Alex: Many ape species are long extinct but some have survived. Apes descend from monkeys and only some of the monkey species that have ever appeared exist today. Some past species are no longer found because they transformed to newer species. And, some human species didn’t exactly disappear because some of their members were absorbed by the lineage leading to present humans. In nature, some species could persist with little outward alteration over tens of millions of years, whereas others could change rapidly or become extinct over a fraction of this period; there is tremendous variation.
‘Perfect aesthetics’ would be difficult to achieve naturally. If you look at human descent from the ancestral species, the details of what is aesthetically appealing have changed. Even if the aesthetic sense were to remain constant, many phenomena will continue to ensure plenty of people that will be found physically unattractive by many or most others: genetic mutations, developmental anomalies, sexually antagonistic selection, etc.
It is not just the Australian aborigines, but here in the U.S., all attempts to educate the West African stock on par with whites and make them comparably intellectually and economically productive have failed. Does this have anything to do with skull shape? If one were to examine a possible correlation between average IQ of a population and its average face shape, one will surely obtain a significant [ecological] correlation for the human species, but what will it mean? There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that the correlation is a coincidence without an underlying causal relationship. The second is that the correlation is entirely accounted for by a causal relationship that may be either of three types: lower intelligence results in a more overall ancestral face shape, a more overall ancestral face shape results in lower intelligence, or third party common underlying factors are simultaneously responsible for both lower intelligence and a more overall ancestral face shape. The third possibility is that the correlation is in part a coincidence and in part accounted for by a causal relationship.
In my estimation the third possibility is most likely. For instance, face shape and brain development are affected by common underlying factors, and you can see this being documented in this example of performance on subsets of intelligence tests being correlated with specific forms of variation in face shape in an European population (see fig 6). On the other hand, it is easy to come across some Africans or aborigines who have higher IQs than some Europeans notwithstanding more overall ancestral face shapes. And, there was a researcher who documented that the spatial location memory (ability to recall locations of objects in space) of Australian aborigines was on average higher than those of Europeans, and that this advantage corresponded to the relevant portion of the brain responsible being larger in the aborigines, though last I heard he was unable to find a journal willing to publish his article.
We talked about this stuff in a few classes in college, so forgive me for not remember exactly which class these came from... physiology, psychology, biology... they all run together.
The first biggie I remember was the Hip-to-waist ratio being the #1 factor men used, consciously and unconsciously, to determine the desirability of women. There were a bunch of studies on that... the one that sticks out in my mind the most is the one where men chose from outlines of women (gradually gaining in hip size relative to a set waist size – or gradually gaining in waist size relative to a set hip size – probably 40 outlines in all, if I remember correctly) and there was an extreme draw to a particular section of the selections. Then the range that was most commonly chosen was compared to modern sex symbols and sex symbols (or feminine beauty captures) from previous eras throughout history, going clear back to early (B.C.) sculptures. The conclusion was that, indeed, there was a fairly standard hip-to-waist ratio that men across the ages have been drawn to. Body Mass Index (by appearance) was not standard but the ratio was (meaning that muscle tone, fat content, etc was not similar across history but the hip-to-waist ration was similar).
The second biggie was the effects of estrogen on the development of the female body and which characteristics yielded a high degree of attractiveness. You have mentioned hip width and breast size but I think you have left out some major ones like eye size (bigger is more feminine), lip fullness (fuller is more feminine), and some others. I'd like to point out that all of the models shown on these pages have beautiful, large eyes and extremely kissable lips. I tried to see it, but I just don't see anything masculine about any of these women.
On a final note, I have had the good fortune to have dated some wonderful women in my life and they have come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. I dated a pencil thin supermodel-esque woman who made people drop things when she walked by, I dated an ultra-fit 13% body fat athlete who could have easily kicked my ass, I dated a woman who would be considered "fat" by most standards, and I have dated a "real" woman who was in good physical condition but not an athlete, who had probably 20-35% body fat but wasn't overweight...
Anyway, they were all beautiful and fun and sexual and smart WOMEN. I don't think it is possible to lump any "type" of woman into the role of the perfect woman or even to say that this woman is more beautiful than that woman. Especially with modern brainwashing through magazines, dolls, TV, and other media constantly bombarding us with images tied to things tied to ideas that we want in order to shape ourselves to fit in with that artificial herd. I was in my THIRTIES before I finally found the woman who really did it for me. When I look at her I am aroused. When I snuggle with her I am aroused. When I think of her I am aroused and we have been together for almost 6 years now. She turns me on 50 ways from sundown BUT she does nothing for my Brother or my best friend. And the girl my best friend is settling down with does absolutely nothing for me or my Brother. What is interesting here is that when we were all back in High School we all were going after the same girl(s). I think that the way we live today retards the process of us finding and accepting the woman that really is attractive to us. We have to grow up and get some experience with the types that we have been told we should want... and then have some experience with some other types, before we start to figure out that our psychological and physiological responses don't necessarily match what MTV has been ramming down our throats over the course of our entire lifespans. Sometimes they do match up and there is nothing wrong with that either. Darwin probably has a plan for each of us so why fight it? Like what you like and be happy liking it. Take care of yourself, be healthy and strong and be happy being what you are.
If Northern Europeans so beautiful why does Basshunter, a SWEDISH singer constantly put this woman who is middle eastern into all of his videos with the blondes only as background?
Her nose is obviously not nordic. It so softer than a nordic nose. get over yourself.
A nordic nose also has the tendence to become convex. There are many middle eastern or indian women that have beautiful noses. In fact many times softer and more feminine than nordic noses. They are not in the minority either. Your arguments have no backbone and are clearly a reflection of deep issues. I question whether you have an inferiority complex problem that is manifested in putting down other ethnicities?
Another piece of NG nonsense: the Neanderthals had to consume almost double the calories to support their muscle mass which was (extrapolating from the muscle attachments) double that of fully modern humans. Here is an illustration showing this unlikelyhood in a male, without the morbid obesity of HG's model http://johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/built1.htm
I have a better solution they were far more powerful because their muscles were weight for weight twice as strong, like chimps. (Vertical jumping performance of bonobos. Scholz)
I think I'll listen to Karl because he seems somewhat intelligent. Erik seems intelligent as well just not as intelligent as Karl and Karl isn't biased like Erik.
Um... Nordic women accounted for 52% or 272 patients total. This is more than all the rest added up? How does this study prove your point? Also, Nordic women are known for higher nose bridges and longer noses in general. There have also been many studies done and it is proven that a white person becomes more attractive as they near Asian and visa verca. There are also many studies that indicate that mixed persons are most attractive especially with Asian because Asian features are most delicate. Eurasians are rated as the most attractive in many studies. When mixed with Asians there is a higher chance for average features. That is a nose bridge that is not as high as the caucasians, a face not as narrow, eyes not so close set,etc. The human brain processes averageness easier therefore averageness is considered more attractive. Also, Asians have the least testosterone than any other race and are more feminine than any other race. African American have the most testosterone, Caucasians are in the middle, Asians have the least.
I must admit that there are some beautiful Nordic women just like there are beautiful women in every culture. An example:Charlize Theron http://images.askmen.com/galleries/celeb-profiles-model/charlize-theron/pictures/charlize-theron-picture-6.jpg
AMAZING BEAUTIFUL FACE! However, I have seen faces just as feminine and beautiful in other cultures. Take a look at her body. Note: This is the typical Nordic body. Long, lanky, thin, small breasts and buttocks.
Go study some anthropology. The Nordic bone structure is discussed in many places. Charlize Theron is like the poster child for your usual tall, blonde, blue eyed Nordic woman.
Probably she is so ugly like you?.............what's a hell are you saying asian girls look like the female neanderthal? Most asian girls probably are lesser pretty than the caucasian girls but they are way feminier than caucasian girls. if you were male? have you ever been sleep with the asian girls? so you say they are robust lol fuckin shit.......most asian girls are way smell nicer and their skin are so smoother and the shape also fragile, have no body hair when compare to the British and the american trolls are so slow in bed, get over yourself.
Note : I know the caucasian girls got prettier facial's feature however, its very quite a fews who look like the girls on this site, for example, the girls from holland, russia, finlandia, latvia and lithunia. the least of caucasians have got the robust shape and manish nasal, all in all you have to accept that every races have beautiful and ugly people.
This woman Aish, the actress- she is pretty in a striking, almost unreal way. Like one of those multicultural barbies that isn't quite white or black or oriental and so on, but has a mixture of qualities of all , some even incongruous, like the eyes- you don't expect to see light eyes in India. She's not very dark, but has a full mouth- like they took certain qualities from all cultures - as if it were a multiculti Pygmalion. I don't know what I would guess she was if I didn't know. Maybe would guess white and middle eastern or some kind of oriental and white- hard to say, but can say there are not many that have that 'mixture look' that is this complex. Or maybe I haven't seen that many lighter India Indians.Of course there are some things that are considered either beautiful in an aesthetic way- symmetry, proportion, and then things that are beautiful because they are unusual or rare.
I don't understand. Why are the earliest ancestors (the great apes) still around today? i.e. Why are the great apes not extinct, yet all the other species of homo's and homonid's (except homo sapiens) have died out?
And do you beleive that human beings will ever acheive a state of almost perfect aesthetics? What would be required to reach a population with "perfect" aesthetics?
I am a white Australian, living in Australia and I have come accross some Australian aborigines, all in all, they have almost completely failed to adapt to western culture. They reject white people's customs and live in isolated communities in the outback in what is considered to be third world conditions. Could this be due to the fact they have "the overall highest frequency of ancestral features of the skull"? The Australian aborigines may feel out of place amongst white people which are the majority in most parts of Australia.
"What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?" -Erik
Exactly. What idiot would publish something about breast size distribution in Europe? Oh wait I know one!
You're right Erik, no presitgous journal would publish anything remotley similar to what you publish on your website. Thank you for admitting that your website is pseudo-scientific racist and biased crap that no one respectable will take seriously.
Why do I keep coming back to this website?
You're right. It is a waste of my time to read anything on this website. I am only polluting my mind with the crap written on it and I will not return anymore since it is useless to argue with someone like you. You are an individual that has some issues. You believe that you can identify what is most desirable in women but fail to understand that nature identifies what is most desirable in anything. Not you! Remember, it does not take someone with a high IQ to realize what is attractive or not. It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual. I am not saying that the study of attractiveness is extremely absurd, however, I am saying that your studies are absurd. You have not proven to anyone that the women YOU consider attractive are for the most part universally attractive because most straight/heterosexual men do NOT prefer the women you post as attractive on this website whether they are more "feminine" or not. In the end sexual selection will determine what "attractive" women will look like in the future. Explaining to men what is attractive or not isn't necessary.
I am a malicious individual. However, you fail to understand that you as well are a malicious individual. No one has arguments that are 100% accurate, yet I fail to see you admit that some of your ideas are bogus anywhere on this website. Perhaps I would take an individual who realizes he has faults and is not always 100% correct more seriously because an individual like that is interested in evolving and not staying in the same place trying to prove the same thing that is most likely incorrect. The most polished arguments are only those that have constantly been challenged and altered for the better. However, you fail to evolve. You are stuck in your ways and although you claim you are open to criticism you are not. You consistently either re-explain yourself (which is fine) or argue with any individual that disagrees with anything on this website. You claim you value feedback, however, you do not use that feedback as a tool in realizing what might be wrong with your reasoning. This is not to say that any feedback should change your view on something, only that certain critical feedback is valid and you do not take that into account. Instead you continue to argue when your argument has clearly lost its credibility.
A question for you Erik?
Why do you refer to me as a statistician? I have never referred to myself as one. Is this your attempt at sarcasm? I realize that my arguments "push the wrong buttons" Perhaps this is because I have a point?
Thanks for your time Erik. I hope that you realize that you should probably re-evaluate yourself a bit. I do not understand what could have caused you to become the way you are. However, life is about constantly re-inventing ourselves for the better. I think that this website does have good qualities. I agree that eating disorders should be taken seriously and that young women should not look to fashion models as role models. Unfortunatley there are few good role models out there for young women these days. I certainly would not want my daughter to look up to fashion models, glamour models, or most actresses these days. You are obviously an extremely intelligent individual. If you were not I would have never taken a second look at this website. I wish that people like you would forget their prejudices and put their intelligence to something beneficial.
dude you are... The great statistician tells me that the study is bunk because it is sourced from a tabloid, but fails to notice that the tabloid is a secondary source, not a primary source. The study was conducted by a company that makes bras and the results reported in many news outlets one of which I cited. And you want me to cite scholarly journals. I have cited plenty of articles from scholarly journals, but not everything will be found in them. What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?
Someone of your mighty intellect has chided me for backing up my argument by citing my own website, but you have failed to see that the citation is an article written by me that cites two especially relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals and includes paintings from Medieval Europe. So my argument is based on the papers and the paintings, not my word as in this is the way it is because I say so. You are a malicious individual and I don’t wish to deal with stupid arguments. You must not accuse me of pseudo-science without justification or else don’t leave comments here.
Is Germanic synonymous with Northern European? Only part of Germany is in Northern Europe and half of Germans cannot be ethnically classified as Northern European. So not only is your comment ‘Not every great person in history is "Northern European"’ retarded in reference to my mentioning Germanic populations, but it has nothing to do with anything I have written. And you must stop saying that you are genetically 100% Northern European. Enough of this; your ancestry is irrelevant, and on the internet you can claim to be anything.
Below Botticelli’s painting of the birth of Venus I mentioned that it comes from Florence. So I am aware that he was Italian, but he was a light-haired man, born a millennium after the Roman empire was a footnote in history, in large part because the Romans had let the African and Asian slaves greatly outnumber them. Botticelli’s ancestry would thus be difficult to trace to the Romans or the slaves. The other candidates that could be said to have contributed much to Botticelli’s ancestry would be the Germanic populations that settled in Italy, mostly in the North and the central regions (Florence is in North-Central Italy), after forcing many of the slave-descendants down south. Botticelli was one of the Renaissance figures, and the Renaissance was centered in Northern Italy, originating among the [Germanic] elite. So the point was that the culture within which Botticelli’s Venus was painted was effectively a Germanic culture, not a Roman-Italian or a post-Rome Southern Italian one. Italian is not incompatible with Germanic.
dude you are...: There is nothing here for you to understand because what needs to be understood is written in clear, plain English. I mentioned no monkeys, let alone what you have inferred. Any human population belonging to the Homo sapiens species will be closer to any other population of Homo sapiens face-wise than to other human species or ancestral species. You said that I managed to squeeze in Asians but have you not seen the European right next to the Asian woman? Why do you keep coming back? Find something better to do than browsing this site.
Roy: Most ancestral/diverse Y and mtDNA do not imply that the bearers must also have the most ancestral facial features. Whereas the Khoi-San people have among the flattest nasal bones, their jaws are not as protruding as in many other African populations. Populations in central Africa are a better overall match for ancestral facial features than the Khoi-San. Yes, most hunter-gatherer populations have tended to die out after contact with civilization/Europeans, but these groups usually have small sizes, making them especially susceptible to die out because of lack of immunity against diseases brought in by outsiders, violence from outsiders after the outsiders were attacked by the hunter gatherers or merely out of malice, missionaries trying to Christianize the ‘savages’ and thereby destroying their culture and cohesion, etc. Sometimes the disappearance of hunter-gatherers largely coincides with contact with outsiders rather than being caused by it.
The Xhosa and Thembu of Southern Africa suffered a catastrophic loss in population size (100,000-plus dead) because of superstition in 1856-57. They believed that by killing their cattle and destroying their food, allegedly in response to a vision two of them had, they would be granted the death of the white man. All that happened was that most of them died for a stupid reason. The dark Africans are hardly better. The Afrikaners build them a First World society, they demand control, destroy it and allow the international bankers to loot the wealth created by the Afrikaners, but only the Afrikaners are blamed. If the dark Africans have flourished and greatly expanded their numbers, what has made this possible? What if the white man were to leave Africa and all aid to Africa were stopped? Even with the influence of the parasitic international bankers removed, the dark Africans are sustaining a population much larger than what they can maintain on their own.
I think you are right in some of your assestments. I do think you overstate the masculinity of some of these girls. Sometimes a strong face still looks very feminine especially in a petite girl with curves. Some of my favorite models have these looks like Kate's Playground and DelanyDecolleur. These are online models of course, but have the right waist to hip ratio to be extremely feminine. Thanks for the great website and beautiful girls.
Another of way of picturing the first fully modern humans might be to picture a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosian
not least because they have the most diverse or oldest-diverging (patrilinal) Y haplogroup and the largest genetic diversity in (matrilineally transmited) mtDNA, along with a flattened mid-facial region.
The oldest 'Black African' remains are too recent to justify implying they were around at the birth of humanity. And although this is not very scientific hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to die out in contact with civilisation. Black African have tended to flourish "In only 80 years Kenya's population has jumped from 2.9 million to 37 million"*. This may suggest that black Africans are not adapted to pre-agricultural conditions unlike pygmies who have a 'live fast, die short' strategy.
what does this have to do with beauty? I feel your that you have hidden agendas? Seriously, what exactly are you trying to prove with this article? The evolution of beauty? All I see is you telling us that Africans and Australian Aboriginees resemble our ancestors the monkeys more than other races? Oh wait you managed to squeeze in the Asians somewhere in there. Please explain to me in clear words what this article and display is about? I don't seem to be getting the point of it exactly?
I am sorry but the truth is your study is bunk. It has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. If I were to cite that as a source back in college for one of my papers, I would have failed that essay. Everyone knows that "The Sun" is a tabloid. Since when did tabloids become good references? If you are going to make a point and reference it please use scholarly journals backed up by idk maybe something called research and intelligence and not false assumptions backed up by a laughable survey to nothing? Also,I am sorry but I do not spend my whole life studying these kinds of things so no I did not know that women have more testosterone than estrogen, however you are intelligent enough to realize this is not the point I was making. I did not major in biology and the last time I learned anything about biology was at the age of 18 which is not long ago but yet long ago enough. Also, if you want to use a reference about how obesity has been viewed throughout history please do not use you're own website. What I write is biased to my own points of view and so is what you write. This whole website is filled with tons of pseudo-science and your opinions. You are intelligent but you let your biases get in the way of finding truth.
Also:"Boticelli, Cranach and Rubens belonged to closely related Germanic populations."
Boticelli is Italian and he has never belonged to any Germanic populations. Not even any Germanic populations within Italy. Thank you. That much I know.
Again I suspect you let your biases cloud the way that you view things. Not every great person in history is "Northern European." This would be a conveniant thing for me to believe because I am genetically 100% Northern European, however I know better than that. I wish you would know better than that. Boticelli is Italian, it is as simple as that.
Roy: I have heard that the Grimaldi skeletons had prominent nasal bones, unlike the San of Southern Africa. Anyway, Brace documented that a sub-Saharan African element was present among the Natufians of Israel/Syria (13,000 – 10,000 years ago), some of whom moved up north. You said that there is no evidence that food changed during this period (13,000 to 15,000 years ago) in reference to impacted teeth found in the Magdalenian girl. Diet-related changes in teeth started about 250,000 years ago among humans in Europe, initially related to using heat to thaw frozen game. It would take a while for dental reduction to proceed to a point where impacted teeth are seen in significant frequencies.
Alex: Many ape species are long extinct but some have survived. Apes descend from monkeys and only some of the monkey species that have ever appeared exist today. Some past species are no longer found because they transformed to newer species. And, some human species didn’t exactly disappear because some of their members were absorbed by the lineage leading to present humans. In nature, some species could persist with little outward alteration over tens of millions of years, whereas others could change rapidly or become extinct over a fraction of this period; there is tremendous variation.
‘Perfect aesthetics’ would be difficult to achieve naturally. If you look at human descent from the ancestral species, the details of what is aesthetically appealing have changed. Even if the aesthetic sense were to remain constant, many phenomena will continue to ensure plenty of people that will be found physically unattractive by many or most others: genetic mutations, developmental anomalies, sexually antagonistic selection, etc.
It is not just the Australian aborigines, but here in the U.S., all attempts to educate the West African stock on par with whites and make them comparably intellectually and economically productive have failed. Does this have anything to do with skull shape? If one were to examine a possible correlation between average IQ of a population and its average face shape, one will surely obtain a significant [ecological] correlation for the human species, but what will it mean? There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that the correlation is a coincidence without an underlying causal relationship. The second is that the correlation is entirely accounted for by a causal relationship that may be either of three types: lower intelligence results in a more overall ancestral face shape, a more overall ancestral face shape results in lower intelligence, or third party common underlying factors are simultaneously responsible for both lower intelligence and a more overall ancestral face shape. The third possibility is that the correlation is in part a coincidence and in part accounted for by a causal relationship.
In my estimation the third possibility is most likely. For instance, face shape and brain development are affected by common underlying factors, and you can see this being documented in this example of performance on subsets of intelligence tests being correlated with specific forms of variation in face shape in an European population (see fig 6). On the other hand, it is easy to come across some Africans or aborigines who have higher IQs than some Europeans notwithstanding more overall ancestral face shapes. And, there was a researcher who documented that the spatial location memory (ability to recall locations of objects in space) of Australian aborigines was on average higher than those of Europeans, and that this advantage corresponded to the relevant portion of the brain responsible being larger in the aborigines, though last I heard he was unable to find a journal willing to publish his article.
We talked about this stuff in a few classes in college, so forgive me for not remember exactly which class these came from... physiology, psychology, biology... they all run together.
The first biggie I remember was the Hip-to-waist ratio being the #1 factor men used, consciously and unconsciously, to determine the desirability of women. There were a bunch of studies on that... the one that sticks out in my mind the most is the one where men chose from outlines of women (gradually gaining in hip size relative to a set waist size – or gradually gaining in waist size relative to a set hip size – probably 40 outlines in all, if I remember correctly) and there was an extreme draw to a particular section of the selections. Then the range that was most commonly chosen was compared to modern sex symbols and sex symbols (or feminine beauty captures) from previous eras throughout history, going clear back to early (B.C.) sculptures. The conclusion was that, indeed, there was a fairly standard hip-to-waist ratio that men across the ages have been drawn to. Body Mass Index (by appearance) was not standard but the ratio was (meaning that muscle tone, fat content, etc was not similar across history but the hip-to-waist ration was similar).
The second biggie was the effects of estrogen on the development of the female body and which characteristics yielded a high degree of attractiveness. You have mentioned hip width and breast size but I think you have left out some major ones like eye size (bigger is more feminine), lip fullness (fuller is more feminine), and some others. I'd like to point out that all of the models shown on these pages have beautiful, large eyes and extremely kissable lips. I tried to see it, but I just don't see anything masculine about any of these women.
On a final note, I have had the good fortune to have dated some wonderful women in my life and they have come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. I dated a pencil thin supermodel-esque woman who made people drop things when she walked by, I dated an ultra-fit 13% body fat athlete who could have easily kicked my ass, I dated a woman who would be considered "fat" by most standards, and I have dated a "real" woman who was in good physical condition but not an athlete, who had probably 20-35% body fat but wasn't overweight...
Anyway, they were all beautiful and fun and sexual and smart WOMEN. I don't think it is possible to lump any "type" of woman into the role of the perfect woman or even to say that this woman is more beautiful than that woman. Especially with modern brainwashing through magazines, dolls, TV, and other media constantly bombarding us with images tied to things tied to ideas that we want in order to shape ourselves to fit in with that artificial herd. I was in my THIRTIES before I finally found the woman who really did it for me. When I look at her I am aroused. When I snuggle with her I am aroused. When I think of her I am aroused and we have been together for almost 6 years now. She turns me on 50 ways from sundown BUT she does nothing for my Brother or my best friend. And the girl my best friend is settling down with does absolutely nothing for me or my Brother. What is interesting here is that when we were all back in High School we all were going after the same girl(s). I think that the way we live today retards the process of us finding and accepting the woman that really is attractive to us. We have to grow up and get some experience with the types that we have been told we should want... and then have some experience with some other types, before we start to figure out that our psychological and physiological responses don't necessarily match what MTV has been ramming down our throats over the course of our entire lifespans. Sometimes they do match up and there is nothing wrong with that either. Darwin probably has a plan for each of us so why fight it? Like what you like and be happy liking it. Take care of yourself, be healthy and strong and be happy being what you are.
If Northern Europeans so beautiful why does Basshunter, a SWEDISH singer constantly put this woman who is middle eastern into all of his videos with the blondes only as background?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l--UJwBFCV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0LVjvdU3ws
Her nose is obviously not nordic. It so softer than a nordic nose. get over yourself.
A nordic nose also has the tendence to become convex. There are many middle eastern or indian women that have beautiful noses. In fact many times softer and more feminine than nordic noses. They are not in the minority either. Your arguments have no backbone and are clearly a reflection of deep issues. I question whether you have an inferiority complex problem that is manifested in putting down other ethnicities?
Another piece of NG nonsense: the Neanderthals had to consume almost double the calories to support their muscle mass which was (extrapolating from the muscle attachments) double that of fully modern humans. Here is an illustration showing this unlikelyhood in a male, without the morbid obesity of HG's model http://johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/built1.htm
I have a better solution they were far more powerful because their muscles were weight for weight twice as strong, like chimps. (Vertical jumping performance of bonobos. Scholz)
I think I'll listen to Karl because he seems somewhat intelligent. Erik seems intelligent as well just not as intelligent as Karl and Karl isn't biased like Erik.
better yet post a picture of yourself so we can determine how attractive of a male you are.
Hey Erik, can you post a picture of your girlfriend on here for us? I think she should be the perfect example of your "ideal" woman.
Um... Nordic women accounted for 52% or 272 patients total. This is more than all the rest added up? How does this study prove your point? Also, Nordic women are known for higher nose bridges and longer noses in general. There have also been many studies done and it is proven that a white person becomes more attractive as they near Asian and visa verca. There are also many studies that indicate that mixed persons are most attractive especially with Asian because Asian features are most delicate. Eurasians are rated as the most attractive in many studies. When mixed with Asians there is a higher chance for average features. That is a nose bridge that is not as high as the caucasians, a face not as narrow, eyes not so close set,etc. The human brain processes averageness easier therefore averageness is considered more attractive. Also, Asians have the least testosterone than any other race and are more feminine than any other race. African American have the most testosterone, Caucasians are in the middle, Asians have the least.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004119.html
Here is a study that indicates mixed races are more attractive.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/MR%20KIDS%207.1.08.pdf
Here are some of your Nordic women Erik.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3709016/2/istockphoto_3709016_nordic_beauty.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3709016/2/istockphoto_3709016_nordic_beauty.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/3709016_nordic_beauty.php%3Fid%3D3709016&h=380&w=253&sz=56&hl=en&start=6&um=1&usg=__ivj7RsfwfR1URAQFUXX_Iwj75AU=&tbnid=-B-qJGuugaS5IM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNordic%2Bbeauty%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3709016/2/istockphoto_3709016_nordic_beauty.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/3709016_nordic_beauty.php%3Fid%3D3709016&h=380&w=253&sz=56&hl=en&start=6&um=1&usg=__ivj7RsfwfR1URAQFUXX_Iwj75AU=&tbnid=-B-qJGuugaS5IM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNordic%2Bbeauty%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Here is a young lady from Iceland:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://tommyimages.com/Stock_Photos/Scandinavia/Iceland/Fashion_Show/slides/Iceland_1267-Blonde_Scandinavian.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tommyimages.com/Stock_Photos/Scandinavia/Iceland/Fashion_Show/slides/Iceland_1267-Blonde_Scandinavian.html&h=562&w=379&sz=68&hl=en&start=7&um=1&usg=__J92kVPzsI5U5pA3PZdU7aHK2Md0=&tbnid=uq3TTu9_pkUh2M:&tbnh=133&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnordic%2Bfashion%2Bmodel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Vendela Kirseboom
http://www.celebritywar.com/pictures/vendela-kirsebom.jpg
http://www.fanlistings.org/vendela/images/extras.jpg
I must admit that there are some beautiful Nordic women just like there are beautiful women in every culture. An example:Charlize Theron
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/celeb-profiles-model/charlize-theron/pictures/charlize-theron-picture-6.jpg
AMAZING BEAUTIFUL FACE! However, I have seen faces just as feminine and beautiful in other cultures. Take a look at her body. Note: This is the typical Nordic body. Long, lanky, thin, small breasts and buttocks.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/charlize1BIG0808_468x615.jpg
Go study some anthropology. The Nordic bone structure is discussed in many places. Charlize Theron is like the poster child for your usual tall, blonde, blue eyed Nordic woman.
Alex :
Probably she is so ugly like you?.............what's a hell are you saying asian girls look like the female neanderthal? Most asian girls probably are lesser pretty than the caucasian girls but they are way feminier than caucasian girls. if you were male? have you ever been sleep with the asian girls? so you say they are robust lol fuckin shit.......most asian girls are way smell nicer and their skin are so smoother and the shape also fragile, have no body hair when compare to the British and the american trolls are so slow in bed, get over yourself.
Note : I know the caucasian girls got prettier facial's feature however, its very quite a fews who look like the girls on this site, for example, the girls from holland, russia, finlandia, latvia and lithunia. the least of caucasians have got the robust shape and manish nasal, all in all you have to accept that every races have beautiful and ugly people.
feminine 30 years old korean girl.
Masculine 31 years old swedish princess.
This woman Aish, the actress- she is pretty in a striking, almost unreal way. Like one of those multicultural barbies that isn't quite white or black or oriental and so on, but has a mixture of qualities of all , some even incongruous, like the eyes- you don't expect to see light eyes in India. She's not very dark, but has a full mouth- like they took certain qualities from all cultures - as if it were a multiculti Pygmalion. I don't know what I would guess she was if I didn't know. Maybe would guess white and middle eastern or some kind of oriental and white- hard to say, but can say there are not many that have that 'mixture look' that is this complex. Or maybe I haven't seen that many lighter India Indians.Of course there are some things that are considered either beautiful in an aesthetic way- symmetry, proportion, and then things that are beautiful because they are unusual or rare.
I don't understand. Why are the earliest ancestors (the great apes) still around today? i.e. Why are the great apes not extinct, yet all the other species of homo's and homonid's (except homo sapiens) have died out?
And do you beleive that human beings will ever acheive a state of almost perfect aesthetics? What would be required to reach a population with "perfect" aesthetics?
I am a white Australian, living in Australia and I have come accross some Australian aborigines, all in all, they have almost completely failed to adapt to western culture. They reject white people's customs and live in isolated communities in the outback in what is considered to be third world conditions. Could this be due to the fact they have "the overall highest frequency of ancestral features of the skull"? The Australian aborigines may feel out of place amongst white people which are the majority in most parts of Australia.
"What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?" -Erik
Exactly. What idiot would publish something about breast size distribution in Europe? Oh wait I know one!
You're right Erik, no presitgous journal would publish anything remotley similar to what you publish on your website. Thank you for admitting that your website is pseudo-scientific racist and biased crap that no one respectable will take seriously.
Why do I keep coming back to this website?
You're right. It is a waste of my time to read anything on this website. I am only polluting my mind with the crap written on it and I will not return anymore since it is useless to argue with someone like you. You are an individual that has some issues. You believe that you can identify what is most desirable in women but fail to understand that nature identifies what is most desirable in anything. Not you! Remember, it does not take someone with a high IQ to realize what is attractive or not. It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual. I am not saying that the study of attractiveness is extremely absurd, however, I am saying that your studies are absurd. You have not proven to anyone that the women YOU consider attractive are for the most part universally attractive because most straight/heterosexual men do NOT prefer the women you post as attractive on this website whether they are more "feminine" or not. In the end sexual selection will determine what "attractive" women will look like in the future. Explaining to men what is attractive or not isn't necessary.
I am a malicious individual. However, you fail to understand that you as well are a malicious individual. No one has arguments that are 100% accurate, yet I fail to see you admit that some of your ideas are bogus anywhere on this website. Perhaps I would take an individual who realizes he has faults and is not always 100% correct more seriously because an individual like that is interested in evolving and not staying in the same place trying to prove the same thing that is most likely incorrect. The most polished arguments are only those that have constantly been challenged and altered for the better. However, you fail to evolve. You are stuck in your ways and although you claim you are open to criticism you are not. You consistently either re-explain yourself (which is fine) or argue with any individual that disagrees with anything on this website. You claim you value feedback, however, you do not use that feedback as a tool in realizing what might be wrong with your reasoning. This is not to say that any feedback should change your view on something, only that certain critical feedback is valid and you do not take that into account. Instead you continue to argue when your argument has clearly lost its credibility.
A question for you Erik?
Why do you refer to me as a statistician? I have never referred to myself as one. Is this your attempt at sarcasm? I realize that my arguments "push the wrong buttons" Perhaps this is because I have a point?
Thanks for your time Erik. I hope that you realize that you should probably re-evaluate yourself a bit. I do not understand what could have caused you to become the way you are. However, life is about constantly re-inventing ourselves for the better. I think that this website does have good qualities. I agree that eating disorders should be taken seriously and that young women should not look to fashion models as role models. Unfortunatley there are few good role models out there for young women these days. I certainly would not want my daughter to look up to fashion models, glamour models, or most actresses these days. You are obviously an extremely intelligent individual. If you were not I would have never taken a second look at this website. I wish that people like you would forget their prejudices and put their intelligence to something beneficial.
http://www/terradaily.com/reports/Magdalenian_Girl_Has_Oldest_Recorded_C...
Possibly caused by selection for a more feminine looking jaw, the time and place are right. There is no evidence at all that food changed in this period.
A case has been made for Khoisan features in Grimaldi Man.
dude you are... The great statistician tells me that the study is bunk because it is sourced from a tabloid, but fails to notice that the tabloid is a secondary source, not a primary source. The study was conducted by a company that makes bras and the results reported in many news outlets one of which I cited. And you want me to cite scholarly journals. I have cited plenty of articles from scholarly journals, but not everything will be found in them. What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?
Someone of your mighty intellect has chided me for backing up my argument by citing my own website, but you have failed to see that the citation is an article written by me that cites two especially relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals and includes paintings from Medieval Europe. So my argument is based on the papers and the paintings, not my word as in this is the way it is because I say so. You are a malicious individual and I don’t wish to deal with stupid arguments. You must not accuse me of pseudo-science without justification or else don’t leave comments here.
Is Germanic synonymous with Northern European? Only part of Germany is in Northern Europe and half of Germans cannot be ethnically classified as Northern European. So not only is your comment ‘Not every great person in history is "Northern European"’ retarded in reference to my mentioning Germanic populations, but it has nothing to do with anything I have written. And you must stop saying that you are genetically 100% Northern European. Enough of this; your ancestry is irrelevant, and on the internet you can claim to be anything.
Below Botticelli’s painting of the birth of Venus I mentioned that it comes from Florence. So I am aware that he was Italian, but he was a light-haired man, born a millennium after the Roman empire was a footnote in history, in large part because the Romans had let the African and Asian slaves greatly outnumber them. Botticelli’s ancestry would thus be difficult to trace to the Romans or the slaves. The other candidates that could be said to have contributed much to Botticelli’s ancestry would be the Germanic populations that settled in Italy, mostly in the North and the central regions (Florence is in North-Central Italy), after forcing many of the slave-descendants down south. Botticelli was one of the Renaissance figures, and the Renaissance was centered in Northern Italy, originating among the [Germanic] elite. So the point was that the culture within which Botticelli’s Venus was painted was effectively a Germanic culture, not a Roman-Italian or a post-Rome Southern Italian one. Italian is not incompatible with Germanic.
dude you are...: There is nothing here for you to understand because what needs to be understood is written in clear, plain English. I mentioned no monkeys, let alone what you have inferred. Any human population belonging to the Homo sapiens species will be closer to any other population of Homo sapiens face-wise than to other human species or ancestral species. You said that I managed to squeeze in Asians but have you not seen the European right next to the Asian woman? Why do you keep coming back? Find something better to do than browsing this site.
Roy: Most ancestral/diverse Y and mtDNA do not imply that the bearers must also have the most ancestral facial features. Whereas the Khoi-San people have among the flattest nasal bones, their jaws are not as protruding as in many other African populations. Populations in central Africa are a better overall match for ancestral facial features than the Khoi-San. Yes, most hunter-gatherer populations have tended to die out after contact with civilization/Europeans, but these groups usually have small sizes, making them especially susceptible to die out because of lack of immunity against diseases brought in by outsiders, violence from outsiders after the outsiders were attacked by the hunter gatherers or merely out of malice, missionaries trying to Christianize the ‘savages’ and thereby destroying their culture and cohesion, etc. Sometimes the disappearance of hunter-gatherers largely coincides with contact with outsiders rather than being caused by it.
The Xhosa and Thembu of Southern Africa suffered a catastrophic loss in population size (100,000-plus dead) because of superstition in 1856-57. They believed that by killing their cattle and destroying their food, allegedly in response to a vision two of them had, they would be granted the death of the white man. All that happened was that most of them died for a stupid reason. The dark Africans are hardly better. The Afrikaners build them a First World society, they demand control, destroy it and allow the international bankers to loot the wealth created by the Afrikaners, but only the Afrikaners are blamed. If the dark Africans have flourished and greatly expanded their numbers, what has made this possible? What if the white man were to leave Africa and all aid to Africa were stopped? Even with the influence of the parasitic international bankers removed, the dark Africans are sustaining a population much larger than what they can maintain on their own.
that kate has no ass and hardly any breasts. The lingerie model is built well but could have a little more ass. Very pretty in the face too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan
I think you are right in some of your assestments. I do think you overstate the masculinity of some of these girls. Sometimes a strong face still looks very feminine especially in a petite girl with curves. Some of my favorite models have these looks like Kate's Playground and DelanyDecolleur. These are online models of course, but have the right waist to hip ratio to be extremely feminine. Thanks for the great website and beautiful girls.
Another of way of picturing the first fully modern humans might be to picture a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosian
not least because they have the most diverse or oldest-diverging (patrilinal) Y haplogroup and the largest genetic diversity in (matrilineally transmited) mtDNA, along with a flattened mid-facial region.
The oldest 'Black African' remains are too recent to justify implying they were around at the birth of humanity. And although this is not very scientific hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to die out in contact with civilisation. Black African have tended to flourish "In only 80 years Kenya's population has jumped from 2.9 million to 37 million"*. This may suggest that black Africans are not adapted to pre-agricultural conditions unlike pygmies who have a 'live fast, die short' strategy.
*Gunnar Heinsohn
what does this have to do with beauty? I feel your that you have hidden agendas? Seriously, what exactly are you trying to prove with this article? The evolution of beauty? All I see is you telling us that Africans and Australian Aboriginees resemble our ancestors the monkeys more than other races? Oh wait you managed to squeeze in the Asians somewhere in there. Please explain to me in clear words what this article and display is about? I don't seem to be getting the point of it exactly?
I am sorry but the truth is your study is bunk. It has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. If I were to cite that as a source back in college for one of my papers, I would have failed that essay. Everyone knows that "The Sun" is a tabloid. Since when did tabloids become good references? If you are going to make a point and reference it please use scholarly journals backed up by idk maybe something called research and intelligence and not false assumptions backed up by a laughable survey to nothing? Also,I am sorry but I do not spend my whole life studying these kinds of things so no I did not know that women have more testosterone than estrogen, however you are intelligent enough to realize this is not the point I was making. I did not major in biology and the last time I learned anything about biology was at the age of 18 which is not long ago but yet long ago enough. Also, if you want to use a reference about how obesity has been viewed throughout history please do not use you're own website. What I write is biased to my own points of view and so is what you write. This whole website is filled with tons of pseudo-science and your opinions. You are intelligent but you let your biases get in the way of finding truth.
Also:"Boticelli, Cranach and Rubens belonged to closely related Germanic populations."
Boticelli is Italian and he has never belonged to any Germanic populations. Not even any Germanic populations within Italy. Thank you. That much I know.
Again I suspect you let your biases cloud the way that you view things. Not every great person in history is "Northern European." This would be a conveniant thing for me to believe because I am genetically 100% Northern European, however I know better than that. I wish you would know better than that. Boticelli is Italian, it is as simple as that.
Pages