*typo* it should be "feautures" on my first line, not "pictures".Same with all the caps missing from the name of the countries,I just dont care about caps.
This is easy...to you ,women with strong,ethnic, or unusual pictures ,are all "masculine" and therefore "unatractive".
While women with softer ,more classical features are favoured by you as "femenine" and "atractive".
I agree with you that "femeninity" or typically femenine feautres can be determined with a sort-of "clinical" or "cientific" criteria.
Atractiveness ,on the other hand, cannot ,and will never be explained by any mean ,be it scientific or comercial.
There are women who have those ultra "femenine" feautures ,and that does not make them automatically beautiful.Example,that woman from turkey is not beautiful to me by any means, tho ,she is indeed very femenine.Same with that woman from turkey ,who in my opinion is boring and plain ,simply vulgar and ordinary.
On the other hand ,the women from puerto rico,spain,phillipines,bolivia among others, might not be "ultra femenine" but are somehow much more striking.
That is exactly my point, u can identify those "ultra fem" features , but beauty cannot be defined.You do not own the magical key to the "beauty" enigma.No matter how scientific you want to get.
That would be like saying vanilla should win the best ice cream flavor pageant instead of chocolate,just because you like it better.
OK..so I guess you think women with large saggy breasts and thunder thighs should be on the modeling and pageant world just because that turns you on. LOL
Im a homosexual male, and I enjoy a large beefy muscular man ,a hairy chest and a waist size about 34 inches...but I dont pretend that type of guy is featured on the cover of GQ.
Your notion of beauty is "sexualized" and therefore biassed to me.
The girl you preffer does NOT by ANY means ,has a latin look,she even has freckles ,wich is highly unusual on latinos.The girl you deem "masculine" has stronger,more angular features due to her possibly indian and african genes(latinos are very mixed).
To me your notes on "femenine" vs "masculine" is pointless, since they are both females ,dont they?
I preffer the beauty queen girl ,she has a leaner ,longer more athletic body,wich is a reflection of today's society,and a stronger, more exotic and therefore memorable look.
The girl you seem to preffer just looks to me like a living version of a cheap inflatable doll...btw she also has tons of make up,hair extensions ,a receassed jawline and a piggy nose.Not to mention her vulgar poses and tattoos.
HEY PEople who are hating on strong jawlines--YOURE PROBABLY JEALOUS BECAUSE YOUR FACES AREN'T DEVELOPED ENOUGH OR STRONG ENOUGH! YOU PORBABLY HAVE AN OVERBITE TOO, WHICH IS UNHEARD OF WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAVE A DEVELOPED FACE (AND THAT INCLUDES A CHISELED JAW) LOOK AT THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR REGAL BEAUTY!!! :) I'M HAPPY AND PROUD WITH MY STRONG SQUARE JAW, YA'LL!!
the website could have served some good purpose, like correcting young women's unhealthy eating habits, but then your homophobia got in the way and your opinions became unbearably disgusting. did you vote for bush?
Fine, I'll just bullet each of your paragraphs. You wrote 11, so I'll go with that.
1: Yes, I did read where you said that “not only europeans are attractive”, and that’s what I meant- just a miswording, sorry. However, how is it my “bizzare impression” that you’re saying non-european women have ugly noses when you keep drumming up the idea of people constantly wanting to get plastic surgery to shift their noses to more “derived” norms? And if you say that such things can’t be objectively compared, what’s with this? Why not be fair and do across group issues? Why not be fair as well and tell us what are the more preffered, intrinsic noses among humans? BTW, that woman you cite appears to be southeast asian, and those sorts of noses are very rare as a result of normal phenotypic variation in such a group. Hell, she looks indian now.
And really, how can nasal structures be pushed off as being more derived? As you should obviously know, variations in human nose structure are due to climactic differences- nothing to do with climate here.
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, especially when this preference is so recent, and they had plenty of such individuals in their own societies. Sorry, but I’m abit unnerved at something like this when you’re offering no fucking middle-ground. You read all too like that majorityrights blog I linked to.
3: Many of the very features you push off are the most prominent ones, so why wouldn’t non-europeans go after them? What are these neutrally regarded features?
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?
4: Yeah, that’s one of the very things I asked in the email. How can you really tell? While masculization and femininity can typically work independently of testosterone differences, there are a number of features that are usually strongly tied to these differences, and that’s what shows up in east asians.
5: Well, in regards to cro-magnons, that was a moot point anyway for me, since the difference in jaw structures were moderate, and cro-magnons existed so long ago.
As for east africans, would you care to quote the relevant passages that push them off as being… mixed? With southern europeans? I’ve heard the claim that east africans are mixed all too often, which usually pops up in racial nationalist circles. Usually arab admixture is pushed off, but now white admixture? I know someone who’s dealt with this topic a lot, so he might be able to weight in on it. Either way, east africans don’t look at all like what one would expect of the typical offspring of africans and europeans.
6: 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. 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. For example, east asians have typically large cheekbones and jaws, yet small mouths and flat jaws like europeans. Africans, although seeming to have higher levels of less-derived features than europeans, don’t commonly show the level of cheek and jaw size seen in east asians as a result of non-testosterone mediated differences, and they also show such profound phenotype diversity due to being the oldest human ethnic group.
7: I know you haven’t used the term “despised”, but your tone on this isn’t very neutral.
8: What were you reffering to here?
9: This really doesn’t answer much, as you don’t really show what the average difference is between northern and southern european noses. And this is a rather contradictory statement you make:
“In addition, Moslems often despise the gender egalitarianism and women’s rights situation in the Nordic nations, the best of its kind, and would consider it an abomination to adopt the secular elements of Western culture, yet have admiration for fine and chiseled Nordic noses.”
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.
And on that african-american man, as I said earlier, this preference seems to be less among men. Michael Jackson is a poor comparison too, because of how much of an extremity he was- IE, his plastic surgery went on for decades, and he wanted to look like a white woman.
9: Yes, I soon realized what you said about that asian woman, sorry.
10: Well, it is too bad, because I can’t find the poll right now. However, how can you HONESTLY say that this preference for east asian women among white men is anecdotal? Have you ever looked at interracial dating patterns and marriage patterns? The whole asian fetish thing? This is blatant.
11: It’s only this article I’ve found grotesque, really. I have no problem with the rest of your site or blog. I’ve only been sporadically following since it first caught my attention in september.
And it’s pretty much bullshit that my email had nothing to do with your site, nor any sorts of distortions. My email was prompted on the idea of innate standards of beauty and it’s implication for phyiscal differences among ethnic groups- I asked many questions about certain ethnic features and how they comply with beauty standards, and even suggested for you to cover these issues more indepth.
Sorry if I sound somewhat angry, but I really don’t like how you really haven’t replied to my questions AT ALL in well over 2 damn months, and how I’ve had to go onto your blog to even get an answer out, and now you’re being slow with this too. Why is any of this so much of a problem to keep on top of?
I'm going to have to reverse my position on the reality of Tyra's breasts. Whipped Honey is right. They're real. I found this youtube video. I think it from the episode on her show where a doctor verified her breasts. They definitely defore naturally.
Whipped Honey-I whole heartedly agree with what you have said. I have only a few more things to add, which occurred to me sometime after I submitted my first post.
Erik's argument depends entirely on the bigoted argument that homosexual men are in capable of discerning the difference between their own sexually charged aesthetic preferences and that of their market. His entire thesis rests upon the assumption that lingerie models are chosen by homosexual men who cannot put aside their own set of preferences in lieu of another. However, he does not levy the same charge against heterosexuals such as himself. He has obviously demonstrated his ability to rationally assess the aesthetic appearance of women who do not match his personal preferences and to interpret whose preferences they would likely appeal to. What would make him think that homosexual designers would not be able to do the same? If it were in the best interest of their business, these designers would be more than capable of setting aside their own preferences to rationally assess the aesthetic appeal of more feminine models. Thus, if they are not doing so, it is because it IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR BUSINESS. Any argument that asserts that "they do not know better" or that "they cannot help it" is bigoted.
As for the constant charge against dissenters of this site that they must not be "lifetime exclusive" heterosexual men, by Erik's own statistics, which are derived from a self-reporting data collection method and thus highly incredible, 4 out of every 5 men are "lifetime exclusive" heterosexuals. With such an overwhelming majority of men included in this group, it is highly unlikely that every man contributing to this forum who has disagreed with Erik is a non-"lifetime exclusive" heterosexual, but instead Erik is ignoring proof positive that his argument is faulty.
This entire argument is based upon misapplied statistics, incredible statistics, bigoted assumptions, a denial of logic, and a denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Anyone who buys into it will fall within three categories: the sexually inexperienced, the homophobic, or the uneducated. Erik is obviously not the former of these three, so he must be one of the first two.
What is wrong with the photograph of the five nude supermodels?
The five nude supermodels look healthy, lean and fit, not underweight, to the extent that their bodies are visible in this photograph in which they cluster together.
This photograph will not trigger an eating disorder in anyone who is not already mentally disturbed. This photograph may trigger the resolve to eat healthier and exercise more, and that is a good thing.
:)
Erik, your belief that lingerie models are supposed to appeal to heterosexual men is absolutely ridiculous.
All marketing in today's complex economy and widely varied mass media is niche marketing. Even products that are bought by the majority of people, such as cars, are marketed to niches. The same car companies have very different television commercials in different regions of the country and on different television networks with different core audience demographics.
All marketing is directed to the buyer and no one else, even if the product is in some way used by someone other than the buyer. For instance, food for home cooking is marketed almost exclusively to women, even though half of the people who eat it are men, because in most households the grocery shopper is the woman.
The vast majority of lingerie purchases are made by women, not men; therefore lingerie is marketed to women, not men, regardless of the fact that most women who buy lingerie use it to arouse men. Get this through your head: LINGERIE COMPANIES DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HETEROSEXUAL MEN BECAUSE HETEROSEXUAL MEN DO NOT BUY LINGERIE.
WOMEN'S SEXUAL FANTASIES ARE DIFFERENT FROM MEN'S.
WOMEN DO NOT WANT LINGERIE MODELS TO LOOK LIKE MALE FANTASIES.
Erik, your ignorance of female sexuality is so extreme that I have come to the conclusion that your sexual experience is limited to being a john with prostitutes paid to tell you what you want to hear, or very few non-prostitute partners, or you may be a virgin. You dismissed Bailey's and Chivers' studies because they reached conclusions incomprehensible to you in your ignorance of female sexuality. You do not understand why women are aroused by rape fantasies, the #1 most popular female sexual fantasy. You do not understand why both hetersexual women and lesbians are aroused by both naked women and naked men because you cannot comprehend that women's arousal and women's desire are two different things. You actually believe the male delusion that porn stars enjoy the sex because you do not know the visible signs of female sexual arousal. Any experienced woman who reads your statements about female sexuality is going to realize that you have very, very little unpaid experience with women.
Learn more about evolutionary psychology. Men are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they impregnate the highest number of women possible; thus natures programs men to be promiscuous and to desire women who appear to be easily available for sex. Women are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they limit their sexual availability to a high status male who is able and willing to provide long-term resources and protection for his offspring; thus nature programs women to be monogamous or semi-monogamous (female promiscuity is either prostitution or emotional problems, not biology) and to desire to appear sexually available only to high-status males and sexually unavailable to the average male. Hence there is a huge disconnect between how men want to see women and how women want to see themselves.
Simply put, women do not want to be what men want women to be. No, pleasing men is not the primary motivator of female sexuality. The primary motivator of female sexuality is the achievement of the women's own ends; pleasing men is just a means to the end.
Men love the image of the easily sexually stimulated, promiscuous woman easily available to the average male. Women love the image of the highly selective, monogamous or semi-monogamous woman available only to the high status male and unavailable to the average male. Pornography is the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry because it appeals to male fantasy, not female fantasy. The most idolized female celebrities, such as Jackie Kennedy Onassis and Princess Diana, are popular because they appeal to female fantasy, not male fantasy.
Lingerie models must project the image of the Jackies and the Dianas. The image, mind you, not the reality of these women's private behavior, whatever it was, which is irrelevant.
Lingerie models must look sexually subtle, understated, self-contained, lofty, priveleged, rarified, and - most important of all - HARD TO AROUSE.
Meaning that it would take a very exceptional and worthy male to arouse her. That is why they are so careful to avoid any facial expression suggestive of arousal. The Victoria's Secret people know damn well that if they start using models who make the catalogue look like tasteful soft core porn, they will instantly lose 95% of their female customers.
Erik, I expect your response to this post will be along the lines of "That can't be true!" Like most younger men today, you have so little comprehension of female sexual psychology that whenever confronted with truths about women that conflict with male fantasies, your response is to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
:bug: :wow: :gulp:
Erik claims that Playboy models are "masculinized" because Hugh Hefner is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" on the basis of a rumor that Hugh Hefner experimented with bisexuality in the 1960's and statements by one or two of Hefner's roughly two thousand female sexual partners who made money by telling stories that Hefner likes to watch homosexual male porn. Erik's standard of evidence for his claim that Hugh Hefner is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" is the standard of a sleazy tabloid: somebody said it, somebody was paid to say it, therefore it is true.
Erik ignores the evolution of beauty standards and claims beauty standards do not substantially change.
I have tried to explain to Erik how technological, economic and cultural changes cause huge shifts in beauty standards. He does not get it. Erik claims that lifetime-exlusive heterosexual men have a natural preference for the female hourglass figure with a small waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) caused by high levels of female hormones and low levels of male hormones, but most of the glamorized female figures in Western art in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were obese, not hourglass. Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus", which you rightly point out is pear-shaped and has a WHR larger than Erik says heterosexual men prefer, is actually significantly thinner than most of the female nudes in Renaissance art. The hourglass figure Erik claims is a natural male preference did not become fashionable until the industrial revolution made food far more easily available to the masses and greatly lessened the link between corpulence and affluence, thus reducing the social cachet of female obesity. And the popularity of the hourglass figure began to decline in the last two decades of the 20th century when the West achieved such truly extreme prosperity that even the very poor had unlimited food access and significant body fat became associated with the lower class. The modern very thin beauty ideal is the inevitable result of modern mass wealth.
When I tried to explain to Erik that the standard of beauty changes because beauty is generally defined as the look of higher socioeconomic status and the signs of socioeconomic status change, he disagreed and pointed out that in ancient Rome, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon slaves were considered beautiful even though they were at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. He used one very rare exception as an excuse to ignore an overwhelming rule. In how many times and places in human history have slaves been considered more beautiful than their masters?
Erik's mind is closed to anything that contradicts his assumptions, even if that means ignoring massive evidence to the contrary. Erik conveniently dismisses any man who disagrees with his ideas of female beauty by making totally unprovable allegations that the man is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" or "barely escaped nonheterosexuality" which is a convenient way to shut out all dissent.
:P
Look, are you sure I can't quote your points individually? It's really repetetive and contrived to basically detail everything I want to go at. I'm not used to blogs that don't allow you to quote long lines of text like that. Can I just bullet your points or what?
You, that made the whole research for Victoria Secret models, are stupid idiot, and have to find normal job... Hey, you are discussing about the most famous and the most beautiful women in the world that were chosen among ZILLION other girls, especially Adriana, Karolina and Heidi. I don't see any masculinity in here and there is no point to make comparison with some nasty nude models that look pathetic, just like porno divas. Get over with, it's not worth discussing it all of you here.
These women are interested in "fat liberation". They hold jobs in the theater, the film industry and in business—and together they perform in a burlesque presentation called "Fat Bottom Revue." The nature and degree of costuming and nudity in their performances is determined by the venue and the audience, which can range from children’s birthday parties, to stag parties. I wanted these pictures to be more about them. These women are projecting an image that is their own. And one that also stems from their own story rather than mine. Their self-esteem is strong. One of them has a degree in anthropology and will tell you that ideas of beauty and sexuality are "culture bound"—that these ideas are not universal or fixed, and that they vary and fluctuate depending on place and time. They will tell you that too many people suffer because the body they live in is not the body you find in the fashion magazines.
* yawn *
So these are the "points" :
1 - The ladies have to be "liberated"
2 - Only ladies who look like crap "own" themselves. The rest are slaves to the White Hetero-patriarchy.
3 - Beauty "fluctuates" -> Therefore -> Anybody/Nobody is beautiful
I thought that Claude Lévi-Strauss was already dead !
This crap is getting old.
It seems to me that Nimoy's goal was not to exactly counter high fashion imagery but to use that imagery to make a point. He isn't trying to sell anything. He is trying to encourage body acceptance. I don't think his goal was to reach out to women with eating disorders either.
You want to use your plain faced, sloppy girls to market products when that won't help anyone's self-esteem. It won't be able to compete with Herb Ritts and the supermodels either.
"Surely, it is high time the organizers of beauty pageant contests realize that what male homosexual fashion designers find aesthetically appealing in their female models, namely looks approximating those of adolescent boys (e.g., faces, physiques), are not what mentally normal people find attractive in women."
I highly disagree with the term "mentally normal people" in referring to non-homosexual persons. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals "mentally", and all do not share the same aesthetic tastes. Nor are all fashion designers homosexual males.
Just one last thing before I put together my actual reply- but, 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?
And one last thing- why does that white nationalist/supremacist blog use so many of the same references as you, despite being older than this site?
I find certain aspects of your argument troubling. First, in the section of this blog titled, “The importance of femininity to beauty in women,” it appears that the studies you reference focus on facial features exclusively, and yet you apply the statistical correlation they have found between attractiveness and femininity in facial features to bodily features without discretion. The section titled, “Feminine vs. masculine features,” references orthopedic measurements of feminine and masculine pelvic structures, but does not address aesthetic preference. The inference that a correlation between attractiveness and femininity in facial features can be applied to bodily features indiscriminately seems to be entirely your assumption.
Second, in Hally’s post on March 12, 2007, she says, “The definition of beauty has evolved with time.” While the rest of her post was less than congenial or intelligent, this statement cannot be refuted. Your response to her post addresses her misuse of the words “fat” and “ancient,” but not the core of her assertion. For instance, a study done by P. T. Katzmarzyk and C. Davis (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801571a.html) from the School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada has shown that from 1978 to 1998, 77.5% of Playboy models have been at least 15% below their ideal body weight. Thus, if your claim that Ancient Greek and Egyptian sculptures as well as Neolithic European figurines depict “normal” body/fat ratios is accurate, we can conclude that by today’s standards heterosexual men prefer women that are at least 15% thinner than those of the ancient period. Furthermore, consider Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus” (http://www.johnmitchell.org/venus.htm). Even your examples of feminine bodies above do not come near the body/fat ratio of this depiction of Venus. Notice that her waist is only slightly thinner than her hips. The vast majority of her body weight is carried in her abdomen, not her chest, and this painting represents the 16th Century’s conception of ideal beauty. The explanation for the preference of larger and paler women during this period is related to class issues. Women who were corpulent and pale were preferred to the peasant class that were generally thin and tan because of their labor. Corpulence and pale skin indicated that a woman was wealthy and privileged, and a preference for this lifestyle translated into a preference for this body type. The examples of feminine bodily structures that you present would substantiate the claim that preferences have shifted towards a thinner female body, not to mention tanner (see Keeley Hazell in part 3 of this series). If Hally had claimed that paintings from the Renaissance and not the “ancient world” demonstrated a preference for corpulence, her assertion would have been more accurate, but there is no denying that preferences have changed and that aesthetic attractiveness is subjective, even for “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, unless you want to claim that Hugh Heffner is not among this group.
Third, and this addresses the heart of your thesis, the claim that masculinized women do not represent the ideal body type for lingerie models is entirely assumptive. The mere fact that the majority of lingerie models are at least slightly androgynous contradicts this assertion, because it is not solely homosexual men who select models. For instance, the Victoria’s Secret PINK collection, for which Alessandra Ambrosio was named the spokesperson, is headed by Jennifer Wolinetz. Women have a powerful influence over the modeling industry. Consider the many female designers who select the same models to represent their brands as Victoria’s Secret, not to mention heterosexual men such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. I understand that your response to this will be that Klein and Hilfiger do not represent “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, if there is such a thing, but suffice it to say that there is a diversity of sexual orientation in the fashion industry. It is more logical to presume that the selection of androgynous women as models for lingerie is a business decision and not a sexual one. You have stated that the lingerie industry is targeting heterosexual men with their campaigns. While this is undoubtedly true, heterosexual men are certainly not their only target. Obviously, women are the main demographic of any lingerie company, which you have addressed and accounted for by pointing out that heterosexual women tend to prefer the same feminine features as heterosexual men, at least in the face. However, what you have not considered are the non-“lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men and women that Victoria’s Secret would want to attract to their brand. According to the studies of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Eve Sedgwick, Judith Butler, and countless others, the vast majority of people are not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, but instead, gender and sexual preference should be rendered as a spectrum of possibilities, not an either/or binary. Perhaps by selecting an androgynous model type, Victoria’s Secret is attempting to garner themselves a blank canvas to display their apparel in order to achieve the widest possible appeal. If this is the case, then a masculinized woman would be the ideal candidate to model lingerie.
I'm still putting together my reply, but again Erik, why hasn't this preference for non-epicanthic folds been shown until so recently among east asians? I mean yeah, plastic surgery was very primitive up until recently, but never in a single east asian society where there existed strong variation among the degrees of slanting with the epicanthic fold- especially with Korea, which has a very sizable portion of it's population without the trait- has this been shown. If true, this preference would have been blatant and extensively written about, with women having lacking epicanthic folds being favored, and likewise this trait being more bred for.
What would be behind this preference then? Supposedly having larger eyes looking more pedomorphic? One can have large, prominent eyes and still attain that look with prominent epicanthic folds. Sorry, but some people take offense to the idea of you pushing off this being an innately disliked trait.
I am somewhat amused and somewhat appalled at this website. Your comical and uneducated implications about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" are, frankly, a bit tragic. I sincerely hope that women who come across this site do not take any of the information as 'fact.' Women do not have to have massive hips and chubby faces to be beautiful, and having high cheekbones or a slim figure do not make one look like a, and I quote, "transvestite."
"In general, the [European lip] enhancement is well within European norms; there is no attempt to acquire/be closer to African norms."
"The [African rhinoplasty] issue is not merely one of ending up within population norms, there is the directionality question"
Erik, you contradict yourself. Make up your mind what's more important in terms of assessing the motivation for cosmetic surgery procedures: staying within one's racial/ethnic norm or directionality? If the directionality of African rhinoplasty proves they're trying to look "more derived" REGARDLESS of the fact that they generally stay within African norms, then the directionality of European lip enhancement proves they're trying to look "more African" REGARDLESS of the fact that they generally stay within European norms. You can't change your mind depending on which race you're talking about!
Quote:
"There are some white celebrities that have gotten notably prominent lips, but guess what? They end up on awfulplasticsurgery.com (go to the section titled “Bad Collagen in Lips”)."
That proves nothing. So whoever runs awfulplasticsurgery.com does not like bigger-than-European-norm lip injections on white celebrities; that does not prove that the celebrities themselves, their fans or the general public agree. Pamela Anderson rose from successful nude model to THE most popular female sex symbol of her generation in the Western world only AFTER she got bigger-than-European-norm lip injections. Apparently, lots of white guys like a white girl with African lips!
Quote:
"How many Asians undergo surgery to change double eyelids to a single eyelid as opposed to the opposite?"
Probably very, very few Asians undergo surgery to change double eyelids to a single eyelid as opposed to the opposite - and probably very, very few Europeans undergo lip surgery to change bigger lips into smaller ones as opposed to the opposite.
Quote:
"How many cosmetic surgery procedures can you name among Northern Europeans that are directed toward shifting facial features toward the non-European side of the North European average?"
1. Lip injections.
2. Nose jobs specifically to correct ski jump noses (as opposed to nose jobs for other reasons), as ski jump noses are an almost exclusively Northern European trait, as seen in the first picture on this page.
3. Cheek implants, which make them look more like Native Americans who have generally more prominent natural cheekbones than any other people on Earth.
4. Eyeliner tattoos, which are gaining in popularity and are designed to give white women the look of dark, thick eyelashes that is naturally more common among African/Latina women.
In other words, the EXACT SAME parts - eyes, noses, mouths - that nonwhite people alter to look "more derived", white people alter to look closer to nonwhite norms.
The *percentage* of white vs nonwhite people who get these parts altered: Eyes and nose - more nonwhites. Lips - more whites.
The important issue you have not addressed at all on this blog entry so far: What percentage of ANY group of people gets ANY plastic surgery? In America, whites are far more likely to get plastic surgery than nonwhites, and blacks are less likely to get plastic surgery than anybody else. In the American state with the highest percentage of Asians, California, the vast majority of Asians with single eyelids do NOT get double eyelid surgery. Double eyelid surgery seems to be far more popular in almost 100% Asian Korea than in almost 100% non-Asian America; why that is, is a very interesting question.
:question:
That study shouldn't be too surprising. Since the link between IQ and brain size has been so heavily established, women would require a larger hip size to give birth to bigger brained babies, and thus, higher IQ women would typically have this physical feature.
*typo* it should be "feautures" on my first line, not "pictures".Same with all the caps missing from the name of the countries,I just dont care about caps.
This is easy...to you ,women with strong,ethnic, or unusual pictures ,are all "masculine" and therefore "unatractive".
While women with softer ,more classical features are favoured by you as "femenine" and "atractive".
I agree with you that "femeninity" or typically femenine feautres can be determined with a sort-of "clinical" or "cientific" criteria.
Atractiveness ,on the other hand, cannot ,and will never be explained by any mean ,be it scientific or comercial.
There are women who have those ultra "femenine" feautures ,and that does not make them automatically beautiful.Example,that woman from turkey is not beautiful to me by any means, tho ,she is indeed very femenine.Same with that woman from turkey ,who in my opinion is boring and plain ,simply vulgar and ordinary.
On the other hand ,the women from puerto rico,spain,phillipines,bolivia among others, might not be "ultra femenine" but are somehow much more striking.
That is exactly my point, u can identify those "ultra fem" features , but beauty cannot be defined.You do not own the magical key to the "beauty" enigma.No matter how scientific you want to get.
That would be like saying vanilla should win the best ice cream flavor pageant instead of chocolate,just because you like it better.
OK..so I guess you think women with large saggy breasts and thunder thighs should be on the modeling and pageant world just because that turns you on. LOL
Im a homosexual male, and I enjoy a large beefy muscular man ,a hairy chest and a waist size about 34 inches...but I dont pretend that type of guy is featured on the cover of GQ.
Your notion of beauty is "sexualized" and therefore biassed to me.
The girl you preffer does NOT by ANY means ,has a latin look,she even has freckles ,wich is highly unusual on latinos.The girl you deem "masculine" has stronger,more angular features due to her possibly indian and african genes(latinos are very mixed).
To me your notes on "femenine" vs "masculine" is pointless, since they are both females ,dont they?
I preffer the beauty queen girl ,she has a leaner ,longer more athletic body,wich is a reflection of today's society,and a stronger, more exotic and therefore memorable look.
The girl you seem to preffer just looks to me like a living version of a cheap inflatable doll...btw she also has tons of make up,hair extensions ,a receassed jawline and a piggy nose.Not to mention her vulgar poses and tattoos.
BTW- on the last line 2, I meant "nothing to do with derivation here".
And could you address the issue of skin color? I'm sure you've heard of Peter Frost's work?
HEY PEople who are hating on strong jawlines--YOURE PROBABLY JEALOUS BECAUSE YOUR FACES AREN'T DEVELOPED ENOUGH OR STRONG ENOUGH! YOU PORBABLY HAVE AN OVERBITE TOO, WHICH IS UNHEARD OF WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAVE A DEVELOPED FACE (AND THAT INCLUDES A CHISELED JAW) LOOK AT THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR REGAL BEAUTY!!! :) I'M HAPPY AND PROUD WITH MY STRONG SQUARE JAW, YA'LL!!
the website could have served some good purpose, like correcting young women's unhealthy eating habits, but then your homophobia got in the way and your opinions became unbearably disgusting. did you vote for bush?
Fine, I'll just bullet each of your paragraphs. You wrote 11, so I'll go with that.
1: Yes, I did read where you said that “not only europeans are attractive”, and that’s what I meant- just a miswording, sorry. However, how is it my “bizzare impression” that you’re saying non-european women have ugly noses when you keep drumming up the idea of people constantly wanting to get plastic surgery to shift their noses to more “derived” norms? And if you say that such things can’t be objectively compared, what’s with this? Why not be fair and do across group issues? Why not be fair as well and tell us what are the more preffered, intrinsic noses among humans? BTW, that woman you cite appears to be southeast asian, and those sorts of noses are very rare as a result of normal phenotypic variation in such a group. Hell, she looks indian now.
And really, how can nasal structures be pushed off as being more derived? As you should obviously know, variations in human nose structure are due to climactic differences- nothing to do with climate here.
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, especially when this preference is so recent, and they had plenty of such individuals in their own societies. Sorry, but I’m abit unnerved at something like this when you’re offering no fucking middle-ground. You read all too like that majorityrights blog I linked to.
3: Many of the very features you push off are the most prominent ones, so why wouldn’t non-europeans go after them? What are these neutrally regarded features?
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?
4: Yeah, that’s one of the very things I asked in the email. How can you really tell? While masculization and femininity can typically work independently of testosterone differences, there are a number of features that are usually strongly tied to these differences, and that’s what shows up in east asians.
5: Well, in regards to cro-magnons, that was a moot point anyway for me, since the difference in jaw structures were moderate, and cro-magnons existed so long ago.
As for east africans, would you care to quote the relevant passages that push them off as being… mixed? With southern europeans? I’ve heard the claim that east africans are mixed all too often, which usually pops up in racial nationalist circles. Usually arab admixture is pushed off, but now white admixture? I know someone who’s dealt with this topic a lot, so he might be able to weight in on it. Either way, east africans don’t look at all like what one would expect of the typical offspring of africans and europeans.
6: 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. 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. For example, east asians have typically large cheekbones and jaws, yet small mouths and flat jaws like europeans. Africans, although seeming to have higher levels of less-derived features than europeans, don’t commonly show the level of cheek and jaw size seen in east asians as a result of non-testosterone mediated differences, and they also show such profound phenotype diversity due to being the oldest human ethnic group.
7: I know you haven’t used the term “despised”, but your tone on this isn’t very neutral.
8: What were you reffering to here?
9: This really doesn’t answer much, as you don’t really show what the average difference is between northern and southern european noses. And this is a rather contradictory statement you make:
“In addition, Moslems often despise the gender egalitarianism and women’s rights situation in the Nordic nations, the best of its kind, and would consider it an abomination to adopt the secular elements of Western culture, yet have admiration for fine and chiseled Nordic noses.”
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.
And on that african-american man, as I said earlier, this preference seems to be less among men. Michael Jackson is a poor comparison too, because of how much of an extremity he was- IE, his plastic surgery went on for decades, and he wanted to look like a white woman.
9: Yes, I soon realized what you said about that asian woman, sorry.
10: Well, it is too bad, because I can’t find the poll right now. However, how can you HONESTLY say that this preference for east asian women among white men is anecdotal? Have you ever looked at interracial dating patterns and marriage patterns? The whole asian fetish thing? This is blatant.
11: It’s only this article I’ve found grotesque, really. I have no problem with the rest of your site or blog. I’ve only been sporadically following since it first caught my attention in september.
And it’s pretty much bullshit that my email had nothing to do with your site, nor any sorts of distortions. My email was prompted on the idea of innate standards of beauty and it’s implication for phyiscal differences among ethnic groups- I asked many questions about certain ethnic features and how they comply with beauty standards, and even suggested for you to cover these issues more indepth.
Sorry if I sound somewhat angry, but I really don’t like how you really haven’t replied to my questions AT ALL in well over 2 damn months, and how I’ve had to go onto your blog to even get an answer out, and now you’re being slow with this too. Why is any of this so much of a problem to keep on top of?
I'm going to have to reverse my position on the reality of Tyra's breasts. Whipped Honey is right. They're real. I found this youtube video. I think it from the episode on her show where a doctor verified her breasts. They definitely defore naturally.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m0j1lK531gE
Whipped Honey-I whole heartedly agree with what you have said. I have only a few more things to add, which occurred to me sometime after I submitted my first post.
Erik's argument depends entirely on the bigoted argument that homosexual men are in capable of discerning the difference between their own sexually charged aesthetic preferences and that of their market. His entire thesis rests upon the assumption that lingerie models are chosen by homosexual men who cannot put aside their own set of preferences in lieu of another. However, he does not levy the same charge against heterosexuals such as himself. He has obviously demonstrated his ability to rationally assess the aesthetic appearance of women who do not match his personal preferences and to interpret whose preferences they would likely appeal to. What would make him think that homosexual designers would not be able to do the same? If it were in the best interest of their business, these designers would be more than capable of setting aside their own preferences to rationally assess the aesthetic appeal of more feminine models. Thus, if they are not doing so, it is because it IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR BUSINESS. Any argument that asserts that "they do not know better" or that "they cannot help it" is bigoted.
As for the constant charge against dissenters of this site that they must not be "lifetime exclusive" heterosexual men, by Erik's own statistics, which are derived from a self-reporting data collection method and thus highly incredible, 4 out of every 5 men are "lifetime exclusive" heterosexuals. With such an overwhelming majority of men included in this group, it is highly unlikely that every man contributing to this forum who has disagreed with Erik is a non-"lifetime exclusive" heterosexual, but instead Erik is ignoring proof positive that his argument is faulty.
This entire argument is based upon misapplied statistics, incredible statistics, bigoted assumptions, a denial of logic, and a denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Anyone who buys into it will fall within three categories: the sexually inexperienced, the homophobic, or the uneducated. Erik is obviously not the former of these three, so he must be one of the first two.
Peace. I'm out.
Whipped Honey: stay cool.
Natural breats are way more attractive than those fake plastic things, no matter how small
What is wrong with the photograph of the five nude supermodels?
The five nude supermodels look healthy, lean and fit, not underweight, to the extent that their bodies are visible in this photograph in which they cluster together.
This photograph will not trigger an eating disorder in anyone who is not already mentally disturbed. This photograph may trigger the resolve to eat healthier and exercise more, and that is a good thing.
:)
WHAT WOMEN WANT IN A LINGERIE MODEL
Erik, your belief that lingerie models are supposed to appeal to heterosexual men is absolutely ridiculous.
All marketing in today's complex economy and widely varied mass media is niche marketing. Even products that are bought by the majority of people, such as cars, are marketed to niches. The same car companies have very different television commercials in different regions of the country and on different television networks with different core audience demographics.
All marketing is directed to the buyer and no one else, even if the product is in some way used by someone other than the buyer. For instance, food for home cooking is marketed almost exclusively to women, even though half of the people who eat it are men, because in most households the grocery shopper is the woman.
The vast majority of lingerie purchases are made by women, not men; therefore lingerie is marketed to women, not men, regardless of the fact that most women who buy lingerie use it to arouse men. Get this through your head: LINGERIE COMPANIES DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HETEROSEXUAL MEN BECAUSE HETEROSEXUAL MEN DO NOT BUY LINGERIE.
WOMEN'S SEXUAL FANTASIES ARE DIFFERENT FROM MEN'S.
WOMEN DO NOT WANT LINGERIE MODELS TO LOOK LIKE MALE FANTASIES.
Erik, your ignorance of female sexuality is so extreme that I have come to the conclusion that your sexual experience is limited to being a john with prostitutes paid to tell you what you want to hear, or very few non-prostitute partners, or you may be a virgin. You dismissed Bailey's and Chivers' studies because they reached conclusions incomprehensible to you in your ignorance of female sexuality. You do not understand why women are aroused by rape fantasies, the #1 most popular female sexual fantasy. You do not understand why both hetersexual women and lesbians are aroused by both naked women and naked men because you cannot comprehend that women's arousal and women's desire are two different things. You actually believe the male delusion that porn stars enjoy the sex because you do not know the visible signs of female sexual arousal. Any experienced woman who reads your statements about female sexuality is going to realize that you have very, very little unpaid experience with women.
Learn more about evolutionary psychology. Men are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they impregnate the highest number of women possible; thus natures programs men to be promiscuous and to desire women who appear to be easily available for sex. Women are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they limit their sexual availability to a high status male who is able and willing to provide long-term resources and protection for his offspring; thus nature programs women to be monogamous or semi-monogamous (female promiscuity is either prostitution or emotional problems, not biology) and to desire to appear sexually available only to high-status males and sexually unavailable to the average male. Hence there is a huge disconnect between how men want to see women and how women want to see themselves.
Simply put, women do not want to be what men want women to be. No, pleasing men is not the primary motivator of female sexuality. The primary motivator of female sexuality is the achievement of the women's own ends; pleasing men is just a means to the end.
Men love the image of the easily sexually stimulated, promiscuous woman easily available to the average male. Women love the image of the highly selective, monogamous or semi-monogamous woman available only to the high status male and unavailable to the average male. Pornography is the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry because it appeals to male fantasy, not female fantasy. The most idolized female celebrities, such as Jackie Kennedy Onassis and Princess Diana, are popular because they appeal to female fantasy, not male fantasy.
Lingerie models must project the image of the Jackies and the Dianas. The image, mind you, not the reality of these women's private behavior, whatever it was, which is irrelevant.
Lingerie models must look sexually subtle, understated, self-contained, lofty, priveleged, rarified, and - most important of all - HARD TO AROUSE.
Meaning that it would take a very exceptional and worthy male to arouse her. That is why they are so careful to avoid any facial expression suggestive of arousal. The Victoria's Secret people know damn well that if they start using models who make the catalogue look like tasteful soft core porn, they will instantly lose 95% of their female customers.
Erik, I expect your response to this post will be along the lines of "That can't be true!" Like most younger men today, you have so little comprehension of female sexual psychology that whenever confronted with truths about women that conflict with male fantasies, your response is to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
:bug: :wow: :gulp:
Billy:
Erik claims that Playboy models are "masculinized" because Hugh Hefner is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" on the basis of a rumor that Hugh Hefner experimented with bisexuality in the 1960's and statements by one or two of Hefner's roughly two thousand female sexual partners who made money by telling stories that Hefner likes to watch homosexual male porn. Erik's standard of evidence for his claim that Hugh Hefner is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" is the standard of a sleazy tabloid: somebody said it, somebody was paid to say it, therefore it is true.
Erik ignores the evolution of beauty standards and claims beauty standards do not substantially change.
I have tried to explain to Erik how technological, economic and cultural changes cause huge shifts in beauty standards. He does not get it. Erik claims that lifetime-exlusive heterosexual men have a natural preference for the female hourglass figure with a small waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) caused by high levels of female hormones and low levels of male hormones, but most of the glamorized female figures in Western art in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were obese, not hourglass. Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus", which you rightly point out is pear-shaped and has a WHR larger than Erik says heterosexual men prefer, is actually significantly thinner than most of the female nudes in Renaissance art. The hourglass figure Erik claims is a natural male preference did not become fashionable until the industrial revolution made food far more easily available to the masses and greatly lessened the link between corpulence and affluence, thus reducing the social cachet of female obesity. And the popularity of the hourglass figure began to decline in the last two decades of the 20th century when the West achieved such truly extreme prosperity that even the very poor had unlimited food access and significant body fat became associated with the lower class. The modern very thin beauty ideal is the inevitable result of modern mass wealth.
When I tried to explain to Erik that the standard of beauty changes because beauty is generally defined as the look of higher socioeconomic status and the signs of socioeconomic status change, he disagreed and pointed out that in ancient Rome, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon slaves were considered beautiful even though they were at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. He used one very rare exception as an excuse to ignore an overwhelming rule. In how many times and places in human history have slaves been considered more beautiful than their masters?
Erik's mind is closed to anything that contradicts his assumptions, even if that means ignoring massive evidence to the contrary. Erik conveniently dismisses any man who disagrees with his ideas of female beauty by making totally unprovable allegations that the man is "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" or "barely escaped nonheterosexuality" which is a convenient way to shut out all dissent.
:P
Look, are you sure I can't quote your points individually? It's really repetetive and contrived to basically detail everything I want to go at. I'm not used to blogs that don't allow you to quote long lines of text like that. Can I just bullet your points or what?
You, that made the whole research for Victoria Secret models, are stupid idiot, and have to find normal job... Hey, you are discussing about the most famous and the most beautiful women in the world that were chosen among ZILLION other girls, especially Adriana, Karolina and Heidi. I don't see any masculinity in here and there is no point to make comparison with some nasty nude models that look pathetic, just like porno divas. Get over with, it's not worth discussing it all of you here.
* yawn *
Same ole, same ole ...
The Fat is Political :
* yawn *
So these are the "points" :
1 - The ladies have to be "liberated"
2 - Only ladies who look like crap "own" themselves. The rest are slaves to the White Hetero-patriarchy.
3 - Beauty "fluctuates" -> Therefore -> Anybody/Nobody is beautiful
I thought that Claude Lévi-Strauss was already dead !
This crap is getting old.
yay fat power!!! 8D
It seems to me that Nimoy's goal was not to exactly counter high fashion imagery but to use that imagery to make a point. He isn't trying to sell anything. He is trying to encourage body acceptance. I don't think his goal was to reach out to women with eating disorders either.
You want to use your plain faced, sloppy girls to market products when that won't help anyone's self-esteem. It won't be able to compete with Herb Ritts and the supermodels either.
"Surely, it is high time the organizers of beauty pageant contests realize that what male homosexual fashion designers find aesthetically appealing in their female models, namely looks approximating those of adolescent boys (e.g., faces, physiques), are not what mentally normal people find attractive in women."
I highly disagree with the term "mentally normal people" in referring to non-homosexual persons. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals "mentally", and all do not share the same aesthetic tastes. Nor are all fashion designers homosexual males.
Just one last thing before I put together my actual reply- but, 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?
And one last thing- why does that white nationalist/supremacist blog use so many of the same references as you, despite being older than this site?
I find certain aspects of your argument troubling. First, in the section of this blog titled, “The importance of femininity to beauty in women,” it appears that the studies you reference focus on facial features exclusively, and yet you apply the statistical correlation they have found between attractiveness and femininity in facial features to bodily features without discretion. The section titled, “Feminine vs. masculine features,” references orthopedic measurements of feminine and masculine pelvic structures, but does not address aesthetic preference. The inference that a correlation between attractiveness and femininity in facial features can be applied to bodily features indiscriminately seems to be entirely your assumption.
Second, in Hally’s post on March 12, 2007, she says, “The definition of beauty has evolved with time.” While the rest of her post was less than congenial or intelligent, this statement cannot be refuted. Your response to her post addresses her misuse of the words “fat” and “ancient,” but not the core of her assertion. For instance, a study done by P. T. Katzmarzyk and C. Davis (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801571a.html) from the School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada has shown that from 1978 to 1998, 77.5% of Playboy models have been at least 15% below their ideal body weight. Thus, if your claim that Ancient Greek and Egyptian sculptures as well as Neolithic European figurines depict “normal” body/fat ratios is accurate, we can conclude that by today’s standards heterosexual men prefer women that are at least 15% thinner than those of the ancient period. Furthermore, consider Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus” (http://www.johnmitchell.org/venus.htm). Even your examples of feminine bodies above do not come near the body/fat ratio of this depiction of Venus. Notice that her waist is only slightly thinner than her hips. The vast majority of her body weight is carried in her abdomen, not her chest, and this painting represents the 16th Century’s conception of ideal beauty. The explanation for the preference of larger and paler women during this period is related to class issues. Women who were corpulent and pale were preferred to the peasant class that were generally thin and tan because of their labor. Corpulence and pale skin indicated that a woman was wealthy and privileged, and a preference for this lifestyle translated into a preference for this body type. The examples of feminine bodily structures that you present would substantiate the claim that preferences have shifted towards a thinner female body, not to mention tanner (see Keeley Hazell in part 3 of this series). If Hally had claimed that paintings from the Renaissance and not the “ancient world” demonstrated a preference for corpulence, her assertion would have been more accurate, but there is no denying that preferences have changed and that aesthetic attractiveness is subjective, even for “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, unless you want to claim that Hugh Heffner is not among this group.
Third, and this addresses the heart of your thesis, the claim that masculinized women do not represent the ideal body type for lingerie models is entirely assumptive. The mere fact that the majority of lingerie models are at least slightly androgynous contradicts this assertion, because it is not solely homosexual men who select models. For instance, the Victoria’s Secret PINK collection, for which Alessandra Ambrosio was named the spokesperson, is headed by Jennifer Wolinetz. Women have a powerful influence over the modeling industry. Consider the many female designers who select the same models to represent their brands as Victoria’s Secret, not to mention heterosexual men such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. I understand that your response to this will be that Klein and Hilfiger do not represent “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, if there is such a thing, but suffice it to say that there is a diversity of sexual orientation in the fashion industry. It is more logical to presume that the selection of androgynous women as models for lingerie is a business decision and not a sexual one. You have stated that the lingerie industry is targeting heterosexual men with their campaigns. While this is undoubtedly true, heterosexual men are certainly not their only target. Obviously, women are the main demographic of any lingerie company, which you have addressed and accounted for by pointing out that heterosexual women tend to prefer the same feminine features as heterosexual men, at least in the face. However, what you have not considered are the non-“lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men and women that Victoria’s Secret would want to attract to their brand. According to the studies of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Eve Sedgwick, Judith Butler, and countless others, the vast majority of people are not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, but instead, gender and sexual preference should be rendered as a spectrum of possibilities, not an either/or binary. Perhaps by selecting an androgynous model type, Victoria’s Secret is attempting to garner themselves a blank canvas to display their apparel in order to achieve the widest possible appeal. If this is the case, then a masculinized woman would be the ideal candidate to model lingerie.
I'm still putting together my reply, but again Erik, why hasn't this preference for non-epicanthic folds been shown until so recently among east asians? I mean yeah, plastic surgery was very primitive up until recently, but never in a single east asian society where there existed strong variation among the degrees of slanting with the epicanthic fold- especially with Korea, which has a very sizable portion of it's population without the trait- has this been shown. If true, this preference would have been blatant and extensively written about, with women having lacking epicanthic folds being favored, and likewise this trait being more bred for.
What would be behind this preference then? Supposedly having larger eyes looking more pedomorphic? One can have large, prominent eyes and still attain that look with prominent epicanthic folds. Sorry, but some people take offense to the idea of you pushing off this being an innately disliked trait.
I am somewhat amused and somewhat appalled at this website. Your comical and uneducated implications about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" are, frankly, a bit tragic. I sincerely hope that women who come across this site do not take any of the information as 'fact.' Women do not have to have massive hips and chubby faces to be beautiful, and having high cheekbones or a slim figure do not make one look like a, and I quote, "transvestite."
Erik, you can't have it both ways
Quote:
Erik, you contradict yourself. Make up your mind what's more important in terms of assessing the motivation for cosmetic surgery procedures: staying within one's racial/ethnic norm or directionality? If the directionality of African rhinoplasty proves they're trying to look "more derived" REGARDLESS of the fact that they generally stay within African norms, then the directionality of European lip enhancement proves they're trying to look "more African" REGARDLESS of the fact that they generally stay within European norms. You can't change your mind depending on which race you're talking about!
Quote:
That proves nothing. So whoever runs awfulplasticsurgery.com does not like bigger-than-European-norm lip injections on white celebrities; that does not prove that the celebrities themselves, their fans or the general public agree. Pamela Anderson rose from successful nude model to THE most popular female sex symbol of her generation in the Western world only AFTER she got bigger-than-European-norm lip injections. Apparently, lots of white guys like a white girl with African lips!
Quote:
Probably very, very few Asians undergo surgery to change double eyelids to a single eyelid as opposed to the opposite - and probably very, very few Europeans undergo lip surgery to change bigger lips into smaller ones as opposed to the opposite.
Quote:
1. Lip injections.
2. Nose jobs specifically to correct ski jump noses (as opposed to nose jobs for other reasons), as ski jump noses are an almost exclusively Northern European trait, as seen in the first picture on this page.
3. Cheek implants, which make them look more like Native Americans who have generally more prominent natural cheekbones than any other people on Earth.
4. Eyeliner tattoos, which are gaining in popularity and are designed to give white women the look of dark, thick eyelashes that is naturally more common among African/Latina women.
In other words, the EXACT SAME parts - eyes, noses, mouths - that nonwhite people alter to look "more derived", white people alter to look closer to nonwhite norms.
The *percentage* of white vs nonwhite people who get these parts altered: Eyes and nose - more nonwhites. Lips - more whites.
The important issue you have not addressed at all on this blog entry so far: What percentage of ANY group of people gets ANY plastic surgery? In America, whites are far more likely to get plastic surgery than nonwhites, and blacks are less likely to get plastic surgery than anybody else. In the American state with the highest percentage of Asians, California, the vast majority of Asians with single eyelids do NOT get double eyelid surgery. Double eyelid surgery seems to be far more popular in almost 100% Asian Korea than in almost 100% non-Asian America; why that is, is a very interesting question.
:question:
Because a fag cannot understand a man krisah. Let it go.
That study shouldn't be too surprising. Since the link between IQ and brain size has been so heavily established, women would require a larger hip size to give birth to bigger brained babies, and thus, higher IQ women would typically have this physical feature.
Pages