VS. And going off of your theory of "masculine" models as VS, it makes SENSE that they would have more masculine models selling lingerie. I'm a women, consider myself heterosexual (though if I were ranking on Kinsey's scale I'd probably have moderate homosexual leanings), so then I would imagine that looking at a slightly masculine women would be attractive TO ME.
Finally, I do think that you aren't giving cultural beauty standards any credit. Today, our society by large favors slim and "fit." Most women, when buying lingerie, want to see bodies like Giselle, someone who looks like she goes to the gym. We want to look that way. The adult site girls are attractive, feminine, whatever. But they don't have that "I go to the gym everyday and work it" look that is currently considered attractive- by women at least.
Wow i really activated this page! hehe i feel good
Erik you haven't replied to me yet :(
It was just a simple Q or a few
Brazilian: I am not being bitter toward non-European populations. Some arguments may be unflattering, but this is not the same as bitterness. And don’t accuse me of throwing in personal opinion. I try to avoid making major arguments while heavily relying on personal opinion.
You said I made a mistake comparing Europeans to non-European populations, but what has been the need for a comparison? The need has been to determine whether beauty can be objectively compared across populations. This is relevant to international beauty pageants. This comparison cannot by itself be racist. It could be racist if the comparison concluded with assigning groups along superior-inferior lines without empirical justification, but the conclusion offered within this site is that the objective comparison is not possible.
You said that masculine and feminine women are found in all populations. What is the point? Everyone knows this. And this has nothing to do with eugenics.
You talked about fake anthropology from the 1930s and terms such as Nordic, Alpine, etc. not being accepted by current academics. On the other hand, you also wrote, “Heidi looks more nordic than Karoline because her phenotype is more likely to be found in germanic countries.” So you do realize, as does anyone that has observed people from different geographic populations, that people resemble more closely related people more than more distantly related individuals. Before the mid-20th century, some anthropologists described the nuances of geographic variation in physical appearance and came up with various terms, based on a cluster of features, to describe this variation. The terms are less important than the reality the terms are trying to capture.
And what is this reality? The reality is that as long as you pick a sufficient number of features, long-nosed Swedes will cluster with short-nosed Swedes before clustering with long-nosed non-Swedes. This was as true in the 1930s as it is today. So a change in terminology is irrelevant, and the terms you refer to were dropped for political reasons, not because they didn’t correspond to reality.
You have written things like “A long nose and a long face alone doesn't make a person looks Nordic” and “1930 fake anthroplogy describes nordic people as a tall, slender, dolicocephalic, long-faced, blond, straight-nosed, blue-eyed people.” But these are strawmen. No serious physical anthropologist in the 1930s, just as today, would base ethnic classification on the twin features comprising of nose and face length. Neither could any physical anthropologist have failed to notice that 40% or more of Nordic people don’t have blue eyes or that two-thirds of Nordic adults don’t have blond hair. But they noticed that the Nordics were among the taller and less likely to be obese Europeans. They also noticed that some geographic regions in Scandinavia, such as Southern Sweden, tended to have more of the light-haired and fine-featured people, and so on. So they proposed terms describing regional population clusters within the Nordic lands, acknowledging the overlap between clusters. One could debate these terms provided that straw men are set aside but one cannot dispute the existence of regional clusters. They are there for all to see. Your beef should be with the amateurs abusing early- and mid-twentieth century anthropological literature at various bulletin boards.
I am not bashing women who don’t fit my “feminine standards.” Unflattering comparisons are not the same as bashing, and the goal is to promote feminine beauty rather than to undermine the others.
You should not put words in my mouth. You have accused me of making the argument that high cheekbones and broad facial traits make a woman look manly, whereas I have said that higher cheekbones contribute to a more masculine look though high cheekbones by themselves will not make a woman look masculine, and I have also said that more feminine faces tend to be wider in shape.
You even wrote that according to me, Asian women are masculine because they have high cheekbones! You think someone capable of coming up with this site would make an argument like this? The differences between European and East Asian faces are overwhelmingly due to factors unrelated to masculinity-femininity, and as everyone should know, masculine and feminine women are found in all populations. And you better understand what is meant by high cheekbones.
You must not accuse me of misrepresenting and making up facts without justifying these charges.
Ching Chang: Geographic breast size distribution is hardly a topic worthy of scientific investigation, but a company that makes bras needs the information for inventory control and better allocation of resources. So citing a survey by such a company is appropriate. The survey results were reported in many places apart from The Sun. So the find stands that Northern European women lean toward larger breasts among European women. I have had a discussion about this issue previously, and you should start here and not bring up this topic unless you have something new to say.
You also said that “one major reason blonde hair and blue eyes were so selected in Nordic countries is because the soft colors softened and feminized the look of otherwise small breasted angular sharp featured women.” Firstly you have no citations about the smaller breasts. Secondly, as to the need for light hair and light eye coloring to soften the hard facial appearance of Nordic women, this is ridiculous. I am not a fan of Emily’s approach, namely posting individual pictures since one could be accused of selection bias, but average facial features are better compared in group photographs drawn from similar settings. I happened to come across some pictures from an international meet showing group photos of representatives from different countries, all being young adults. This is a good example of employing controls: people drawn from a similar setting and representing regular or ordinary individuals from their nations.
So here are four relevant group photographs from this setting, along a north-south gradient: Swedes, Greeks, people from Bahrain and Moroccans (these are large pictures, and the reader may want to right-click and download them to a folder).
It should be obvious that the Swedes have finer facial features than the other groups in the pictures, on average. You can seek other venues that offer suitable controls and the general find would be finer facial features in the Nordic populations, on average.
As I said you are there to get into fights. I don't like such attitude: people dressed in good intentions to cause mess. Saying I sound as Emily posing as a brazilian will just make others that dislike her want to bash me.
I disagree so much with this site. Trying to compare "races" sound so childsh and backward. I think there should be a feminine beauty site only for black and another for asians. I do think this site is racist towards blacks and I also think many black guests are racist concerning whites. This site's author also bash too much the women who don't fit his feminine standards. Erik semms not able to understand that high cheekbones and broad facial traits don't make a woman looks manly. He simply goes too far trying to split feminine from masculine. According to Erik asian women are masculine because they have high ckeekbones. Absurdity! I'll never take him seriously.
Moreover this site isn't totally pointless. Although Erik misinterprets and make up facts, he has got some good points about the bizarre fashion world.
To "What?"
Ok if you want to be a pinup or a pornstar or Miss World, you have to be hourglass shaped and to have a feminine face, that's ok.
But one can be very attractive without this, one do not need to have the perfect body to be beautiful.
You must keep in mind that men and are not tyrannical about feminine beauty.
Brazil,
I do think you have some good points though. The people on this website, which is clearly racist especially to black people (did you see those pictures! OMG! so not cool), should not fight with racism. Two wrongs do not make a right, so you have a good point there
You sound like that Emily chick posing to be someone from Brazil lmao
I never said it was racist. I just said I never heard anyone actually say the words: football head to describe anything, especially a head shape or a certain groups head shape! lmao I just think its a funny and semi-retarded way of looking at something lol
Acctually I'm not calling them football heads. I'm just describing what I have heard from others who are not even related to myself. It's not even a racial slur. If you simply interprets things that way I suppose you visit this blog in order to get into fights. WTF?
Well, I'm not european and I live in Brazil. Saying it as common was really a guess of mine. I'm not sure about that. I've heard that from a few germans and swedish. Maybe they were some very isolated cases.
Brazilian,
I have never heard anyone call any race "football heads." Seriously, how do expect to make an intelligent point using retarded terminology? LMAO! I have seriously never heard anyone say the words football head. WTF?
I disagree. I think that Amy is one of the most attractive women he has on this site! I mean seriously compare her to the other women he has on here! Some of them are gorgeous, okay that is an overstatent... some of them are okay looking, but she is one of the better looking ones and if I were a guy I def. would go for her in a heartbeat. She has a beautiful body and face! She doesn't look like a saggy chubby retarded wide eyed loser like the rest of the women on here, she looks really beautiful and cute.
Im sorry buy Amy is not an attractive woman and Alessandra is one of the most beautiful women ever, I don't know what your smokin
I am very confused because I personally am a very slender woman with C cup breasts, a small waist, large butt, hourglass figure, light, blonde hair, dark hazel-brown eyes, round face, fine features. However, I am athletic, I can run fast and I can hit a baseball. I get straight As. People say my mannerisms are very strange because they are very feminine with a masculine twist as though I am dominating but submissive in everything I do. I have very feminine features but can act and be very masculine as well. I have a high sex drive too. How do you explain this? I look like the women you have on this site, very soft and curvy yet toned and not flabby... So what am I?
Hm... I can see why Heidi is manly. That jaw...
Well, now, the lingerie model debate. Dana would be a fine choice if she had smaller breasts, OR a great choice if she was selling bras in special sizes. The average cup size is between a B and C. Most common sizes are A B C. Most women would like to see themselves represented, or else they won't buy the lingerie.
I agree that someone like Maria would be a great model for lingerie. Maybe even a bit chubbier. Again, most women like to see themselves reflected in the models, and most women are a bit fatter than Maria. If you put a woman of average weight, with wide hips, medium/small breasts, small waist and gorgeous face wearing gorgeous lingerie and make her look sexy, then women are going to buy it. I would. It'd be more realistic.
My god erik, I'm about as girly girl as you can get little boys and girls come up to me and ask "are you a princess"?
but damn, I have the smallest breasts and thin shape, so how come children and adults alike think I am "ultimate feminine?"
I doubt anyone in their sane minds could look at me and say I am "masculine" yet somehow your site suggests that because of my body shape I am! I think it's the most bizarre thing i've ever heard. As if you can even classify something such as feminine by jaw shape or skull shape, just look at 1500s venetian courtesans, the ultimate female beauty of the time was obese shapely women with very large but flat bums. Here are some of the hottest venetian courtesans of that era.
http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/uafcollection/shoehist/Mvc-008f.jpg
http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/wardrobe/DTintorettoCourtesan.jpg
Beauty is simply something in the eye of beholder, and for you, it's female looking faces with rounded breasts, and somehow you are off on this cause to try and win other people into believing this two is the ultimate beauty, honestly for all your logistics, who are you to say what is feminine and what is not, it's entirely up to the individual's tastes. We are all wired differently, hence fetishes.
Someone called you a pedophile earlier, I will say now you are anything but that, you hate small breasts! And why? Because they represent in your mind, what homosexuals like as models within the fashion community, and you so clearly detest this with an obsessive passion that you make an entire site practically devoted to the topic of slashing and slandering various female images which you have hoarded off the net. Surely you have something more worthwhile to do with that fine intelligent little mind of yours?
More than anything you seem to be highly well read and informed, but alongside this, highly homophobic, so much so, that you cannot bare women with small breasts and masculine features, because they remind you of this constant nagging factor. Perhaps there are deeper issues Erik? Perhaps it's time we seeked help in order to get on with our lives in a productive manner, for as long as you live, those small breasted masculine women will be haunting you, every time you walk down the street you can't help but scan them trying to work out who is the most feminine, then you'll see one, with broad shoulders and an invisible bust, you'll cringe in horror.
Your site gives hope for larger women on advice how to loose weight but maintain healthy muscle/body mass. But what about for those of us with A cups? Is there no hope? Should we then go drown ourselves in masculine shame, that we are somehow boarder line transexuals? Have you ever seen transexuals? Some are more "feminine" than most women could ever hope to be.
So what is your advice for the small breasted girls? We need implants in order to snare heterosexual men? That without them we are no longer female? I'm pretty sure I look more like a girl than most women with implants.
Anyway Erik, never fear, there is help for those such as yourself, local clinics in the area can provide the answers.
And if that fails, there is always drugs, and of course, failing that, you could actually get a boyfriend.
Kindest Regards
Isibella
what?,
however just because many of those people say this, including erik, does not make their statements objective...
I get what you're saying, Vincent, but those weren't exactly my words, those are things that posters above me said, and those are practically the main ideas in this site.
J SAID:
JAMES SAID:
Concerning the ongoing subject. Heidi Klum is by far more nordic looking than the fake-lipped russian top model. People out there still rely so much on FAKE anthropology to describe what europeans are and are not. Classification as nordic, alpine, dinaric, boberry, faelid and med don't stand as a solid science. It's junk 1930 anthropology not even accepted by current academics. Read serious papers and you will never see these terms being cited.
1930 fake anthroplogy describes nordic people as a tall, slender, dolicocephalic, long-faced, blond, straight-nosed, blue-eyed people. It even goes far trying to connect for example a long-nosed from England with a long-nosed from India when in reality they developed such traits independently. Pure junk "science". Nordic people are simply the people of Northern Europe. They come up in different shapes, hair and eyes color. Swedish people possess either thin or broad traits as long as spaniards, portugueses, french, english and on.
Heidi looks more nordic than Karoline because her phenotype is more likely to be found in germanic countries. A long nose and a long face alone doesn't make a person looks nordic. I can bring up some long faced-nosed swendish woman to contrast with Karoline and all you see how they differ too much. Nordic although diverse usually have very sharper traits. There is something so eastern about Karoline that simply doens't fit the western phenotype. To be honest Karoline doesn't look like a classic slavic at all. The prevalent phenotype in slavic countries display bulbous and rounded traits while in the Western It's more rectangular. Of course rounded traits as much as rectangular forms can be found vastly in either slavic or western countries. Have you never heard of the expression football heads used to describe slavic people sometimes?
A long faced-nosed slavic usually looks different from a long faced-nosed nordic. I'm able to found Spaniards (even brunettes) that match the scandinavian traits more than those of slavic people. Slavics, although not always, usually don't fit in Western Europe. If long traits are a ticket for nordic label then a blond arab would be even more nordic than nordic people themselves.
Even slavics differ between them. Polish for example look way more western than russian although in a eastern way.
As a brazilian person I've got my points about this site.
This site is racist (at least partially). Erik brings to us some interesting discussions. He even provides some delightful scientifical studies and facts. The problem concerning this site is when Erik turn off science and starts throwing PERSONAL opinion. I have no problem accepting nordic woman as the most feminine as long as this "fact" stick to science. But very usually Erik is bitter to other "races", so the uncountable bitter response he gets by the guests.
You Erick, commited a mistake when you started to compare white people to asiat and black people. You should always keep to your own. You should just talk of white people and no other "race" else. You receive acid response because you are bitter and offensive to others
Another problem are the guests. You simply combat racism with racism. To talk shit about nordic and white people will not get things better. Nordic people are indeed a BEAUTIFUL and blessed. Triying to prove otherwise will make you look like a clown and envious. Instead you should prove that your own people is also beautiful and your women are feminine al well in order to debunke what Erik have said.
Masculinity and Feminity ins't a matter of racial origin. It's a matter of eugenics. There exist masculine and feminine woman all over the world. Some tribes or nations have got more masculine woman simply because their men were unsuccessful selecting the most feminine woman traits to give birth to a more femine offspring. It's the seletion of the fittest. Anyone adventuring through Africa will realize that among tribes there are those who possess more feminine women and other that lies on the masculine side. A successful eugenic is displayed in a tribe where the men look masculine and the women come up feminine.
Brazil isn't different. One can spot masculine and feminine woman wherever he goes.
Vincent,
From the way you think I can see why the best lovers are from France! Maybe if Erik thought like that he would get laid more often...
jk Erik, just a joke to lighten up the mood lol
I want to answer to "What?"
You say "not everyone can be beautiful, because beauty is narrow" : THAT'S NOT TRUE, beauty is wide
You say "HOURGLASSES ARE WHAT MEN WANT" : THAT'S NOT TRUE
WOMEN ARE WHAT MEN WANT
I'm a man and sure I like hourglasses BUT that's not important : lot of a girls whith flat breast or flat ass are nevertheless beautiful. Sometimes, just a mooth or a nice haircut or beautiful eyes makes a woman entirely beautiful.
Women are what men like, so if you are a woman, you're on the right way.
It is easy for a woman to be beautiful.
I think this is inaccurate bs, even scientifically. the beauty is in the eye of the beholder 100%, even if some biological measurements may lead us to this individual beauty.
but on the WHR thing; obviously men like some curves in women, but the matter of curviness is totally individual. a 0,63 waist is not at all better than a 0,76. women come in all forms and this is what makes people beautiful, in a 100% easthetic way. I´m an artist so I should know. some have large breasts, some have pretty smaller breasts with an apple form, some have pear-shaped midsize breasts etc etc..and they´re all sexy! some girls have broad shoulders and quite a big WHR like 0,78 but still look amazing. some are heavier and some are skinnier, and they are look pretty because you also have to consider volume and not just whr. volume, that is, which parts that catch your eye and make you relay on it, shapes is more important than WHR. and all women have different volume parts/shapes that are all beautiful. think which parts that catch light when shined on with a lamp in the dark.
also, a very small whr like 0,63 might just as well look unhealthy and not very pleasing. most girls have measurements around 0,74, and most girls are pretty whatever whr. everyone, especially if healthy and eating well, have beautiful and perfect bodies. this is unquestionable and the truth
Ok, so I don't think I'm beautiful by media standards. But I'm also not feminine enough according to this site either. Fine. So it's a universal truth that you need to be an hourglass to be a beautiful woman. But what happens when you didn't choose your damn genes? Is it my fault that I'm UGLY? Because if I'm not feminine enough, then if I'm not beautiful, then I'm UGLY.
I'm not an insecure girl with huge breasts, ugly dyed blonde hair and narrow hips (ie. Playboy wannabe). No. I have huge hips and small breasts, and I'm in my normal BMI, but not quite as thin as the models placed here. As I said, I don't have much hair. My jaw line is a bit strong. I'm not blonde. I'm latina. My skin isn't white.
Great. How am I supposed to feel good about myself if I'm being confirmed that I'm ugly?
James, congrats on you for being a man. Congrats for loving the curves of feminine women. Congrats on not having to feel bad about yourself because of a website that is telling you that your body is simply not enough.
Oh, but I'm a woman. And women are nagging bitches. And women take everything too personally and they shouldn't, they shouldn't feel bad because a bunch of "science" men are "promoting" this ideal of beauty. An ideal that we just can't achieve.
FFS people, NOBODY likes feeling ugly. Just as I have to accept that "not everyone can be beautiful, because beauty is narrow", just accept my feelings of inadequacy because I'm being told I'm ugly, and I didn't choose to. I'm not attacking Erik, I think I already stated that. Of course I know a waif is not attractive, I don't even buy women's magazines or strive to look like Adriana Lima, I'm not an idiot, I KNOW HOURGLASSES ARE WHAT MEN WANT. It just hurts not to be one. Because I look like a stupid pear.
Still, I think that just for scientifical interest, it would be nice to know what the standards of male beauty are. Not to make any man feel inadequate, but just to know why is it that wide shoulders and being tall are considered attractive in a man.
She is really feminine, how can you say she is not really that feminine? She is more feminine than most of the women in your attractive section. Honestly, you really have no clue what you are talking about in terms of femininty masculinity...
Pages