> In this case, if we consider that the more prominent nasal bones are, the more derived they are, hooked noses are then the most derived nose type, no ?
No. Classic hooked noses tend to have a much more prominent lower part than upper part. The lower part comprises of cartilage, not bone.
Contrast the apes with the Greek God in the article. You will note that the upper part of the apes’ nose is almost totally flat but the nose tip is somewhat prominent. How does this change as you move to humans, shown strikingly in the Greek figure of Apollo Belvedere? The upper part of the nose becomes very prominent but the relative increase in the lower part is less.
In the first row of the following image, note how adding implants in the upper nose eliminates the hooked appearance and makes the lower part look less prominent even though it is more prominent because of a tip graft. Look at the Greek figure and then look at the second row below and tell me who has a more derived nose shape?
Hooked noses simply cannot be more derived as in such noses the relative increase in the lower part of the nose is much greater than in the upper part. In the region where hooked noses are most frequent (Middle East and adjoining areas in the Mediterranean and southwest Asia), the cartilage of the nose is also thicker, again not consistent with such noses being more derived. And, nasal bones are more prominent in Northern Europeans.
BSP: You need to stop asking me useless questions.
Quote:
> Er, in what sense [discussion leaning toward the “hereditarian side]? The idea of an objective preference for beauty or the heritability of physical features?
The heritability of physical features is obviously about heredity. And, it is not an “objective preference for beauty” but whether one can show objectively that most people have a similar notion of beauty. This largely shared preference across cultures will be strongly influenced by heredity. I have discussed numerous such preferences and also preferences associated with some cultures but not others, and preferences resulting from the influence of culture.
I replied to your comment about hip size, child birth and intelligence here.
You mentioned in reference to epicanthal folds...
Quote:
> Sorry, but some people take offense to the idea of you pushing off this being an innately disliked trait.
...but I never implied this. My statement was about the nose, and I talked about something that is intrinsically preferred as opposed to something that is intrinsically disliked. There is a difference between these two notions. One can be okay with what one has and still prefer something else. You are also confounding the epicanthal fold with a single/double upper eyelid crease. The eye surgery I am talking about is not one that removes epicanthal folds, but one that adds a second crease in the upper eyelid.
To a greater or lesser extent, an epicanthal fold is present in East Asians. However, not all East Asians have a single crease only in the upper eyelid. Chances are that larger than average eyes have been described as more appealing in women in early Chinese literature, but one does not expect to encounter much in terms of a preference for a double crease to a single crease in the upper eyelid for a number of reasons. The ancient Chinese did not have an alphabet-based language, did not come up with very realistic human sculptures like the ancient Greeks and did not come up with very realistic paintings depicting humans. So where do you expect to encounter a description of the nuances of aesthetic preferences in ancient or even medieval East Asia?
How can you write something like the following?
Quote:
> since you push off the idea of the facial structure of whites as being typically more derived- IE, being more suited to chewing and consuming cooked food- are you saying those with less derived features, such as larger jaws, teeth, cheekbones, more prognathistic jaws are more suited to consuming uncooked food, and thus would have greater difficulty chewing and consuming, and recieving adequate nutrition from cooked food? What about how things like how differences in bone density that would factor into this, such as how they would accentuate the strength of such structures, and likewise for differences in muscle strength?
Will jaws better suited to consuming uncooked food have difficulty with cooked food?
Why have I cited many references that also appear at a site that you dislike? Relevant citations will appear wherever they are required. Judge cited papers by their contents, not by who cites them.
Yes, it is your bizarre impression that you believe my arguments to be “non-european women have ugly noses” because I have described ugliness as physical defects/abnormalities, which do not characterize the central tendency in ethnic groups. Pointing out that non-European populations seeking aesthetic plastic surgery to shift the nose toward a more overall derived shape does not imply that their population norms are “ugly.” You must stop smearing my neutral arguments by reducing them to negative adjectives.
Quote:
> And if you say that such things can’t be objectively compared, what’s with this?
What’s with this? There is a 7-page section within this site at the time of this writing that you have gone through. It argues WHY there can be no objective comparison across ethnic groups. Why are you asking me this question when you should have gotten the answer by reading this section? If you haven’t understood it, don’t waste your time with this site.
Quote:
> Why not be fair and do across group issues?
It is not a question of being fair; the across-group comparison cannot be objectively done.
Quote:
> Why not be fair as well and tell us what are the more preffered, intrinsic noses among humans?
Again, no fairness issue here. Nuanced nose aesthetics can only be addressed for broad ethnic groups, not for the human species. I do not have the time to be addressing non-European populations in detail.
Quote:
> Primates only had such larger noses due to bigger nasal cavities allowing them to smell better, and differences among nasal structures among human populations are due to climactic differences.
Humans are primates. A derived structure is a derived structure regardless of how it has arrived there: natural selection, sexual selection, random genetic drift. So even if climate were entirely responsible for ethnic variation in nose shape, some ethnic groups could have more derived noses than others.
Quote:
> If these could be classified as more “derived”, noses with very tall set bridges, projecting out extensively from the face, and just being huge and meaty overall would fit that. Yet how many people really find that attractive?
If you had understood my argument you would not have brought this up. I have mentioned numerous correlates of beauty, and they act in concert. One of these happens to be a preference for averageness. The preference for a shift toward the somewhat more overall derived end of the ancestral-to-derived discriminant is a preference for a shift away from the average and hence the preference for averageness places an upper bound on the extent of this shift that will be found aesthetically acceptable.
In any case, you have the nose extreme wrong. Whereas the extreme would be very projecting, it wouldn’t be meaty, but finer, and the increase in the projection of the upper nose would be greater than that in the lower nose.
Quote:
> 2. Yes, and you still don’t have anything to back up the idea of east asians going for this surgery because of slit-eyes being considered less attractive...
The “slit-eyes” are a combination of epicanthal folds and narrow eyes. The surgical procedure I addressed is not about the epicanthal fold.
Quote:
>2. Sorry, but I’m abit unnerved at something like this when you’re offering no fucking middle-ground.
I am not surprised that you are unnerved. You have mistook an innate preference described for nose shape with a preference for lack of epicanthal folds and substituted surgery affecting the number of upper eyelid creases with surgery to alter the epicanthus. To quote you, “I think well over 20% of Korea’s population (just South Korea, not sure about North) naturally lack epicanthic folds, and yet surgery to remove it...” Great, they are having surgery to remove epicanthic folds! You cited a webpage mentioning “so many Koreans lacking the epicanthic fold” but this page did not even mention this fold. You have described a contemptuous reference to “round eyes” (shape) as a dislike for a double crease in the upper eyelid! Should it be surprising that you failed to understand the rest, now described as there being no “fucking middle-ground”?
There are some obvious features among Europeans that may be regarded in neutral or negative terms by some non-Europeans, such as particular hair colors, skin color or average lip thickness.
Quote:
> And yes, you really are saying that european features are more preffered. The most “derived” ones happen to be the most common among europeans, so why tap-dance around such basic semantics?
No tap dancing here. If you consider individual facial features, Europeans are not the most derived on all counts, but they are the most derived on most counts, which cannot be distorted to imply that “The most “derived” ones happen to be the most common among Europeans.” So, there is a difference between the ancestral-to-derived discriminant and the non-European-to-European discriminant. Don’t make me repeat this again. This has already been explained in the 7-part section.
Quote:
> Yeah, that’s one of the very things I asked in the email. How can you really tell?
There is no need for me to tell. I am not addressing the question who is more masculine and who is feminine. I am just addressing who looks more masculine or more feminine since femininity is a correlate of beauty and the issue is relevant to the question asked at the beginning of the 7-page section.
Quote:
> While masculization and femininity can typically work independently of testosterone differences...
LOL! Testosterone is not related to masculinization?
Quote:
As for east africans, would you care to quote the relevant passages that push them off as being… mixed?
No, I don’t care to quote. Molecular evidence is not cited for children. Look up the studies and see molecular evidence for mixing, that is if you understand genetics.
Quote:
> Either way, east africans don’t look at all like what one would expect of the typical offspring of africans and europeans.
Of course! But I explained the most obvious reason for their looks: sexual selection over a long time. The mixture isn’t recent. A preference for more European-looking faces will result in the differential reproductive success of mixed offspring with faces closer to European norms. Stretch this over many generations and you will end up with faces closer to Europeans notwithstanding a substantial sub-Saharan African component.
Quote:
> Stop saying that “it’s been discussed elsewhere on this site”. Erik, I HAVE read much of your site- pretty much all of it beyond the blog entries.
If this is true, then you may have read just about all of it, but you don’t seem to have understood many arguments.
Quote:
> I should have clarified more there, but the sort of structures you push off as being largely resultant of chewing food are just too variable in modern human populations.
You think I would not be aware of this variability? When this variability is analyzed, as by Hanihara, it is clear what overall derived and what overall ancestral mean. Don’t discuss the matter with me unless you have a sufficient background to understand these matters.
Quote:
> Besides, exactly what other “ethnic features” are you reffering to? There’s such considerable overlap among human ethnic groups among the cranio-facial structure, and for them all, there’s only a few distinctive traits truly setting them all apart.
Think in terms of a correlation structure underlying differences that constitute ethnic features, not variation regarding individual features.
Quote:
> Compared to Europeans, how different would africans look if you made their jaws flatter and their orbits less dense and round? How different would east asians look compared to europeans if their facial profiles wern’t so flat?
You forgot the noses in the Africans and the wider faces and larger jaws in East Asians, to mention some other differences.
Quote:
> Although you could certainly consider less distinctive traits like the overall size of the jaws and cheekbones ethnic traitd due to greatly differing group averages
No. Ethnic features should be considered in terms of a correlation structure underlying differences unless the features are either present in one group but not the other.
Quote:
> would this japanese woman look better if she had cheek reduction and the like as you alluded to?
I alluded nothing along the lines of what you argue. Your picture shows a wide-faced woman, and not one with very large and prominent cheekbones that would prompt her to seek cheekbone reduction. Face width is not merely a function of cheekbone size; there is the interorbital pillar, the maxillary bones that are part of the cheeks and the cheekbones.
Quote:
> why haven’t you provided what you think are in the proper aestethic range of nasal structure for non-europeans?
I don’t need to come up with this since I am not targeting non-European populations. The chief purpose of my addressing ethnic differences is improving international beauty pageants in light of the fact that an objective comparison of attractiveness cannot be made across ethnic groups. A secondary purpose has emerged from this discussion, namely clarifying the preference related to overall placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant, unfortunately to people who don’t have the requisite scientific background.
Quote:
> 7. I know you haven’t used the term “despised”, but your tone on this isn’t very neutral.
You knew that I hadn’t used “despised” yet used it. Stop smearing me. I have used completely neutral language.
Quote:
> 8: What were you reffering to here?
Apparently nothing that you would understand.
Quote:
> This really doesn’t answer much, as you don’t really show what the average difference is between northern and southern european noses.
The qualitative differences mentioned are good enough for the article, which should be familiar to you anyway.
Quote:
> And yet why would they go for nasal structures that are more compliant with the sort of culture they despise? It’s hard to say, but I don’t think you can claim victory for those intrinsic nordic features.
The nose structure is not associated with culture, but a people, and they like the straighter and finer nose because they have a preference for it. There is no contradiction by me. The very fact that some features of Northern Europeans are admired by them and others despised means that it cannot be argued that Nordic cultural domination makes them admire Nordic noses or else how does one explain the despised cultural features?
I mentioned Michael Jackson because of his failure to obtain a European nose in reference to Whipped Honey’s question about why only so little surgery and why not all the way to European norms? So what if he attempted to look like a white woman?
I am not going to discuss white men and their supposed common preference for East Asian women unless you show the relevance to the discussion and come up with empirical evidence to back up your contention because I have never gotten this impression.
Your emails mostly are not related to my work, and this will become clear to you when I get around to replying to them. I have a lot of work to do and there are many people apart from you that I have to reply to, both their emails and their blog comments.
Quote:
> Also, a few things to note for other posters here:
-Erik proposes that a preference for more “derived” features is due to their pedomorphism, which is considered near-universally attractive, and is considered feminine.
Good Lord!!! I HAVE EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY ARGUED AGAINST PEDOMORPHISM BEING A CORRELATE OF BEAUTY OR THAT IT IS MORE FEMININE.
It appears that you are either incapable of understanding my arguments or are tying me up with useless materials to waste my time. Please stop. If it is the former, then come back to this site after you have acquired the prerequisites to understand it; I cannot provide them to you.
Sidhatzer4ever: I called the SPLC a joke, not a sham, and for a reason that you have ignored. The SPLC is doing important work but not me? Whereas I admit that my work is not of great importance, there is a need for it, and no one else is tackling some of the problems that I am. It is shameful that I have to browse the collections of adult-oriented sites to obtain pictures of feminine and attractive women when I should be able to browse the archives of beauty pageant contestants, fashion modeling agencies and other mainstream sources for such women. Also, not one source out there is addressing the real reason behind the thinness of high-fashion models, which needs to be disseminated if unnecessary dieting on the part of a number of girls and women is to be reduced.
“Everyone agreeing with it” is not a criterion for truth. Truth is not decided by vote.
I disagree that the SPLC is doing important work, and to understand this, consider the example of hatewatch.org, a website that has been defunct for many years though accessing it will forward you to the SPLC website. Hatewatch.org aimed to combat bigotry and hate by exposing the bigots, and it extensively cataloged “hate sites” on the web. What do you think happened? The exact opposite of what the hatewatch.org site had intended as it helped spread the message of the “hate sites” to a wider audience. The people behind the hatewatch.org website failed to understand that what they considered to be bigotry and hate speech would be considered good information by many others. The hatewatch.org site was taken down. The SPLC knows this, yet why does it use a similar methodology, namely give publicity to the “most dangerous” white supremacists and their message? The fact is that the SPLC isn’t exposing the “most dangerous” groups. The people and organizations it is listing under “most dangerous” people/groups fall under four categories: fake white supremacist organizations set up to trap genuine white supremacists; people who have been read enough so that one cannot pretend that they don’t exist, but their arguments bother the SPLC and hence it smears them; token and useless non-white extremist groups thrown in to present an impression of being unbiased; and low IQ, criminal-type white supremacists who are incapable of achieving white supremacist goals.
The last type of “most dangerous” people/groups listed by the SPLC is actually useful to the SPLC’s long-term goals. Thanks to the increased publicity, one day a low IQ white man with borderline paranoid schizophrenia and prejudice against non-whites will come across and join one of these groups. He does drugs and he has a gun. Another day, he reads about a white victim of a horrible crime perpetrated by non-whites, and this crime is ignored by the mainstream media. He gets high on drugs and goes out, is crossed by a non-white, and loses it. He goes on a shooting spree, injuring and killing a bunch of non-whites. The incident is widely covered in the mainstream media, and the SPLC’s major goals are realized: a full-scale assault on the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech and gun ownership, respectively). And you tell us that the SPLC is doing important work! I suppose yes if you share its “hate beliefs.”
Whipped honey: You must make a proper effort to read this site before arguing with me. Your statement...
Quote:
Erik, the flaw in your claims about what non-Europeans find attractive is that you depend on cosmetic surgery procedures to extrapolate conclusions about whole populations...
...does not follow from the evidence.
I cited this study on the ratings of Korean women by Koreans, and it was clearly shown that the overall face shape of attractive Koreans is shifted toward European norms compared to the average. Cosmetic surgery was not an issue in this study. I have provided the main diagrams and numerical results from this study for over one year now.
Hugh Hefner had admitted to experimenting with bisexuality; see this BBC report.
I have answered the question about why East Asians in America apparently do not seek double eyelid surgeries at the high rates of some specific East Asian populations. East Asians in America come from all over East Asia and, on average, do not have the same frequency of single upper eyelids as, say, Koreans. So what do you expect? Another possible reason is that if the surgery is intended to improve looks, then the improvement is of greater weight if those undergoing surgery are surrounded by Asians as opposed to Europeans. Your notion about conformity is not very plausible. Not all East Asians in Asia with a single upper eyelid seek double eyelid surgery.
So the eyelashes of African/Latina women “appear thicker because they are more visible in contrast to skin color”? Nice contrast, isn’t it?
Quote:
...yet the overwhelming majority of Black American celebrities do NOT get rhinoplasty.
In most cases, it would not be possible to make their noses look European; there is the embarrassment of undergoing cosmetic surgery to alter an ethnic feature while one is in the limelight; one will have to counter criticism by other African-Americans that the person isn’t accepting of his/her Africanness; and some are fine with their noses.
Again, I haven’t just resorted to cosmetic surgery procedures. For instance, are successful African-American men more likely to choose African-American women with less African features compared to the average or more African features?
There is no need for me to answer BSP’s question, “why, if there is an innate preference for “more derived” features, Asian cultures did not consider double eyelids more attractive than single eyelids before 20th century modern Western media saturation” because I haven’t described the double crease in the upper eyelids as more derived.
can u please please show me pix of guys who are not body builders. I want to see what a "normal" masculine guy looks like, and more face pictures please.
show a range please. show a skinny guy who is masc. vs. a skinny guy who is fem.
show a chubby guy who is masc. and a chubby guy who is fem.
a short man and a tall man, please.
and of course an average guy who is masc and one who is fem.
show body and face.
and graphs dont do much for me, can you show pictures of normal mens body hair pattern, over masc. body hair, and can u describe or show the result of too much exposure to male hormones (fetus) in an adult
you have also focused mostly on the masc./fem. characteristics of Caucasoid males can you show these effects in other races if possible
Long time reader, first time poster... No one thinks #12 is a hottie? It could be her enhanced sense of fashion and sense of buying clothes that fit her. Or it could be her ever slightly so sly smirk. Every one else looks like their mothers just died. She has the best all around.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Yesica is the hottest S.I. model in my eyes! All those ladies are hot! All of yours are hot, too.. but not as world class as S.I's!!
What's your problem, hun...
I said "fugly" instead of "aesthetically unappealing" or something. Big deal.
You don't mince words either, your posting record speaks for itself.
Now do us a favor, jump off your High Horse and break your neck.
I know the likes of you, you would save your minority pets from themselves even against their will
Patronizing morons...
I find your assumption flawed, as regards to "intelligence": simple matters may be understood by the less intelligent, but the intellectual leap of discoveries, I think, must be normalized to the state-of-the-art (i.e. what could have Newton done with mathematics if he were born today - and was already taught calculus, differential equations and the like?).
Der Arschloch, I don't know if english is your third language but it certainly seems like it. I don't recall calling white people fugly or insulted them the way you insulted brown people. I don't think super pale skin is very attractive but most white people don't have skin that pale. You really can't point fingers at anyone because it is clear from your post that you are a racist asshole and you need to take reading classes.
"With eyelid surgery the fastest-growing type of plastic surgery in the Asian community in California and across the country, numerous other young women are facing the same decision. Approximately 75 percent of all Koreans and 50 percent of all other Asians are born without the double eyelid crease."
I admit, it doesn't give references, and it seems abit questionable since it talks about the 50% figure for all other asians- but I'm not even sure what asians those area.
The thing to note here is that the surgery is most common in Korea, and Korea- both sides- are easily among the most racist/racialist societies in all of east asia, and perhaps the world. Look up the North Korean views on race and the evolution of South Korean racial attitudes sometime. What I'm getting at is how, in face of all this, it seems to lean to cultural attitudes being the result of this. Although east asians have often imitated westerns in ways, this preference is still very recent, and how east asians seemed to find the look of double-eyelids distasteful in pre-modern times. What with slurs like "round-eye".
If you can dig up the relevant ethnographic data on the frequencies, do so, and likewise perhaps some cite perception studies on how people rank epicanthic folds. I'm rather dissapointed, again, on how you'd jump on the bandwagon on the idea of this being an innately less attractive trait when you claim to not being arguing towards a largely ethnocentric standard of beauty, and likewise the whole thing about objectivity in regards to ethnic features.
Grace does not have any elegance to her. She looks like a regular girl that does not have much to offer in the department of being a supermodel. The Czech girl is very bland and not attractive at all. Hence, these girls were not discovered as models.
I respect your opinion because it's your opinion and you're at least attempting to express yourself eloquently.
But your site has one main flaw. While it is true that High-fashion models are the most "elite" it is also commonly known that they are by far not "mainstream". Commercial models and the like are much more popular not to mention pop stars/movie stars/etc.
What is "elite" exactly? Highest paid? Highest "respected? What does respect mean? How can we measure it? Through fashion magazines, through how much money one makes?
Even if we look at the amount of money they make, and it becomes evident that high fashion models receive much more money - that does not mean in any way that they are more idolized by the public. As you said, most people prefer feminine beauty and thus commercial models are much more "mainstream"...again, high fashion models only belong to a small elite but outside of those interested in high fashion (which I'm surprised you're as knowledgeable as you are seeing as you seem to despise that industry) most of the public won't know these high fashion models.. with the exception of the "superstars" such as Tyra Banks, Giselle, Adriana Lima, Heidi Klum, Naomi Campbell, etc.
I think we can all agree that feminine beauty is subjective and while you seem to agree at least on that, you seem to also claim that what is exactly "feminine" and "masculine" can be easily defined for everyone, in particular straight males. You cannot speak for all of us. As with sexuality, I believe it's all more on a scale rather than being easily defined. Thus masculinity/femininity can vary on a wide scale based on the person's overall features and package.
Men and women and everyone can disagree insanely in terms of who they find attractive EVEN when it comes to overwhelmingly "feminine" women who posess no masculine traits, so really how can one even attempt to approach some kind of supreme truth about "why fashion models look like adolescent boys" or even attempt to claim that so and so is too masculine for "most" straight men.
Even if you were to lay out 10 pictures of feminine girls you liked, and rounded up 50 of your so called-hardcore "straight" masculine men, not all of them would agree on the attractiveness level of all the girls you listed, regardless of how feminine they are.
I just wish that you would emphasize more on this site that it is opinion...but you phrase everything so eloquently that it almost seems like you're trying to make a scientific claim which in the case of this subject would be absurd.
I won't even comment on your theory about homosexual men and their pedophilic tendencies (not to mention the hardly "credible" sources you listed) because that's beyond ridiculous and low, and I'm sure you'll only judge me for thinking so and already have a response worked out for such comments.
Well, after rereading what your summary said again, did they make any direct links to intelligence and obesity? At all? What do you think the mechanism is?
I just thought they were alluding to it being linked to poor impulse- I've seen that brought up in other discussions and studies about health and intelligence. Nevermind.
Are you also reffering to my contentions about IQ and SES? I don't know about the case of the economy in these countries, but this is still quite true.
And yes, I guess I did get confused about the ratio and the overall hip size, sorry. As for the link between brain size and hip size, whatever, it was just an assumption that jumped from what I once heard about the two being linked. It's never been something I've payed much heed to, so don't hammer me on that.
Der Wanderer, your inability to think coherently is funny.
Quote:
"Translated:
Women are gender “Jews”
Men are “Nazis”
* yawn *"
I stated that women who want to attract men freely choose to dress the way men want women to dress, and used the idea of a dress code purely as a figurative parallel to demonstrate that the way one dresses is not always the way one would prefer to dress, without ever claiming that men actually force a literal dress code on women, and you conclude that I am comparing male-female relations to the way Nazis treated Jews, because the concept of a figurative parallel is too hard for you to understand.
Quote:
"Your Arousal/Desire stuff, for instance, sounds a bit like Alexandra Kollontai‘s Winged/Wingless Eros :"
I made stated that women's *arousal* and women's *desire* are two different things and that women are capable of being aroused by that which they do not desire. Alexandra Kollontai's "Winged/Wingless Eros" is a distinction between what she calls "sublime proletarian love... the sweet delights of tender love" and "the 'naked instinct of reproduction,' unhealthy satisfaction of the sex drive for its own sake, coarse lust, quick pleasure, 'mere possession' of someone’s body, whoring." I distinguished between arousal and desire; she distinguished between two kind of desire. If you actually think I agree even slightly with her, then you obviously did not understand my post in which I stated that I support the legalization of prostitution. What she calls "Wingless Eros" and condemns, I call human nature and support.
;-P
BSP: I didn’t talk about problems with impulse control. There is less intelligence. The Danish adoption study makes it case about SES and intelligence in a dramatic manner. Whereas you may not like it, you can’t just dismiss it. Your notion about hip size is naïve. Like Der Wanderer said, we are talking about a ratio, not hip size. Take a good look at obese women. Large/wide hips are common among them, yet obesity is associated with lower intelligence in self and offspring among them. In any case, you need to consider the following: 1) wider hips in women are only partly related to the child birth function; 2) when fetuses with the genetics of large size develop in small women, their growth is somewhat decelerated in the womb and compensatorily accelerated after birth; and 3) for the same head size some people have thicker bones and lesser brains; contrast the the weaker correlation between head size and intelligence (0.19) with that between brain volume and intelligence (0.33). So your hypothesis is not very exciting.
Emperorjvl: You have it the other way around. Matters that are simpler to understand will be figured out first and figuring them out will require lower intelligence. There is a finite limit to what can be figured out. With time, the items still remaining to be figured out will be fewer and more difficult to unravel. You are right that figuring out relativity by oneself is more difficult that having it explained to you. Even the mighty intellect of Einstein couldn’t figure out relativity by itself and had to borrow the ideas from superior minds.
Francois:
Quote:
No. Classic hooked noses tend to have a much more prominent lower part than upper part. The lower part comprises of cartilage, not bone.
Contrast the apes with the Greek God in the article. You will note that the upper part of the apes’ nose is almost totally flat but the nose tip is somewhat prominent. How does this change as you move to humans, shown strikingly in the Greek figure of Apollo Belvedere? The upper part of the nose becomes very prominent but the relative increase in the lower part is less.
In the first row of the following image, note how adding implants in the upper nose eliminates the hooked appearance and makes the lower part look less prominent even though it is more prominent because of a tip graft. Look at the Greek figure and then look at the second row below and tell me who has a more derived nose shape?
Hooked noses simply cannot be more derived as in such noses the relative increase in the lower part of the nose is much greater than in the upper part. In the region where hooked noses are most frequent (Middle East and adjoining areas in the Mediterranean and southwest Asia), the cartilage of the nose is also thicker, again not consistent with such noses being more derived. And, nasal bones are more prominent in Northern Europeans.
BSP: You need to stop asking me useless questions.
Quote:
The heritability of physical features is obviously about heredity. And, it is not an “objective preference for beauty” but whether one can show objectively that most people have a similar notion of beauty. This largely shared preference across cultures will be strongly influenced by heredity. I have discussed numerous such preferences and also preferences associated with some cultures but not others, and preferences resulting from the influence of culture.
I replied to your comment about hip size, child birth and intelligence here.
You mentioned in reference to epicanthal folds...
Quote:
...but I never implied this. My statement was about the nose, and I talked about something that is intrinsically preferred as opposed to something that is intrinsically disliked. There is a difference between these two notions. One can be okay with what one has and still prefer something else. You are also confounding the epicanthal fold with a single/double upper eyelid crease. The eye surgery I am talking about is not one that removes epicanthal folds, but one that adds a second crease in the upper eyelid.
To a greater or lesser extent, an epicanthal fold is present in East Asians. However, not all East Asians have a single crease only in the upper eyelid. Chances are that larger than average eyes have been described as more appealing in women in early Chinese literature, but one does not expect to encounter much in terms of a preference for a double crease to a single crease in the upper eyelid for a number of reasons. The ancient Chinese did not have an alphabet-based language, did not come up with very realistic human sculptures like the ancient Greeks and did not come up with very realistic paintings depicting humans. So where do you expect to encounter a description of the nuances of aesthetic preferences in ancient or even medieval East Asia?
How can you write something like the following?
Quote:
Will jaws better suited to consuming uncooked food have difficulty with cooked food?
Why have I cited many references that also appear at a site that you dislike? Relevant citations will appear wherever they are required. Judge cited papers by their contents, not by who cites them.
Yes, it is your bizarre impression that you believe my arguments to be “non-european women have ugly noses” because I have described ugliness as physical defects/abnormalities, which do not characterize the central tendency in ethnic groups. Pointing out that non-European populations seeking aesthetic plastic surgery to shift the nose toward a more overall derived shape does not imply that their population norms are “ugly.” You must stop smearing my neutral arguments by reducing them to negative adjectives.
Quote:
What’s with this? There is a 7-page section within this site at the time of this writing that you have gone through. It argues WHY there can be no objective comparison across ethnic groups. Why are you asking me this question when you should have gotten the answer by reading this section? If you haven’t understood it, don’t waste your time with this site.
Quote:
It is not a question of being fair; the across-group comparison cannot be objectively done.
Quote:
Again, no fairness issue here. Nuanced nose aesthetics can only be addressed for broad ethnic groups, not for the human species. I do not have the time to be addressing non-European populations in detail.
Quote:
Humans are primates. A derived structure is a derived structure regardless of how it has arrived there: natural selection, sexual selection, random genetic drift. So even if climate were entirely responsible for ethnic variation in nose shape, some ethnic groups could have more derived noses than others.
Quote:
If you had understood my argument you would not have brought this up. I have mentioned numerous correlates of beauty, and they act in concert. One of these happens to be a preference for averageness. The preference for a shift toward the somewhat more overall derived end of the ancestral-to-derived discriminant is a preference for a shift away from the average and hence the preference for averageness places an upper bound on the extent of this shift that will be found aesthetically acceptable.
In any case, you have the nose extreme wrong. Whereas the extreme would be very projecting, it wouldn’t be meaty, but finer, and the increase in the projection of the upper nose would be greater than that in the lower nose.
Quote:
The “slit-eyes” are a combination of epicanthal folds and narrow eyes. The surgical procedure I addressed is not about the epicanthal fold.
Quote:
I am not surprised that you are unnerved. You have mistook an innate preference described for nose shape with a preference for lack of epicanthal folds and substituted surgery affecting the number of upper eyelid creases with surgery to alter the epicanthus. To quote you, “I think well over 20% of Korea’s population (just South Korea, not sure about North) naturally lack epicanthic folds, and yet surgery to remove it...” Great, they are having surgery to remove epicanthic folds! You cited a webpage mentioning “so many Koreans lacking the epicanthic fold” but this page did not even mention this fold. You have described a contemptuous reference to “round eyes” (shape) as a dislike for a double crease in the upper eyelid! Should it be surprising that you failed to understand the rest, now described as there being no “fucking middle-ground”?
There are some obvious features among Europeans that may be regarded in neutral or negative terms by some non-Europeans, such as particular hair colors, skin color or average lip thickness.
Quote:
No tap dancing here. If you consider individual facial features, Europeans are not the most derived on all counts, but they are the most derived on most counts, which cannot be distorted to imply that “The most “derived” ones happen to be the most common among Europeans.” So, there is a difference between the ancestral-to-derived discriminant and the non-European-to-European discriminant. Don’t make me repeat this again. This has already been explained in the 7-part section.
Quote:
There is no need for me to tell. I am not addressing the question who is more masculine and who is feminine. I am just addressing who looks more masculine or more feminine since femininity is a correlate of beauty and the issue is relevant to the question asked at the beginning of the 7-page section.
Quote:
LOL! Testosterone is not related to masculinization?
Quote:
No, I don’t care to quote. Molecular evidence is not cited for children. Look up the studies and see molecular evidence for mixing, that is if you understand genetics.
Quote:
Of course! But I explained the most obvious reason for their looks: sexual selection over a long time. The mixture isn’t recent. A preference for more European-looking faces will result in the differential reproductive success of mixed offspring with faces closer to European norms. Stretch this over many generations and you will end up with faces closer to Europeans notwithstanding a substantial sub-Saharan African component.
Quote:
If this is true, then you may have read just about all of it, but you don’t seem to have understood many arguments.
Quote:
You think I would not be aware of this variability? When this variability is analyzed, as by Hanihara, it is clear what overall derived and what overall ancestral mean. Don’t discuss the matter with me unless you have a sufficient background to understand these matters.
Quote:
Think in terms of a correlation structure underlying differences that constitute ethnic features, not variation regarding individual features.
Quote:
You forgot the noses in the Africans and the wider faces and larger jaws in East Asians, to mention some other differences.
Quote:
No. Ethnic features should be considered in terms of a correlation structure underlying differences unless the features are either present in one group but not the other.
Quote:
I alluded nothing along the lines of what you argue. Your picture shows a wide-faced woman, and not one with very large and prominent cheekbones that would prompt her to seek cheekbone reduction. Face width is not merely a function of cheekbone size; there is the interorbital pillar, the maxillary bones that are part of the cheeks and the cheekbones.
Quote:
I don’t need to come up with this since I am not targeting non-European populations. The chief purpose of my addressing ethnic differences is improving international beauty pageants in light of the fact that an objective comparison of attractiveness cannot be made across ethnic groups. A secondary purpose has emerged from this discussion, namely clarifying the preference related to overall placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant, unfortunately to people who don’t have the requisite scientific background.
Quote:
You knew that I hadn’t used “despised” yet used it. Stop smearing me. I have used completely neutral language.
Quote:
Apparently nothing that you would understand.
Quote:
The qualitative differences mentioned are good enough for the article, which should be familiar to you anyway.
Quote:
The nose structure is not associated with culture, but a people, and they like the straighter and finer nose because they have a preference for it. There is no contradiction by me. The very fact that some features of Northern Europeans are admired by them and others despised means that it cannot be argued that Nordic cultural domination makes them admire Nordic noses or else how does one explain the despised cultural features?
I mentioned Michael Jackson because of his failure to obtain a European nose in reference to Whipped Honey’s question about why only so little surgery and why not all the way to European norms? So what if he attempted to look like a white woman?
I am not going to discuss white men and their supposed common preference for East Asian women unless you show the relevance to the discussion and come up with empirical evidence to back up your contention because I have never gotten this impression.
Your emails mostly are not related to my work, and this will become clear to you when I get around to replying to them. I have a lot of work to do and there are many people apart from you that I have to reply to, both their emails and their blog comments.
Quote:
Good Lord!!! I HAVE EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY ARGUED AGAINST PEDOMORPHISM BEING A CORRELATE OF BEAUTY OR THAT IT IS MORE FEMININE.
It appears that you are either incapable of understanding my arguments or are tying me up with useless materials to waste my time. Please stop. If it is the former, then come back to this site after you have acquired the prerequisites to understand it; I cannot provide them to you.
Sidhatzer4ever: I called the SPLC a joke, not a sham, and for a reason that you have ignored. The SPLC is doing important work but not me? Whereas I admit that my work is not of great importance, there is a need for it, and no one else is tackling some of the problems that I am. It is shameful that I have to browse the collections of adult-oriented sites to obtain pictures of feminine and attractive women when I should be able to browse the archives of beauty pageant contestants, fashion modeling agencies and other mainstream sources for such women. Also, not one source out there is addressing the real reason behind the thinness of high-fashion models, which needs to be disseminated if unnecessary dieting on the part of a number of girls and women is to be reduced.
“Everyone agreeing with it” is not a criterion for truth. Truth is not decided by vote.
I disagree that the SPLC is doing important work, and to understand this, consider the example of hatewatch.org, a website that has been defunct for many years though accessing it will forward you to the SPLC website. Hatewatch.org aimed to combat bigotry and hate by exposing the bigots, and it extensively cataloged “hate sites” on the web. What do you think happened? The exact opposite of what the hatewatch.org site had intended as it helped spread the message of the “hate sites” to a wider audience. The people behind the hatewatch.org website failed to understand that what they considered to be bigotry and hate speech would be considered good information by many others. The hatewatch.org site was taken down. The SPLC knows this, yet why does it use a similar methodology, namely give publicity to the “most dangerous” white supremacists and their message? The fact is that the SPLC isn’t exposing the “most dangerous” groups. The people and organizations it is listing under “most dangerous” people/groups fall under four categories: fake white supremacist organizations set up to trap genuine white supremacists; people who have been read enough so that one cannot pretend that they don’t exist, but their arguments bother the SPLC and hence it smears them; token and useless non-white extremist groups thrown in to present an impression of being unbiased; and low IQ, criminal-type white supremacists who are incapable of achieving white supremacist goals.
The last type of “most dangerous” people/groups listed by the SPLC is actually useful to the SPLC’s long-term goals. Thanks to the increased publicity, one day a low IQ white man with borderline paranoid schizophrenia and prejudice against non-whites will come across and join one of these groups. He does drugs and he has a gun. Another day, he reads about a white victim of a horrible crime perpetrated by non-whites, and this crime is ignored by the mainstream media. He gets high on drugs and goes out, is crossed by a non-white, and loses it. He goes on a shooting spree, injuring and killing a bunch of non-whites. The incident is widely covered in the mainstream media, and the SPLC’s major goals are realized: a full-scale assault on the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech and gun ownership, respectively). And you tell us that the SPLC is doing important work! I suppose yes if you share its “hate beliefs.”
Whipped honey: You must make a proper effort to read this site before arguing with me. Your statement...
Quote:
...does not follow from the evidence.
I cited this study on the ratings of Korean women by Koreans, and it was clearly shown that the overall face shape of attractive Koreans is shifted toward European norms compared to the average. Cosmetic surgery was not an issue in this study. I have provided the main diagrams and numerical results from this study for over one year now.
Hugh Hefner had admitted to experimenting with bisexuality; see this BBC report.
I have answered the question about why East Asians in America apparently do not seek double eyelid surgeries at the high rates of some specific East Asian populations. East Asians in America come from all over East Asia and, on average, do not have the same frequency of single upper eyelids as, say, Koreans. So what do you expect? Another possible reason is that if the surgery is intended to improve looks, then the improvement is of greater weight if those undergoing surgery are surrounded by Asians as opposed to Europeans. Your notion about conformity is not very plausible. Not all East Asians in Asia with a single upper eyelid seek double eyelid surgery.
So the eyelashes of African/Latina women “appear thicker because they are more visible in contrast to skin color”? Nice contrast, isn’t it?
Quote:
In most cases, it would not be possible to make their noses look European; there is the embarrassment of undergoing cosmetic surgery to alter an ethnic feature while one is in the limelight; one will have to counter criticism by other African-Americans that the person isn’t accepting of his/her Africanness; and some are fine with their noses.
Again, I haven’t just resorted to cosmetic surgery procedures. For instance, are successful African-American men more likely to choose African-American women with less African features compared to the average or more African features?
There is no need for me to answer BSP’s question, “why, if there is an innate preference for “more derived” features, Asian cultures did not consider double eyelids more attractive than single eyelids before 20th century modern Western media saturation” because I haven’t described the double crease in the upper eyelids as more derived.
i like to lick vaginas
She's cute.I wish she had bigger protruding butt.
Well, I said "a bit like" - not "identical to"
But it doesn't matter.
Here comes Super Grover!
http://z.about.com/d/kidsmusic/1/0/J/1/supergrover.jpg
Just in the nick of time http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/surprise.gif
Now hun, put on your Sexy Code if you don't want to feel the wrath of the Gender Gestapo
http://imgboot.com/images/Lammero/44040915judeafp416.jpg
Or you may join Danielle and try to overthrow the Aryan Hetero-patriarchy
http://imgboot.com/images/Lammero/06stalag600.jpg
Whatever tickles your fancy http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/kiss.gif
Heidi Klum ist ein mann ! http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/shock.gif
http://imgboot.com/images/Lammero/heidiklum.jpg
I mean... a handsome fellow http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/gulp.gif
can u please please show me pix of guys who are not body builders. I want to see what a "normal" masculine guy looks like, and more face pictures please.
show a range please. show a skinny guy who is masc. vs. a skinny guy who is fem.
show a chubby guy who is masc. and a chubby guy who is fem.
a short man and a tall man, please.
and of course an average guy who is masc and one who is fem.
show body and face.
and graphs dont do much for me, can you show pictures of normal mens body hair pattern, over masc. body hair, and can u describe or show the result of too much exposure to male hormones (fetus) in an adult
you have also focused mostly on the masc./fem. characteristics of Caucasoid males can you show these effects in other races if possible
thanks would appreciate this so soooo much!!!
Yeah... the second photo is a fake.
Long time reader, first time poster... No one thinks #12 is a hottie? It could be her enhanced sense of fashion and sense of buying clothes that fit her. Or it could be her ever slightly so sly smirk. Every one else looks like their mothers just died. She has the best all around.
I cannot believe I spent (wasted) my time reading this crap!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Yesica is the hottest S.I. model in my eyes! All those ladies are hot! All of yours are hot, too.. but not as world class as S.I's!!
What's your problem, hun...
I said "fugly" instead of "aesthetically unappealing" or something. Big deal.
You don't mince words either, your posting record speaks for itself.
Now do us a favor, jump off your High Horse and break your neck.
I know the likes of you, you would save your minority pets from themselves even against their will
Patronizing morons...
Erik:
I find your assumption flawed, as regards to "intelligence": simple matters may be understood by the less intelligent, but the intellectual leap of discoveries, I think, must be normalized to the state-of-the-art (i.e. what could have Newton done with mathematics if he were born today - and was already taught calculus, differential equations and the like?).
Der Arschloch, I don't know if english is your third language but it certainly seems like it. I don't recall calling white people fugly or insulted them the way you insulted brown people. I don't think super pale skin is very attractive but most white people don't have skin that pale. You really can't point fingers at anyone because it is clear from your post that you are a racist asshole and you need to take reading classes.
Danielle :
* yawn *
So now I'm a racist...
Hunnie bunnie, you need a blast from the past
Erik, this is where I saw the reference for so many Koreans lacking the epicanthic fold: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1950/context/cover/
"With eyelid surgery the fastest-growing type of plastic surgery in the Asian community in California and across the country, numerous other young women are facing the same decision. Approximately 75 percent of all Koreans and 50 percent of all other Asians are born without the double eyelid crease."
I admit, it doesn't give references, and it seems abit questionable since it talks about the 50% figure for all other asians- but I'm not even sure what asians those area.
The thing to note here is that the surgery is most common in Korea, and Korea- both sides- are easily among the most racist/racialist societies in all of east asia, and perhaps the world. Look up the North Korean views on race and the evolution of South Korean racial attitudes sometime. What I'm getting at is how, in face of all this, it seems to lean to cultural attitudes being the result of this. Although east asians have often imitated westerns in ways, this preference is still very recent, and how east asians seemed to find the look of double-eyelids distasteful in pre-modern times. What with slurs like "round-eye".
If you can dig up the relevant ethnographic data on the frequencies, do so, and likewise perhaps some cite perception studies on how people rank epicanthic folds. I'm rather dissapointed, again, on how you'd jump on the bandwagon on the idea of this being an innately less attractive trait when you claim to not being arguing towards a largely ethnocentric standard of beauty, and likewise the whole thing about objectivity in regards to ethnic features.
Grace does not have any elegance to her. She looks like a regular girl that does not have much to offer in the department of being a supermodel. The Czech girl is very bland and not attractive at all. Hence, these girls were not discovered as models.
I respect your opinion because it's your opinion and you're at least attempting to express yourself eloquently.
But your site has one main flaw. While it is true that High-fashion models are the most "elite" it is also commonly known that they are by far not "mainstream". Commercial models and the like are much more popular not to mention pop stars/movie stars/etc.
What is "elite" exactly? Highest paid? Highest "respected? What does respect mean? How can we measure it? Through fashion magazines, through how much money one makes?
Even if we look at the amount of money they make, and it becomes evident that high fashion models receive much more money - that does not mean in any way that they are more idolized by the public. As you said, most people prefer feminine beauty and thus commercial models are much more "mainstream"...again, high fashion models only belong to a small elite but outside of those interested in high fashion (which I'm surprised you're as knowledgeable as you are seeing as you seem to despise that industry) most of the public won't know these high fashion models.. with the exception of the "superstars" such as Tyra Banks, Giselle, Adriana Lima, Heidi Klum, Naomi Campbell, etc.
I think we can all agree that feminine beauty is subjective and while you seem to agree at least on that, you seem to also claim that what is exactly "feminine" and "masculine" can be easily defined for everyone, in particular straight males. You cannot speak for all of us. As with sexuality, I believe it's all more on a scale rather than being easily defined. Thus masculinity/femininity can vary on a wide scale based on the person's overall features and package.
Men and women and everyone can disagree insanely in terms of who they find attractive EVEN when it comes to overwhelmingly "feminine" women who posess no masculine traits, so really how can one even attempt to approach some kind of supreme truth about "why fashion models look like adolescent boys" or even attempt to claim that so and so is too masculine for "most" straight men.
Even if you were to lay out 10 pictures of feminine girls you liked, and rounded up 50 of your so called-hardcore "straight" masculine men, not all of them would agree on the attractiveness level of all the girls you listed, regardless of how feminine they are.
I just wish that you would emphasize more on this site that it is opinion...but you phrase everything so eloquently that it almost seems like you're trying to make a scientific claim which in the case of this subject would be absurd.
I won't even comment on your theory about homosexual men and their pedophilic tendencies (not to mention the hardly "credible" sources you listed) because that's beyond ridiculous and low, and I'm sure you'll only judge me for thinking so and already have a response worked out for such comments.
I think you should also address the issue as to what sort of male it takes to produce a feminine woman.
Well, after rereading what your summary said again, did they make any direct links to intelligence and obesity? At all? What do you think the mechanism is?
I just thought they were alluding to it being linked to poor impulse- I've seen that brought up in other discussions and studies about health and intelligence. Nevermind.
Are you also reffering to my contentions about IQ and SES? I don't know about the case of the economy in these countries, but this is still quite true.
And yes, I guess I did get confused about the ratio and the overall hip size, sorry. As for the link between brain size and hip size, whatever, it was just an assumption that jumped from what I once heard about the two being linked. It's never been something I've payed much heed to, so don't hammer me on that.
Der Wanderer, your inability to think coherently is funny.
Quote:
I stated that women who want to attract men freely choose to dress the way men want women to dress, and used the idea of a dress code purely as a figurative parallel to demonstrate that the way one dresses is not always the way one would prefer to dress, without ever claiming that men actually force a literal dress code on women, and you conclude that I am comparing male-female relations to the way Nazis treated Jews, because the concept of a figurative parallel is too hard for you to understand.
Quote:
I made stated that women's *arousal* and women's *desire* are two different things and that women are capable of being aroused by that which they do not desire. Alexandra Kollontai's "Winged/Wingless Eros" is a distinction between what she calls "sublime proletarian love... the sweet delights of tender love" and "the 'naked instinct of reproduction,' unhealthy satisfaction of the sex drive for its own sake, coarse lust, quick pleasure, 'mere possession' of someone’s body, whoring." I distinguished between arousal and desire; she distinguished between two kind of desire. If you actually think I agree even slightly with her, then you obviously did not understand my post in which I stated that I support the legalization of prostitution. What she calls "Wingless Eros" and condemns, I call human nature and support.
;-P
My observations have been that the smartest women tend to be slim and somewhat masculinized.
These are my anecdotal observations, also.
BSP: I didn’t talk about problems with impulse control. There is less intelligence. The Danish adoption study makes it case about SES and intelligence in a dramatic manner. Whereas you may not like it, you can’t just dismiss it. Your notion about hip size is naïve. Like Der Wanderer said, we are talking about a ratio, not hip size. Take a good look at obese women. Large/wide hips are common among them, yet obesity is associated with lower intelligence in self and offspring among them. In any case, you need to consider the following: 1) wider hips in women are only partly related to the child birth function; 2) when fetuses with the genetics of large size develop in small women, their growth is somewhat decelerated in the womb and compensatorily accelerated after birth; and 3) for the same head size some people have thicker bones and lesser brains; contrast the the weaker correlation between head size and intelligence (0.19) with that between brain volume and intelligence (0.33). So your hypothesis is not very exciting.
Emperorjvl: You have it the other way around. Matters that are simpler to understand will be figured out first and figuring them out will require lower intelligence. There is a finite limit to what can be figured out. With time, the items still remaining to be figured out will be fewer and more difficult to unravel. You are right that figuring out relativity by oneself is more difficult that having it explained to you. Even the mighty intellect of Einstein couldn’t figure out relativity by itself and had to borrow the ideas from superior minds.
Pages