"I have only briefly touched upon testosterone and ethnicity, and this was in response to D’Artagnan. This is not a topic of much relevance to this site. Also, this site is primarily concerned with physical appearance and hence the discussion will obviously lean toward the “hereditarian side.”"
Er, in what sense? The idea of an objective preference for beauty or the heritability of physical features?
Sidhatzer4ever: Do not spam by posting the same comment in multiple entries. I replied as follows to your original comment:
Quote:
Where have I used Rushton to support my arguments? Read carefully; D’Artagnan cited Rushton and I critiqued the evidence. Besides, using the “guilt by association” argument is a logical fallacy. You haven’t critiqued any of the studies or the synthesis.
Rushton is a white supremacist? LOL! He has long maintained that Northeast Asians are more intelligent than whites. The SPLC organization is a joke.
BSP: Reply using the fewest possible words. You can structure the reply by using brief references to/paraphrases of my individual arguments. This approach is a basic unsaid guideline in internet discussions.
I have only briefly touched upon testosterone and ethnicity, and this was in response to D’Artagnan. This is not a topic of much relevance to this site. Also, this site is primarily concerned with physical appearance and hence the discussion will obviously lean toward the “hereditarian side.”
Sidhatzer4ever: Where have I used Rushton to support my arguments? Read carefully; D’Artagnan cited Rushton and I critiqued the evidence. Besides, using the “guilt by association” argument is a logical fallacy. You haven’t critiqued any of the studies or the synthesis.
Rushton is a white supremacist? LOL! He has long maintained that Northeast Asians are more intelligent than whites. The SPLC organization is a joke.
Also, Sid, where does Erik use work from Rushton? Although he tackles the idea of race differences in testosterone, this is a broad, basic topic unconcerned with what racial researchers have to say, and while Erik does seem to lean moreso to the hereditarian side of the debate on things, this is mostly libel.
Erik, before I reply, would it be a bad idea to structure my post as to quote your points individually, and then put my reply? Because that might take up alot of space.
As I've posted this before I feel it's also appropriate to post again since Erik makes another lame attempt to subtley "prove" (without coming off too much as a racist because he knows he would loose any shread of credibility) that "white" features are better.
I think everyone should know that you use "research" from white supremicists to support your statements. Jean-Philippe Rushton being one such person who is profiled as a top 40 Racist to look out for on their site:
This dude does bogus studies to prove whites are better physically and mentally--often performing his research at the mall. Tenure system keeps him around....way to go Erik for "backing up your arguments" with solid unbiased sources. White power!! (right?)
Just to let everyone know the kind of supported "evidence" Erik uses...
Check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Top 40 Racists and White Nationalists to watch out for:
Jean-Philippe Rushton, who Erik references from, is listed as such..and due to the tenure system they can't really get rid of this dude.The American Association for the Advancement of Science was outraged by his "research". His research is often conducted at "malls" (wow just like those women who ask you to take a survey...advanced techniques let me tell ya)
The guy has been putting out bogus studies correlating brain size to penis size and other useless studies to "prove" whites are superior. Just thought your readers should know that the "studies" Erik looks at are conducted by white supremacists. I'm wondering if you'll actually leave this comment up though..I think your readers should be informed.
8D: I have had enough of reading your sick sexual fantasies. Do not describe them at this site anymore. You must also stop using “The Donald” as an alias and no more impersonating others. You will be banned from commenting if you don’t behave.
Whipped honey: The issue is not merely one of ending up within population norms, there is the directionality question and the question of the overall picture from multiple surgical procedures. How many Asians undergo surgery to change double eyelids to a single eyelid as opposed to the opposite? How many Asians go from right to left in Fig. 2 as opposed to left to right? How many Asians go from smaller than average cheekbones to larger than average compared to the reverse? 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?
Bisson and Grobbelaar’s contention about the reason why the patients didn’t end up with lips as thick of the models’ lips -- technical/financial limitations -- is a possibility, but there is another possibility: the patients didn’t want lips as thick. The authors assume that fashion models’ looks must be highly appealing to the general population, but anyone who has gone through this site knows better. 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”).
I agree that I have not proved “that nonwhite people’s cosmetic surgery procedures IN GENERAL create results outside the norm for their racial/ethnic groups,” and this is because I never made this argument. In relation to double eyelid surgery, you said that you have seen many without one and ‘So it appears that they do not want to “look more derived”.’ Where did I say that the single eyelid is an ancestral feature? The double eyelid surgery serves to make one look less ethnic; the issue of looking more derived is not applicable here. The nose surgery in Fig. 2 serves to make the woman look both less ethnic and more derived.
Hugh Ristik: Words cannot describe as well what the Apollo vs. apes image shows in regard to what is overall more derived. The reasons for Europeans having faces more overall derived than other populations have to do with earlier switching to eating cooked food and stronger sexual selection (especially Northern Europeans); chance factors would have also played a role, setting the foundation for sexual selection and natural selection (environment) to mold face shape.
Danielle: Derived features are not synonymous with white features, though there is considerable overlap between the two. Also, derived features are not more “feminine.” More prominent nasal bones and more regressed jaws are in the direction of more derived features, but will also result from greater masculinization. This doesn’t mean that derived features are more “masculine.” Ancestral-derived and masculine-feminine variation are of different natures.
There is no implication above that “preference for white features over non-white features is intrinsic”; the argument has to do with overall derived facial features; if you don’t believe me, see how many Asians aesthetically prefer the nose of the woman in Fig. 2 before her major nose job over the altered nose.
Not from Twisty’s: The first man shown in the article has made his nose look whiter in the sense that he has approached the central tendency among Europeans. You will find others like him, but they will be a minority among Europeans.
BSP: Please do not post a large number of very short comments. Consolidate your arguments into a single comment or the least number of comments. I do not recall ever saying that “Europeans wern’t the only attractive race.” I said that attractive people are found in all ethnic groups; obviously, unattractive people are also found in all populations. This article is not saying that “non-european women have ugly noses.” The latter is your bizarre impression. If you read enough of this site then it should be clear that the attractiveness of different ethnic groups cannot be objectively compared. This article does not compare the attractiveness of noses/other features of different ethnic groups, but addresses within-group issues, namely people preferring among their co-ethnics somewhat more overall derived than average and especially ancestral features.
Technological advances in the twentieth century have made global Television a reality and intercontinental travel quick plus cheap. As a result, a large number of Asians have been extensively exposed to the physical features of major ethnic groups around the world. Hence, Asians’ aesthetic preferences in relation to variation among themselves and humans in general will be clearly observed and properly documented in recent decades rather than in the distant past.
I made the argument about non-Europeans having a mixture of admiration, neutral feelings and dislike for various physical features of Europeans. So I don’t see how you can write, “so you’re saying that a preference for white features is intrinsic?” It is also strange that you wrote, “I somewhat agree with you that there is SOMEWHAT of a preference for more “european” looking features...” when I didn’t argue this; read again my reply to others.
Even if two populations differ in testosterone levels, there is bound to be considerable overlap between them, and when face pictures of same-sex individuals from different populations are being compared, how does one know who has higher testosterone than the other? This is why there is a confound regarding the extent to which face shape differences between individuals from different ethnic groups differ as a result of the extent of masculinization vs. other factors.
Population variation in transitioning to cooked food alone doesn’t explain inter-population differences in skull shape; genetic drift, climate and different degrees of sexual selection are also factors. This has been discussed elsewhere within this site. I am not saying “most non-whites have more primitive facial structures,” but that Europeans have an overall more derived face shape; you will find features such as the depth of the infraglabellar notch, the sagittal rounding of the forehead, supraorbital robusticity, etc. where Europeans are not the most derived populations.
I am not only focusing on the nose, and certainly haven’t used “despised” to describe less preferred features. Jaws have been discussed elsewhere. The section on aesthetics in international beauty pageants discusses the evidence you are looking for regarding aesthetic preferences related to ancestral vs. derived features within ethnic groups.
Southern European noses vs. Northern Europeans noses were touched upon in a previous article; don’t bring them up here. Why do you expect the African-American man to get a fully European-looking nose? Look at Michael Jackson; he failed and ended up looking like a freak; in many cases, it just isn’t possible, and people do not want to look freakish.
Yes, the Asian woman altered a bunch of features, and I mentioned this. So don’t tell me, “You’re not even really trying there.”
The value of your poll about Italians being rated #1 can only be assessed if you cite it and we see how meaningful it is; otherwise it is useless. Your questions about so many white men being attracted to Asian women or so many white women being attracted to black men are not relevant, and responding to them is unnecessary without non-anecdotal evidence for them; I have never gotten these impressions.
If you find this article grotesque, then I recommend that you avoid this site since there will be other articles posted here that you will likely be disturbed by, too. I often take a long time to respond to emails and now even comments at the blog; I just don’t have the time to respond promptly. Additionally, as in your comments above, your emails addressed many issues not related to my work or included materials that were distortions of my arguments, and hence answering your emails is not a priority.
The "innate preferences" of femininity and derivation would largely seem to apply to females only, no matter how broad it is.
Why do so many white females in the US, and elsewhere show such a strong preference for black men? Media and cultural conditioning play a role, but alot of it seems to come from their greater masculinity in facial features and the like, due to testosterone differences. That black man you cited had a rather anamolous nasal structure to begin with- the changes were insignificant. Why wouldn't he go for a full-blown European nose instead of getting this barely noticable change?
Really, I just find the idea of any female nose that isn't ultra-thin, ultra-narrow, ultra-straight bridged and small to be inferior or less attractive.
Really, this is a grotesque article. You're echoing that one white supremacist, nordicist piece of shit on that white nationalsit blog I linked you to some time ago.
So why don't you make a website on this? This is just as interesting as feminine beauty, or maybe even more for women. I don't think the feminized men will complain as much as the masculinized women who chance upon this site. Anyway, does the ring finger-index finger ratio as indicator of testosterone levels also apply to women?
On the topic of Italy, I once remember reading a poll conducted on numerous tourists and travelers to rate which countries had the most beautiful people
Italy was #1. What, are you going to cover skin color next too?
That asian woman you posted also seems to have gotten quite a few other surgical modifications to her face beyond the nose. You're not even really trying there.
oh btw erik the creepy pedophile/homosexual who's prolly thinking of getting transplants himself: ummmm, you keep emphasizing on the fact that tall women are heavy. well, you loser, short women are biologically more advantageous! i'm tall and all my tall friends agree! all the short girls get the really tall guys! think why that may be true? btw, you're probably a short guy with a tiny dick, which is why you're so hung up on women and making them feel bad. get yourself a therapist...
erik: and why would i call you a pervert? probably b/c what kind of a guy (or a girl...maybe you're pretending, who knows?) asks a girl to post nude pictures of herself, regardless of cutting off her face? obviously she'd feel uncomfortable about it. or maybe you're gay, you wouldn't care...:S
laurie: yeah, you ARE an hourglass ... i don't what this loser talks about - 'high standards'. when i'm thinner, my waist goes down not my bust or hips... i was 25 last year but i don't think i'd compromise my health to fit the absolute 'ideal'. in past history, most women wore corsets, hence, their freakishly narrow ribcages ... and since we're becoming healthier now, the waist size is bound to go a little up.
Beyonce Knowles did have a nose job. In Erik's two photographs of Beyonce before and after the nose job, the "before" picture is not from her 2002 big-haired "Austin Powers in Goldmember" phase but from around 1998 when her group Destiny's Child's first album came out. Note that in the before and after pictures, the shape of her nose tip is so different that it cannot be a trick of airbrushing, and at any rate, both pictures are clearly professional and airbrushed. All this is beside the point; let's stick to the real issue.
Likewise, how do prognathistic differences factor into this? Why are you only focusing on the nose? Where is the serious evidence that these features are so innately despised?
I somewhat agree with you that there is SOMEWHAT of a preference for more "european" looking features, but human beauty preferences are so broad, and this seems to be only a vague framework.
Could you care to explain how so many white men have an interest in east asian women, despite them commonly having larger jaws, cheekbones, wider faces etc. ? How are the size of the facial features confounded with masculinity? You know, how east asians have lower testosterone levels?
And then there's your attempt to quantify these as more derived. Your site cites how Europeans and the ainu have been cooking food longer than other populations, yet this is heavily contradicted by how most non-african humans are descended from northeast africans, who have STRONGLY caucasian facial features, and the earliest europeans- the cro-magnons- had broader, larger facial features than even northeast africans- IE, ethiopians and somalians.
How does cooking food create such huge differences in cranio-facial structure? Aren't you saying that most non-whites have more primitive facial structures?
And yes, this is internetchum, but I'm just condensing what I've sent here. It's been OVER 2 MONTHES since I sent that email. Why should it be THAT HARD to get back to me?
Ah, so you're saying that a preference for white features is intrinsic? That's wonderful. Looks like many billions of people there are pretty disadvantaged in the looks department. You're shitting on all those people here.
That first guy you posted has a nose that's extremely rare, and seems to be more of a genetic anomoly than anything.
I thought you've said many times before that Europeans wern't the only attractive race? Why is this post basically saying that non-european women have ugly noses?
And what's the deal with epicanthic folds among asians? There's many of them naturally without the feature, so could you care to explain how this preference has never, ever been shown among their cultures until recently?
Erik, on an unrelated note, check out this study on a relationship between WHR and cognitive ability (I haven't had a chance to read the actual study yet, but I will later): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2848055.ece
"I have only briefly touched upon testosterone and ethnicity, and this was in response to D’Artagnan. This is not a topic of much relevance to this site. Also, this site is primarily concerned with physical appearance and hence the discussion will obviously lean toward the “hereditarian side.”"
Er, in what sense? The idea of an objective preference for beauty or the heritability of physical features?
Sidhatzer4ever: Do not spam by posting the same comment in multiple entries. I replied as follows to your original comment:
Quote:
BSP: Reply using the fewest possible words. You can structure the reply by using brief references to/paraphrases of my individual arguments. This approach is a basic unsaid guideline in internet discussions.
I have only briefly touched upon testosterone and ethnicity, and this was in response to D’Artagnan. This is not a topic of much relevance to this site. Also, this site is primarily concerned with physical appearance and hence the discussion will obviously lean toward the “hereditarian side.”
Sidhatzer4ever: Where have I used Rushton to support my arguments? Read carefully; D’Artagnan cited Rushton and I critiqued the evidence. Besides, using the “guilt by association” argument is a logical fallacy. You haven’t critiqued any of the studies or the synthesis.
Rushton is a white supremacist? LOL! He has long maintained that Northeast Asians are more intelligent than whites. The SPLC organization is a joke.
Also, Sid, where does Erik use work from Rushton? Although he tackles the idea of race differences in testosterone, this is a broad, basic topic unconcerned with what racial researchers have to say, and while Erik does seem to lean moreso to the hereditarian side of the debate on things, this is mostly libel.
Erik, before I reply, would it be a bad idea to structure my post as to quote your points individually, and then put my reply? Because that might take up alot of space.
As I've posted this before I feel it's also appropriate to post again since Erik makes another lame attempt to subtley "prove" (without coming off too much as a racist because he knows he would loose any shread of credibility) that "white" features are better.
I think everyone should know that you use "research" from white supremicists to support your statements. Jean-Philippe Rushton being one such person who is profiled as a top 40 Racist to look out for on their site:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=214
This dude does bogus studies to prove whites are better physically and mentally--often performing his research at the mall. Tenure system keeps him around....way to go Erik for "backing up your arguments" with solid unbiased sources. White power!! (right?)
Just to let everyone know the kind of supported "evidence" Erik uses...
Check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Top 40 Racists and White Nationalists to watch out for:
Jean-Philippe Rushton, who Erik references from, is listed as such..and due to the tenure system they can't really get rid of this dude.The American Association for the Advancement of Science was outraged by his "research". His research is often conducted at "malls" (wow just like those women who ask you to take a survey...advanced techniques let me tell ya)
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=214
The guy has been putting out bogus studies correlating brain size to penis size and other useless studies to "prove" whites are superior. Just thought your readers should know that the "studies" Erik looks at are conducted by white supremacists. I'm wondering if you'll actually leave this comment up though..I think your readers should be informed.
8D: I have had enough of reading your sick sexual fantasies. Do not describe them at this site anymore. You must also stop using “The Donald” as an alias and no more impersonating others. You will be banned from commenting if you don’t behave.
Whipped honey: The issue is not merely one of ending up within population norms, there is the directionality question and the question of the overall picture from multiple surgical procedures. How many Asians undergo surgery to change double eyelids to a single eyelid as opposed to the opposite? How many Asians go from right to left in Fig. 2 as opposed to left to right? How many Asians go from smaller than average cheekbones to larger than average compared to the reverse? 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?
Bisson and Grobbelaar’s contention about the reason why the patients didn’t end up with lips as thick of the models’ lips -- technical/financial limitations -- is a possibility, but there is another possibility: the patients didn’t want lips as thick. The authors assume that fashion models’ looks must be highly appealing to the general population, but anyone who has gone through this site knows better. 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”).
I agree that I have not proved “that nonwhite people’s cosmetic surgery procedures IN GENERAL create results outside the norm for their racial/ethnic groups,” and this is because I never made this argument. In relation to double eyelid surgery, you said that you have seen many without one and ‘So it appears that they do not want to “look more derived”.’ Where did I say that the single eyelid is an ancestral feature? The double eyelid surgery serves to make one look less ethnic; the issue of looking more derived is not applicable here. The nose surgery in Fig. 2 serves to make the woman look both less ethnic and more derived.
Hugh Ristik: Words cannot describe as well what the Apollo vs. apes image shows in regard to what is overall more derived. The reasons for Europeans having faces more overall derived than other populations have to do with earlier switching to eating cooked food and stronger sexual selection (especially Northern Europeans); chance factors would have also played a role, setting the foundation for sexual selection and natural selection (environment) to mold face shape.
Danielle: Derived features are not synonymous with white features, though there is considerable overlap between the two. Also, derived features are not more “feminine.” More prominent nasal bones and more regressed jaws are in the direction of more derived features, but will also result from greater masculinization. This doesn’t mean that derived features are more “masculine.” Ancestral-derived and masculine-feminine variation are of different natures.
There is no implication above that “preference for white features over non-white features is intrinsic”; the argument has to do with overall derived facial features; if you don’t believe me, see how many Asians aesthetically prefer the nose of the woman in Fig. 2 before her major nose job over the altered nose.
Not from Twisty’s: The first man shown in the article has made his nose look whiter in the sense that he has approached the central tendency among Europeans. You will find others like him, but they will be a minority among Europeans.
BSP: Please do not post a large number of very short comments. Consolidate your arguments into a single comment or the least number of comments. I do not recall ever saying that “Europeans wern’t the only attractive race.” I said that attractive people are found in all ethnic groups; obviously, unattractive people are also found in all populations. This article is not saying that “non-european women have ugly noses.” The latter is your bizarre impression. If you read enough of this site then it should be clear that the attractiveness of different ethnic groups cannot be objectively compared. This article does not compare the attractiveness of noses/other features of different ethnic groups, but addresses within-group issues, namely people preferring among their co-ethnics somewhat more overall derived than average and especially ancestral features.
Technological advances in the twentieth century have made global Television a reality and intercontinental travel quick plus cheap. As a result, a large number of Asians have been extensively exposed to the physical features of major ethnic groups around the world. Hence, Asians’ aesthetic preferences in relation to variation among themselves and humans in general will be clearly observed and properly documented in recent decades rather than in the distant past.
I made the argument about non-Europeans having a mixture of admiration, neutral feelings and dislike for various physical features of Europeans. So I don’t see how you can write, “so you’re saying that a preference for white features is intrinsic?” It is also strange that you wrote, “I somewhat agree with you that there is SOMEWHAT of a preference for more “european” looking features...” when I didn’t argue this; read again my reply to others.
Even if two populations differ in testosterone levels, there is bound to be considerable overlap between them, and when face pictures of same-sex individuals from different populations are being compared, how does one know who has higher testosterone than the other? This is why there is a confound regarding the extent to which face shape differences between individuals from different ethnic groups differ as a result of the extent of masculinization vs. other factors.
Cro-Magnons made little contribution to modern Europeans. Populations in Northeast Africa that have facial features close to Europeans descend from a mixture of sub-Saharan Africans and Mediterraneans/Europeans; evidence from: 150 genetic markers, an X-chromosome segment, 2 STRPs and an Alu segment, Y chromosome markers, and other studies that you should search for. This mixture is old and most plausibly sexual selection accounts for why their facial features are closer to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans. So I haven’t argued anything contradicting facts.
Population variation in transitioning to cooked food alone doesn’t explain inter-population differences in skull shape; genetic drift, climate and different degrees of sexual selection are also factors. This has been discussed elsewhere within this site. I am not saying “most non-whites have more primitive facial structures,” but that Europeans have an overall more derived face shape; you will find features such as the depth of the infraglabellar notch, the sagittal rounding of the forehead, supraorbital robusticity, etc. where Europeans are not the most derived populations.
I am not only focusing on the nose, and certainly haven’t used “despised” to describe less preferred features. Jaws have been discussed elsewhere. The section on aesthetics in international beauty pageants discusses the evidence you are looking for regarding aesthetic preferences related to ancestral vs. derived features within ethnic groups.
Southern European noses vs. Northern Europeans noses were touched upon in a previous article; don’t bring them up here. Why do you expect the African-American man to get a fully European-looking nose? Look at Michael Jackson; he failed and ended up looking like a freak; in many cases, it just isn’t possible, and people do not want to look freakish.
Yes, the Asian woman altered a bunch of features, and I mentioned this. So don’t tell me, “You’re not even really trying there.”
The value of your poll about Italians being rated #1 can only be assessed if you cite it and we see how meaningful it is; otherwise it is useless. Your questions about so many white men being attracted to Asian women or so many white women being attracted to black men are not relevant, and responding to them is unnecessary without non-anecdotal evidence for them; I have never gotten these impressions.
If you find this article grotesque, then I recommend that you avoid this site since there will be other articles posted here that you will likely be disturbed by, too. I often take a long time to respond to emails and now even comments at the blog; I just don’t have the time to respond promptly. Additionally, as in your comments above, your emails addressed many issues not related to my work or included materials that were distortions of my arguments, and hence answering your emails is not a priority.
Oh, I meant to say I find that idea insane.
The "innate preferences" of femininity and derivation would largely seem to apply to females only, no matter how broad it is.
Why do so many white females in the US, and elsewhere show such a strong preference for black men? Media and cultural conditioning play a role, but alot of it seems to come from their greater masculinity in facial features and the like, due to testosterone differences. That black man you cited had a rather anamolous nasal structure to begin with- the changes were insignificant. Why wouldn't he go for a full-blown European nose instead of getting this barely noticable change?
Really, I just find the idea of any female nose that isn't ultra-thin, ultra-narrow, ultra-straight bridged and small to be inferior or less attractive.
Really, this is a grotesque article. You're echoing that one white supremacist, nordicist piece of shit on that white nationalsit blog I linked you to some time ago.
So why don't you make a website on this? This is just as interesting as feminine beauty, or maybe even more for women. I don't think the feminized men will complain as much as the masculinized women who chance upon this site. Anyway, does the ring finger-index finger ratio as indicator of testosterone levels also apply to women?
On the topic of Italy, I once remember reading a poll conducted on numerous tourists and travelers to rate which countries had the most beautiful people
Italy was #1. What, are you going to cover skin color next too?
That asian woman you posted also seems to have gotten quite a few other surgical modifications to her face beyond the nose. You're not even really trying there.
http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/75442629.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19309EBFDFE8F65174D155CBF5A321FA153
walken again
oh btw erik the creepy pedophile/homosexual who's prolly thinking of getting transplants himself: ummmm, you keep emphasizing on the fact that tall women are heavy. well, you loser, short women are biologically more advantageous! i'm tall and all my tall friends agree! all the short girls get the really tall guys! think why that may be true? btw, you're probably a short guy with a tiny dick, which is why you're so hung up on women and making them feel bad. get yourself a therapist...
What the fuck is this really? Southern European women also have larger noses than northern european women, so are they disadvantaged here too?
erik: and why would i call you a pervert? probably b/c what kind of a guy (or a girl...maybe you're pretending, who knows?) asks a girl to post nude pictures of herself, regardless of cutting off her face? obviously she'd feel uncomfortable about it. or maybe you're gay, you wouldn't care...:S
laurie: yeah, you ARE an hourglass ... i don't what this loser talks about - 'high standards'. when i'm thinner, my waist goes down not my bust or hips... i was 25 last year but i don't think i'd compromise my health to fit the absolute 'ideal'. in past history, most women wore corsets, hence, their freakishly narrow ribcages ... and since we're becoming healthier now, the waist size is bound to go a little up.
Erik: You sound like a pervert. Anyway i'm 38-27-38 and i consider myself an hour...
Beyonce Knowles did have a nose job. In Erik's two photographs of Beyonce before and after the nose job, the "before" picture is not from her 2002 big-haired "Austin Powers in Goldmember" phase but from around 1998 when her group Destiny's Child's first album came out. Note that in the before and after pictures, the shape of her nose tip is so different that it cannot be a trick of airbrushing, and at any rate, both pictures are clearly professional and airbrushed. All this is beside the point; let's stick to the real issue.
Likewise, how do prognathistic differences factor into this? Why are you only focusing on the nose? Where is the serious evidence that these features are so innately despised?
I somewhat agree with you that there is SOMEWHAT of a preference for more "european" looking features, but human beauty preferences are so broad, and this seems to be only a vague framework.
Could you care to explain how so many white men have an interest in east asian women, despite them commonly having larger jaws, cheekbones, wider faces etc. ? How are the size of the facial features confounded with masculinity? You know, how east asians have lower testosterone levels?
And then there's your attempt to quantify these as more derived. Your site cites how Europeans and the ainu have been cooking food longer than other populations, yet this is heavily contradicted by how most non-african humans are descended from northeast africans, who have STRONGLY caucasian facial features, and the earliest europeans- the cro-magnons- had broader, larger facial features than even northeast africans- IE, ethiopians and somalians.
How does cooking food create such huge differences in cranio-facial structure? Aren't you saying that most non-whites have more primitive facial structures?
And yes, this is internetchum, but I'm just condensing what I've sent here. It's been OVER 2 MONTHES since I sent that email. Why should it be THAT HARD to get back to me?
Ah, so you're saying that a preference for white features is intrinsic? That's wonderful. Looks like many billions of people there are pretty disadvantaged in the looks department. You're shitting on all those people here.
That first guy you posted has a nose that's extremely rare, and seems to be more of a genetic anomoly than anything.
I thought you've said many times before that Europeans wern't the only attractive race? Why is this post basically saying that non-european women have ugly noses?
And what's the deal with epicanthic folds among asians? There's many of them naturally without the feature, so could you care to explain how this preference has never, ever been shown among their cultures until recently?
Pages