Cal: The censored parts do not need to be shown as far as this site is concerned. Censoring these parts also makes this site easier to handle for a wider audience. I agree that there is nothing obscene about the human body.
Martina: Sub-Saharan Africa is full of the kind of women I have shown in this section. The pictures are merely illustrative examples and they depict a variety of ethnicities without any argument that they represent all of sub-Saharan Africa. The arguments are not based on the pictures but on the anthropological data cited, which makes it clear that the average differences between sub-Saharan African women and European or Northeast Asian women are striking.
The very first page shows how one could argue for or against the possibility of objectively comparing the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups by showing pictures depicting reduced differences or striking contrasts, respectively. This is done to make the case that it is necessary to refer to the anthropological literature to answer the central question. These pictures are not part of the argument.
There are some old pictures on the other pages, but they are merely illustrating what the anthropological data show. This section includes illustrative examples comprising of glamour models of sub-Saharan African ancestry. The African women shown either have a healthy body mass or a body mass comparable to the comparison in an illustrative example. The only exception to the latter is on the first page where there is a collage depicting backside protrusion, but then this collage is not part of the argument, as noted above.
Regarding breast implants among glamour models, some of them have it, but if these women pose nude, then it is typically easy to tell whether they have breast implants since one gets to see their breasts from multiple angles.
What ethnicities have more "defined" waists, on average, compared to Northern and Eastern European women? How does Sally Todd look like a man? If you have pictures of her as a young adult where she looks like a man, then I'd be very interested in them.
You question my agenda because of my attempt to prove that European beauty is superior? Have you read this section or just looked at the pictures? If you read the section, you will encounter the conclusion that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups. In other words, it cannot be asserted that European beauty or for that matter any other ethnic beauty is superior to others because of the absence of objective criteria that one could use to make this assertion.
Using women from porn sites does not undermine any argument here. After all, the issue is how the women look rather than where their pictures have been sourced from. Many pictures have been sourced from sites depicting artistic nudity but no pornography. Sometimes a high degree of nudity is unavoidable if one is to address the nature of aesthetics. In addition, the reason why many women in the attractive women section are nude models is because there are few alternatives at this time.
Grace: Whereas you may find parts of this site obscene, there is nothing racist or homophobic here. You should concern yourself with the arguments rather that the background of the author.
I do not know what you mean by "physically insignificant." If you mean someone whose work has not had any significant impact, then you have correctly described me as physically insignificant, but I'd like to add "so far." I am on my way.
The rest of your psychological profile is incorrect. There is no need for me to provide a detailed background or picture, but I will if needed in the future. Decent arguments should stand on their own. There should not be a need to cite one's background to bolster one's case. It is also inappropriate to critique an argument based on the background of the author; the criticism should be based on the contents of the argument.
Karri: I didn't say anything along the lines of the Scandinavians being a thin-lipped people. I said that Nordic Swedes are not particularly known for being a thin-lipped European people. Compared to Mediterranean populations, lips do get thinner as you move up north and northwest, but the Scandinavians have fuller lips and are not part of this trend. It is, of course, true that even among the thinnest-lipped European populations, you will find numerous full-lipped people.
If Zuzana ever has the misfortune of reading this trivial pursuit(tm) of a blog, I'd hope she takes these comments for what they're worth. Nice chatting with you folks but that's my two cents of blah, blah, blah and now, I think I'd really like to get the hell out of this website. Damn you Google(tm)!
I agree that many of the V.S. models you've shown are fairly man-ish and pretty ugly, although I think Heidi Klum is hot, even if she does have a strong jaw. However: aren't women the customers for the fashion industry? I've heard jokes about men the V.S. catalog as pornography, but the only people I know who actually get the catalog are women. So, maybe the fashion industry is catering to its women customers, and maybe women appreciate models they're attracted to, i.e. models that have male qualities.
By the way, I think Tricia Helfer might be a candidate for "ugliest supermodel". Her looks might have flown on the catwalk, but transitioning to "Battlestar Galactica", a TV show with a near 100% male audience, was a big mistake. She was even ugly in her Playboy photoshoot. Feast your eyes, but you may want to bring a bag:
Hey man, just wanted to tell you this is a really interesting site. I can see you put a lot of time and thought into this. I mostly agree (95% +) with where you're coming from, although I think you might be a little harsh on some of the V.S. models. It seems like you picked out the ugliest one (Elise Crombez) to make your point. If I saw her on the street I wouldn't even look twice, I see 100 women a day way prettier than her.
I couldn't agree more about how silly it is that the fashion industry is dominated by super-skinny girls who aren't attractive at all. You put a spin on it that I never thought through, as far as them being less feminine and more masculine than what a normal red-blooded guy likes. Your point that the industry is dominated by homosexuals is well taken. If their taste is the yardstick by which the models get chosen, then there should be no surprise that's what you get - skinny women with no curves who resemble teenage boys.
I also like your side-by-side comparisons of "fashion" vs. "glamor" models, they are totally effective to the point of being hilarious. Having said all this, I don't think there's much chance that any of this will change. Women, not men, are the target audience for fashion-type publications; I do not know a single guy who knows anything about that industry or who pays any attention to it. The purpose of fashion models is to sell clothes to women, not turn men on.
In my experience, when women encounter a female like the ones in your "attractive women" section, they usually take an instant dislike to her. I've seen it happen over and over again. They feel threatened and competetive, and sometimes they're not even sure why. I've had a few women ask me straight out - "What's attactive in a woman?", or "What women do you find attractive?". When I give them a straight honest answer, they argue with me! As if they can argue me into liking something different. They'll say, "Oh she's trashy/sluttly looking, now so-and-so is actually beautiful". If a woman can fit into that mold of looking beautiful to other women without being "threatening" (i.e. overly sexy), she can make a really good living modelling.
Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise. Just check out any women's magazine (like Cosmo), the articles in there are stupid to the point of being unbelievable. Like the "How to turn on your man" type stuff. It's so obvious the articles are written by a woman; if the article were written by a guy it would be pretty short and simple. Some women might read it and go, "That's it? It can't be that easy!" A man's needs are pretty basic when it comes down to it, it's almost like some women can't grasp the reality of what simple creatures we are. ;-)
Anyway, good site, and don't let the negative posts discourage you. At the end of the day I'm not sure you're going to actually convince anyone who doesn't already understand where you're coming from, since most people are pretty closed minded when it comes to this stuff. But who knows, if you successfully convince just one anorexic girl to lay off the diet and have a burger, then you've done some good. ;-)
One thing - I'd love to hear your take on the Paris Hilton craze. Her fame seems to be a case of the emperor has no clothes. Does anyone actually think she looks attractive? She's so super skinny and ugly, with that super-pronounced jaw. Not in the least bit feminine in my opinion.
This site borders on the obscene, with definite racist and homophobic undertones. I'm wondering what the background could be of an author who mixes personal prejudices with lackadaisical scientific 'speak.'
If I were to psychologically profile the author, I would suggest he is a middle aged male, a failed academic with a tier-one knowledge of the anthropological and sociological issues he speaks of, culturally deemed physically insignificant or unattractive by peers. It is interesting and telling that no photo or any other information about the author appears.
A woman does not have to have a huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine. Karolina still has a femminine waist to hip ratio.She's jsut thin. Her bone body structure is all very femminine. She;s jsut very slim thats all. I'm a straight guy ad I still prefer Karolinas face and body too.
The reason why high fashion models are masculine has nothing to do with homosexual men making decisions, it has everything to do with the fact that androgyny is charismatic- as a woman, I prefer both slightly masculine women and slightly feminine men in terms of their beauty because they exude a certian power, competence and 'otherworldlyness'. The women you are endorsing for their femininity look much less intellegent/powerful (I'm not saying they are, just that it's the way they look). As a woman, I happen to prefer men with some femininity- rockstars, for instance (in my book) are hands-down the sexiest men because they exude so much of that androgynous charisma. I prefer tall, slender men with some feminine features to their face- like fashion models.
Maybe the thing that throws you off is that fashion models are not representations of sex, but rather, representations of power and ideal beauty- so their sexuality _is_ more remote. However I find that when you actually get to know someone personally who has that degree of beauty, their sexuality is even more powerful than your average man or woman.
Another thing, the girls you endorse look like they _want_ you to like them, that is part of what constitutes that visual 'femininity'; fashion models have the look of women who could care less, that's a big part of their appeal.
I must agree with Kristein Huggins that your selection of pictures depicting the African race is biased. I have no problem with your personal preference for Anglo-Saxon/Nordic traits. However, in all truth and fairness any well-read, well-travelled individual will know that people of African descent do not normally look the way you have depicted. And no legitimate study would compare pictures of glamorized fashion models (who have an idea of how posture and diet among other things affect their appearance), with outdated photographs of persons unexposed to such ideas. That alone has cast aspersions on the validity of your study.
Further more we may want to examine the possibility that the glamour models have breast implants as have become the norm today. No one can take your word that they don't or my word that they do. But the fact is that Breast augmentation is commonplace in the glamour fasion industry.
Additionally it is a well known fact among any supplier of women's clothing that the average proportions of British and most Eastern European women including Nordic regions has a significantly less defined waist than that of some ethnicities. Thus there is no reason that you should take the exception for white beauty, as exemplified by the glamour models with abnormally large buttocks adn severly arched backs to make that the rule for that race (Sally Todd looks like a man). Nor should you take exagerated photographs of ONE tribe and stereotype the entire Afican race. As a well-travelled women's clothing supplier, my obervation is that most African women do not look like that.
Mr. Holland it is my objective outlook that make me wonder what your agenda is. While your exposition on homosexuality and body form wants to convince me, I am dissuaded by your apparent thrust to prove your notions of European beauty as superior. Additionally most of your pictures of "well- formed" white women are from porn sites. Hence your arguments lack a suffiently sound scientific basis for me to hold on to.
I have nothing to comment against the beauty of these women, frankly i am impressed, i have seen before beauty contests whit "beautiful" women. I sometimes wondered what are the selection criteria?
Philomela: If you want to tell more feminine features from more masculine features, you should go through the feminine vs. masculine page.
Alicia: Most of the VS models haven’t been big on the runway? I have addressed seven Victoria’s Secret models so far in the series that this entry is the first part of -- Karolina Kurkova, Gisele Bundchen, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Adriana Lima and Elise Crombez. Among these women, all except Heidi Klum started out and made it big as proper high-fashion models. Victoria’s Secret has also used numerous proper high-fashion models for its lingerie show: Jessica Stam, Yfke Sturm, Caroline Trentini, Heather Marks, Hana Soukupova, Natasha Poly, etc. The fact is that the company uses a lot of high-fashion model types. Of course, a number of these high-fashion models are past their prime for high-fashion modeling, i.e., in their twenties for instance. These older women have lost some of the boyishness of their physiques, sometimes in an extreme manner as in Adriana Lima, making them anywhere from less suitable to effectively useless for high-fashion modeling, and some of have even gotten breast implants.
Are big lingerie companies dominated by women? Just because there are some women or heterosexual men in prominent positions in a big lingerie company, including as owners, does not mean that the choice of models is not being or cannot be dictated in large part by homosexual designers. For instance, a mainstream big fashion magazine would typically have a woman as Editor-in-chief, yet would feature masculinized female models because this is what gay fashion designers prefer, and it is these designers that come up with the products for the magazines to pitch. i.e., the women in charge cannot piss off the designers by using feminine-looking models. The issue of which lingerie company is strongly influenced by homosexual males can be answered by looking at its models. In the case of Victoria’s Secret, there is no doubt regarding noteworthy homosexual influence behind its choice of models.
I don’t buy that fashion photography is dominated by heterosexual men. Besides, the most influential people in the fashion business are the designers; the whole industry revolves around their work.
Lingerie is more than mere underwear. Whereas some women may buy lingerie for the purposes you list, the fact is that lingerie is typically bought with the intent to using it as a prelude to sexual activity. Therefore, the preferences of heterosexual men are the most obvious consideration behind the choice of looks of lingerie models, and most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly, preferring above average femininity in the looks of women, i.e., feminine women are the most appropriate choice as lingerie models.
You tell me that fashion models are “not chosen for [heterosexual] male arousal or to be hot [to heterosexual men],” and I agree, but this entry is about lingerie modeling. The reality is that high-fashion models are chosen to be “hot” and interesting to homosexual male fashion designers, who prefer the looks of boys in their early adolescence. The “clothes hangar” argument is extensively refuted within this site; start here.
It is obvious that since expensive designer clothing is beyond the affordability of most individuals, women modeling such clothing do not need to appeal to the majority of the population. But are there reasons to believe that upper class individuals, the majority of whom are heterosexual, prefer the looks of top fashion models? Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals, regardless of their social class or whether they are men or women, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Don’t kid yourself that the 16-27 female group that buys Victoria’s Secret products does not prefer above average femininity in the looks of women as in the physique of Zuzana. Most studies that I have cited documenting higher aesthetic ratings of women with above average femininity on the part of women have used college students, most of whom are well-within the 16-27 age range.
I can totally see why all the non Swedish paitients are the ones getting rhinoplasty in Sweden. Because it must feel odd and embarassing to be surronded by all those perfect Nordic nosed Swedes.
Also by the way not all Scandinavian people are thin lipped at all many have full lips. Aishwarya Rai has a beautiful front profile but her side is well bad not pretty at all.
Do you have any photographs of Elise modeling for Victoria's Secret?
Some models such as this one may not look feminine in general, but in VS ads they are made to look feminine through photoshopping/airbrushing, etc etc. Go take a look at victoriassecret.com. Other than the supermodels such as Ambrosio, Lima, and Bunchden (whom I will never think looks cute anyways, airbrushing or not), I don't know the other models' names, and am pretty sure they're not as attractive in real life. However, in the ads, they sure do look damn cute, and that is all that matters: what they look like the advertisement, not in real life. That's what sells. I'm sure they've never used Elise for a VS fashion show, or at least not in the recent ones. Most of the women in the VS fashion shows are attractive enough to model lingerie, IMO.
If you want me to stop commenting, then why do you insist on responding? What is it that bothers you about me commenting on your blogs? Is it the fact that I choose to disagree with you and point out to you what an ass you are? Is it my supposed "profane" language? This wouldn't be as entertaining for me if I couldn't comment, so if you want, I'll be sure to go over my entries when I am finished and try to tone it down a little, since after all, this website is directed at little children, right? I apologize for my "abusive" behavior.
I already stated time and time again that the reason I dislike you is not because of your overall message about femininity, but because you come up with ridiculous racist suggestions about attractiveness, as well as the fact that you are the biggest hypocrite on the internet and don't even know it. I admit at first, when someone linked to your website on a forum thread, I was quite pleased that SOMEONE finally acknowledged how ridiculous the fashion industry portrays some women as beautiful. Most fashion models (mostly those on the catwalks) have never been attractive to me. However, when you started ragging on certain Victoria Secret models, who I personally have always thought were deserving of their positions, I decided to post comments stating my disagreement with you. That wasn't how my loathing of you started, though. I decided to look further into other parts of this website, and found your "beauty pageant" link to be offensive and unneccessary, and then realized that it was pretty ridiculous of me in the first place to actually respect your "work," considering the fact that I finally realized what a douche bag you are. I may agree with you on some things pertaining to what is attractive and/or feminine, but I will never agree with nor ignore your arguments on femininity or lack thereof among different races. Why is that even an issue, anyways? Were you TRYING to offend people? Frank, as well as myself and others have already provided you with multiple counter arguments to your "Europeans are holier than thou" opinion, yet you refused to acknowledge them and even decided to be RUDE to those that weren't even rude in the first place. Could it possibly be that you have run out of arguments yourself? Can't list anymore plausible researches you have found? Oh right.. they were never plausible in the first place.
As you can see, my discontent with you isn't because of my "lack of femininity." Even if I was a straight up-and-down stick and had the same facial features of Hercules, that still would not be the main reason I dislike you as a human being. Some of your points on femininity in the fashion industry are very valid, and even if I disagreed with you on some of your arguments (like the fact those such as Adriana Lima are masculine/unattractive,) it would still never bother me as much as your racial superiority arguments would. That's the reason MOST people that have ever commented here are discontent with you and choose to point out to others what a jerk you are.
The standards of what is universally beautiful in this modern day is completely different than that in history. Have you ever seen paintings from, say, the French Revolution which depict "beauties" such as Marie Antoinette? Surely, rarely anyone nowadays would consider her attractive. She was pastey, had very protruding, creepy eyes, was probably extremely overweight, etc etc, according to her paintings. Ever heard of the three Ancient Chinese Beauties? Ever seen artwork of them? They were also very unattractive according to beauty standards today. However, that is what was considered beautiful then, and the standards of beauty will always change. A typically ethnic East Asian nose was probably considered very beautiful back in China years ago. In fact, I'm sure if an Asian beauty today (Zhang Ziyi, for example) lived back then, she would be considered UNattractive. However, because Asia is now so greatly influenced by the West, their beauty standards have changed indefinitely to what ours is like. I'm pretty damn sure when most Asian women get surgery, it is because they want to be more beautiful according to the universal standard, and not to look less ethnic. Looking less ethnic is a "side-effect" of looking more beautiful, however. Today, the general agreement of what is beautiful mostly consists of medium to big eyes, long eyelashes, small nose, pouty lips, etc etc. The doll look, I suppose. (There are exceptions as well.) That look is most common in Europeans, and even in a lot of Eurasians, and maybe even Hispanics and blacks. It isn't purely European. I'm sure as time goes on, the standard of beauty will change along with the rest of the world, though.
I agree that a girl with a 30-23-31 size measurement with a bigger cup size would be more feminine, but doesn't having a 30 inch bust and 23 inch waist already proves that they have a small ribcage? How is it that if someone with bigger breasts has a smaller one than one with smaller breasts, if their measurement around their chest is the same? The size of their ribcage isn't different; it's just their cup size.
I also believe the cut of the young girl I pasted has size A cups, yet you still consider her to be feminine looking. My body is actually curvier than hers, yet you still insist on me being masculine. How ironic! And quite amusing, actually. But of course, you still believe that I am in fact 5'1 and have the measurements of 30-23-31 ;)
You said yourself that my face is "apparently feminine." Don't take it back now just because you fail in your attempt to lower my self-esteem. Even if you said that my face was unfeminine, I would still know you were lying, since everything about my facial features correlate with your arguments about what is feminine (small nose, full lips, baby cheeks.) In actuality, most people have told me I always looked too young for my age, but of course, you condone looking younger because you haven't come out of the pedophile closet yet.
I guess you'll just have to face the fact that not everyone who disagrees with your preposterous arguments is just bitter because they are unfeminine themselves. What about the guys? Of course you couldn't possibly say it is because they are pissed you rag on THEM. As for gay fashion designers enforcing their views of beauty onto society... you are doing the exact same thing. You should have a problem with yourself, as well, if you're going to be so displeased with homosexual designers.
Here are some other statements of yours which just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
You wrote: “I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.””
Well, you continually use the term “derived”. Can you explain how your use of “derived” differs from the concept of “more evolved”? For that matter, can you explain how “ancestral” – the term you use as the opposite of “derived” – differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”?
Certainly the use of such terms as “more” or “less evolved” is problematic because the ideas have been used in the past with value loading i.e. “more evolved” = “better”, “less evolved” = ”worse”. The answer is to use such terms while making clear that they are NOT value loaded. However what you have done is to replace these terms with “derived” and “ancestral”, while actually keeping the value loading, indeed adding to this, “ancestral” = ”ugly, not feminine (in women)”, “derived” = ”beautiful, feminine” etc.
You write: “Once again, I have argued that it is not objectively possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups, not that Europeans are most attractive.”
But you do often claim that there are “numerous objective correlates” to beauty, so obviously you DO believe that it is “possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups”, as is obvious in your many comments about East Asians, who you clearly do think of as less attractive than Europeans. The question of whether there are “objective correlates” to beauty is an interesting one, which I will deal with in another post. For now, I point out that the word “objective” is often used in a rather loose and misleading way (indeed I was guilty of this myself in my first post in this forum, which was posted unedited).
As for your denial that you believe that Europeans are superior in beauty, you write:
“I have also addressed whether the extent of Europeanization is a correlate of beauty and come to the conclusion that it isn’t. What may superficially seem to be a preference for European facial features, as in the Korean example above, is actually a universal preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, which just happens to considerably overlap with Europeanization given that Europeans have the most overall derived face shape (not most derived on all counts).”
That is as if someone wrote:
“I have also addressed whether the evidence shows that whites are more intelligent than blacks and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t. What may superficially seem to be greater intelligence among whites than among blacks is actually because of the distribution of genes for high intelligence, which just happens to considerably overlap with white populations given that whites have the highest concentration of genes for high intelligence”.
Whatever be the facts of the case, anyone who writes the latter clearly does believe in European/white superiority in intelligence – just as you clearly do believe in European/white superiority in beauty. (Incidentally, you also use the word "universal" in a rather loose and misleading way).
And it is NOT a GIVEN that “Europeans have the most overall derived face shape”. I know of quite a few prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree with you on this, and many others who would deny that you could really say that ANY modern population had more “derived” features than others. Others would deny that this “ancestral vs. derived” scenario had any real scientific value at all, in this context.
Your “not most derived on all counts” merely signifies that you are prepared to allow that a few insignificant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups. I am sure however that you believe that all the really important “derived” features are characteristic of Europeans/caucasoids/whites – indeed that they are characteristic especially of Northern Europeans.
There is actually a massive problem with your whole “ancestral” vs. “derived” scenario, in that these terms seem to acquire an absolute value which they don’t possess. For a feature which is, at one time and one place, “ancestral” can be, at another time and/or another place, “derived” and vice-versa. Take for example one of your favourite examples of ugly ancestral features – mid-facial flattening. Firstly, there are different types of mid-facial flattening – that found among many black Africans is NOT the same as that found among many East Asians, and any competent physical anthropologist can tell the difference. Furthermore, mid-facial flattening could in certain instances be the result of neoteny – and hence a derived rather than an ancestral feature.
I haven’t had any time to look at your site recently, so I am going to have to ignore for the time being any reply you may have made in the last fortnight or so, to point out a number of mistakes and non-sequiturs in your earlier replies to myself.
About “stereotyping” there are at least two further instances of this. The first concerns your posting of the three faces, the one which went - From left to right: average North American white, attractive Korean, average Korean (Korean women rated by Korean judges). Once again, I am astonished at the lengths you go to try and defend a part of your viewpoint which you constantly claim isn’t important to you. Looking around the net for material about racial appearance is clearly a major activity of yours.
You claimed that your little picture gallery showed that I got it exactly opposite to the facts by saying that the ‘average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one’.
Now firstly the “average typical Asian” isn’t the same as the “average typical Korean” – Koreans have a higher proportion of epicanthus than any other major Asian people.
But even accepting your pictures as typical of Asians as a whole, it DOESN’T disprove my point, because NONE of the pictures is of a stereotypical “Mongoloid” Asian as described and pictured by the typological race classifiers of the early and mid 20th century!!! This would be way to the right of the “average Korean” you pictured. A look at a representative sample of supposed “typical Mongoloids” in books and papers produced by those sort of scholars will confirm this. So the average typical Asian face IS to the left, and thus apparently more “Caucasian”, than the stereotypical one produced by the European typological race classifiers.
You then take exception to my description as to how a stereotypical “Caucasoid” would look like.
What I was doing was simply taking what European typological race classifiers did when stereotyping East Asian “Mongoloids”, black African “Negroids” etc., and doing it in reverse. What these race classifiers did was to take the what seemed to them the most extreme features of these other “races”, i.e. those where they differed most from the European norm, and then use these to characterize the stereotypes.
Look at it from the perspective of an East Asian. He comes westwards, and looks at the caucasoids. He then takes the most extreme features – those which strike him as most dissimilar to himself – such as very large hooked noses, lots and lots of body hair, very long and narrow faces etc.etc. and uses these to stereotype “caucasoids” (or whatever he would call them).
Note that he does not distinguish between the various sub-groups of caucasoids - Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans etc.etc.. – just as the European race classifiers did not distinguish between Japanese, Northern Chinese, Southern Chinese etc. Nor has he any knowledge of your theory that Northern Europeans have the most “derived” features and therefore, according to this theory, the Northern Europeans are the most “extreme” caucasoids. No, to him, going purely on superficial initial appearance, it is those with very heavy body hair (and caucasoids as a whole have heavier body hair than East Asians), large hooked noses etc. who are the stereotypical caucasoids.
Of course he is wrong to so stereotype caucasoids that way! But that is precisely what the European race classifiers were doing when they stereotyped East Asians, black Africans etc.etc. The purpose of my description of a stereotypical “caucasoid”, was to point out the flaws in the way the European race classifiers stereotyped other races – not to claim that my stereotypical “Caucasoid” was actually a valid stereotype!
And, by the way, don’t think that people who have one or more of the features which I mentioned in my “stereotypical caucasoid” (which remember I didn’t propose as a proper stereotype!) don’t exist among your beloved Northern Europeans. I’ve lived in England virtually all my life, and believe me I’ve seen plenty of people with really huge hooked noses. A programme on our TV a few weeks ago featured a fisherman from Cornwall, and his daughter, who both had such noses. In the case of the man, when you saw his head in profile, the nose was virtually as long as the rest of the head. A member of the Scottish indie rock band “Travis” has a massive hooked nose. Since such a feature is clearly not “ancestral”, I wonder why you reacted with such fury to my putting it into the false stereotype! But of course, it is not a feature of your stereotype of feminine beauty.
Actually, in this case, I am sure that the majority of men would agree with you. Which makes me that much happier when I see couples in which a woman with a large hooked nose has managed to find love – because fortunately not all men are obsessed with a particular limited stereotype of feminine beauty.
Kim: Whereas women with somewhat below average height tend to have above average fertility and higher estrogen levels (something that I have not disputed), the point is that you will find some women with above average height that have higher estrogen levels and better fertility than most women. Therefore, tallness in women by itself does not imply masculinization.
Regarding the “(disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups,” my argument had nothing to do with this notion. A minor point of my argument was concerned with what ethnic groups are overrepresented among the most overall feminine-looking women, which is not to be confused with actual femininity. It is laughable that you describe D’Artagnan’s arguments as comprising of superior logic and evidence. He kept citing outdated studies, repeating the same points, was unware of current anthropological literature, did not have any understanding of modern genetics or statistical tools such as canonical variates analysis, and resorted to deconstructionism and ad hominem. Superior argument indeed!
I did not tell you your sexual history or made any definitive assumptions about it. I said that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and have cited a bunch of papers in this regard. Your assertion that I argued that “any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot” or that “If she has many partners and a high libido, she can’t possibly be feminine” is baseless nonsense. As in the sample of height and masculinity-femininity, some feminine women will be more promiscuous than most women notwithstanding the fact that feminine women tend to be less promiscuous. Statistical trends are about distributions. For instance, just because the Japanese are shorter than the Dutch, on average, doesn’t mean that there are no tall Japanese that are taller than most Dutch. I am not resorting to selective evidence, circular reasoning or false dichotomies; the problem is with your poor comprehension.
My book is devoid of sexism, racism, homophobia, insanity, logical fallacies and shoddy science, none of which you have bothered to document. What makes you think that I had trouble finding a publisher? I knew that it would be near impossible to find a publisher given the politically incorrect content, not shortcomings in scholarship. However, I was under the impression that I had no choice but to start sending query letters to literary agents, and I sent about ten before coming across print-on-demand technology and I didn’t bother with any query letters thereafter. Therefore, I did not go the semi-self-publishing route after having trouble finding a publisher; I chose this option shortly after I found out that it is a possibility. Somewhere down the road I will get an updated version of it published by a mainstream publisher. This will be partly possible because of upcoming studies that will increasingly make the case for my major arguments, which will appear less radical in the future than at present.
You should not be critiquing arguments that you are incapable of understanding.
Having a shorter than average height is directly correlated with high estrogen and low testosterone, and higher than average fertility. You cherry pick which "masculinized" features that are in style right now as being the measure of what is sexually attractive. Everything but the height thing is unacceptable to you. The true measure of a woman is a caricature of sexual dimorphism, oh, as long as all the features fit your "type."
You use circular reasoning constantly to reinforce your own personal preferences and assumptions, which is nothing new. Remember the (disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups? You were shot down a thousand times by the same guy with his superior logic and evidence, and it finally came to the point that you ordered him to stop posting because you hate when people don't mindlessly eat up your racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit. Every single time someone points out your utter insanity, you reply with some more bullshit and circular reasoning to talk around what everyone else says to continue supporting your own claims.
Remember when you comfortably went ahead and told me my own sexual history? You confidently posited that I had few sexual partners because I'm feminine. You have always already had your biases set as the conclusion, and you ignore all evidence that does not support your own circular reasoning! Your assumption about my personal sexual history was based on my feminine physique. And then you undermine women, and use circular reasoning that any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot, thus she cannot be a counterexample. "If she has many partners and a high libido, she can't possibly be feminine." You are constructing false dichotomies to support your own conclusions, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
I mean, you went as far as telling me what my own sexual history must be to make your insane points!
But, go ahead and only posit what YOU find attractive as being the measure of femininity. Use certain arguments based on scientific evidence to back up these claims, oh, except for the features that you like personally, where science disagrees. In those cases, just say, "it can be feminine" and be angry with anyone who doesn't automatically agree.
Picking and choosing, picking and choosing...
I noticed that your sexist, racist, homophobic, insane book based on purposeful logical fallacies and shoddy science was self-published. I can't imagine why you had trouble finding a publisher!
Pisham: A change in the looks of fashion models is desirable from two standpoints: reducing the likelihood of some girls and women believing that good looks lie in skinniness and aesthetic purposes. Note that most men and most women judge female attractiveness in a similar manner. Therefore, the aesthetic goal is from a general public perspective, roughly half of which comprises of women. Hence, this site cannot be described as saying that "fashion models should change to please men."
Once again, the criticism here is of the people/circumstances responsible for selecting masculinized fashion models rather than the looks of the models. Pointing out the masculinization of fashion models does not equate to criticizing their looks. Like I said, I don't care how most women look like. What purpose would it serve to criticize the looks of women?
I have already addressed all points you made in your previous comment. I am pleased to see you acknowledge that I am not insisting that all women fit a certain image, but you have incorrectly concluded that I want super models to fit a certain image. This entry is not about big-name models per se, but about models in a publication that is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. It is reasonable to argue that such a publication feature predominantly feminine and attractive women. One needs a variety of models, and feminine women would not be appropriate for some modeling tasks. Therefore, there is no argument here that big-name fashion models pr se should fit a certain image.
You are correct that numerous women draw a sense of what looks are desirable by looking at fashion models, but then I am not insisting that all fashion models have a specific look, and if you read around, you will come across me saying that it is unlikely that the gays who dominate the fashion business will be switching to using feminine models. In other words, one will have to set up an alternative fashion industry if one wanted to predominantly use feminine and attractive women as fashion models. This would mean that there would be competing standards in the limelight and women would not get the impression that there is only one look that is desirable.
You also have to consider that feminine beauty cannot be acquired by indulging in negative health behaviors and that most women already harbor a feminine beauty ideal, i.e., I am not pushing something at odds with the preferences of most people. Once again, I don't believe that women are here for men’s pleasure.
I'd fuck all those chicks!
Cal: The censored parts do not need to be shown as far as this site is concerned. Censoring these parts also makes this site easier to handle for a wider audience. I agree that there is nothing obscene about the human body.
Martina: Sub-Saharan Africa is full of the kind of women I have shown in this section. The pictures are merely illustrative examples and they depict a variety of ethnicities without any argument that they represent all of sub-Saharan Africa. The arguments are not based on the pictures but on the anthropological data cited, which makes it clear that the average differences between sub-Saharan African women and European or Northeast Asian women are striking.
The very first page shows how one could argue for or against the possibility of objectively comparing the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups by showing pictures depicting reduced differences or striking contrasts, respectively. This is done to make the case that it is necessary to refer to the anthropological literature to answer the central question. These pictures are not part of the argument.
There are some old pictures on the other pages, but they are merely illustrating what the anthropological data show. This section includes illustrative examples comprising of glamour models of sub-Saharan African ancestry. The African women shown either have a healthy body mass or a body mass comparable to the comparison in an illustrative example. The only exception to the latter is on the first page where there is a collage depicting backside protrusion, but then this collage is not part of the argument, as noted above.
Regarding breast implants among glamour models, some of them have it, but if these women pose nude, then it is typically easy to tell whether they have breast implants since one gets to see their breasts from multiple angles.
What ethnicities have more "defined" waists, on average, compared to Northern and Eastern European women? How does Sally Todd look like a man? If you have pictures of her as a young adult where she looks like a man, then I'd be very interested in them.
You question my agenda because of my attempt to prove that European beauty is superior? Have you read this section or just looked at the pictures? If you read the section, you will encounter the conclusion that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups. In other words, it cannot be asserted that European beauty or for that matter any other ethnic beauty is superior to others because of the absence of objective criteria that one could use to make this assertion.
Using women from porn sites does not undermine any argument here. After all, the issue is how the women look rather than where their pictures have been sourced from. Many pictures have been sourced from sites depicting artistic nudity but no pornography. Sometimes a high degree of nudity is unavoidable if one is to address the nature of aesthetics. In addition, the reason why many women in the attractive women section are nude models is because there are few alternatives at this time.
Grace: Whereas you may find parts of this site obscene, there is nothing racist or homophobic here. You should concern yourself with the arguments rather that the background of the author.
I do not know what you mean by "physically insignificant." If you mean someone whose work has not had any significant impact, then you have correctly described me as physically insignificant, but I'd like to add "so far." I am on my way.
The rest of your psychological profile is incorrect. There is no need for me to provide a detailed background or picture, but I will if needed in the future. Decent arguments should stand on their own. There should not be a need to cite one's background to bolster one's case. It is also inappropriate to critique an argument based on the background of the author; the criticism should be based on the contents of the argument.
Karri: I didn't say anything along the lines of the Scandinavians being a thin-lipped people. I said that Nordic Swedes are not particularly known for being a thin-lipped European people. Compared to Mediterranean populations, lips do get thinner as you move up north and northwest, but the Scandinavians have fuller lips and are not part of this trend. It is, of course, true that even among the thinnest-lipped European populations, you will find numerous full-lipped people.
No I think Elsa Benitez and Rebecca Romijn are the hottest in there and i'm a straight guy.
If Zuzana ever has the misfortune of reading this trivial pursuit(tm) of a blog, I'd hope she takes these comments for what they're worth. Nice chatting with you folks but that's my two cents of blah, blah, blah and now, I think I'd really like to get the hell out of this website. Damn you Google(tm)!
I agree that many of the V.S. models you've shown are fairly man-ish and pretty ugly, although I think Heidi Klum is hot, even if she does have a strong jaw. However: aren't women the customers for the fashion industry? I've heard jokes about men the V.S. catalog as pornography, but the only people I know who actually get the catalog are women. So, maybe the fashion industry is catering to its women customers, and maybe women appreciate models they're attracted to, i.e. models that have male qualities.
By the way, I think Tricia Helfer might be a candidate for "ugliest supermodel". Her looks might have flown on the catwalk, but transitioning to "Battlestar Galactica", a TV show with a near 100% male audience, was a big mistake. She was even ugly in her Playboy photoshoot. Feast your eyes, but you may want to bring a bag:
http://www.thegate.ca/gallery/albums/mmva06/mmva06_tricia_jay.jpg
Hey man, just wanted to tell you this is a really interesting site. I can see you put a lot of time and thought into this. I mostly agree (95% +) with where you're coming from, although I think you might be a little harsh on some of the V.S. models. It seems like you picked out the ugliest one (Elise Crombez) to make your point. If I saw her on the street I wouldn't even look twice, I see 100 women a day way prettier than her.
I couldn't agree more about how silly it is that the fashion industry is dominated by super-skinny girls who aren't attractive at all. You put a spin on it that I never thought through, as far as them being less feminine and more masculine than what a normal red-blooded guy likes. Your point that the industry is dominated by homosexuals is well taken. If their taste is the yardstick by which the models get chosen, then there should be no surprise that's what you get - skinny women with no curves who resemble teenage boys.
I also like your side-by-side comparisons of "fashion" vs. "glamor" models, they are totally effective to the point of being hilarious. Having said all this, I don't think there's much chance that any of this will change. Women, not men, are the target audience for fashion-type publications; I do not know a single guy who knows anything about that industry or who pays any attention to it. The purpose of fashion models is to sell clothes to women, not turn men on.
In my experience, when women encounter a female like the ones in your "attractive women" section, they usually take an instant dislike to her. I've seen it happen over and over again. They feel threatened and competetive, and sometimes they're not even sure why. I've had a few women ask me straight out - "What's attactive in a woman?", or "What women do you find attractive?". When I give them a straight honest answer, they argue with me! As if they can argue me into liking something different. They'll say, "Oh she's trashy/sluttly looking, now so-and-so is actually beautiful". If a woman can fit into that mold of looking beautiful to other women without being "threatening" (i.e. overly sexy), she can make a really good living modelling.
Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise. Just check out any women's magazine (like Cosmo), the articles in there are stupid to the point of being unbelievable. Like the "How to turn on your man" type stuff. It's so obvious the articles are written by a woman; if the article were written by a guy it would be pretty short and simple. Some women might read it and go, "That's it? It can't be that easy!" A man's needs are pretty basic when it comes down to it, it's almost like some women can't grasp the reality of what simple creatures we are. ;-)
Anyway, good site, and don't let the negative posts discourage you. At the end of the day I'm not sure you're going to actually convince anyone who doesn't already understand where you're coming from, since most people are pretty closed minded when it comes to this stuff. But who knows, if you successfully convince just one anorexic girl to lay off the diet and have a burger, then you've done some good. ;-)
One thing - I'd love to hear your take on the Paris Hilton craze. Her fame seems to be a case of the emperor has no clothes. Does anyone actually think she looks attractive? She's so super skinny and ugly, with that super-pronounced jaw. Not in the least bit feminine in my opinion.
By the way, check out this article where Claudia Schiffer says that models are too thin these days:
http://www.usmagazine.com/node/3034
Take care..
- T
This site borders on the obscene, with definite racist and homophobic undertones. I'm wondering what the background could be of an author who mixes personal prejudices with lackadaisical scientific 'speak.'
If I were to psychologically profile the author, I would suggest he is a middle aged male, a failed academic with a tier-one knowledge of the anthropological and sociological issues he speaks of, culturally deemed physically insignificant or unattractive by peers. It is interesting and telling that no photo or any other information about the author appears.
A woman does not have to have a huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine. Karolina still has a femminine waist to hip ratio.She's jsut thin. Her bone body structure is all very femminine. She;s jsut very slim thats all. I'm a straight guy ad I still prefer Karolinas face and body too.
The reason why high fashion models are masculine has nothing to do with homosexual men making decisions, it has everything to do with the fact that androgyny is charismatic- as a woman, I prefer both slightly masculine women and slightly feminine men in terms of their beauty because they exude a certian power, competence and 'otherworldlyness'. The women you are endorsing for their femininity look much less intellegent/powerful (I'm not saying they are, just that it's the way they look). As a woman, I happen to prefer men with some femininity- rockstars, for instance (in my book) are hands-down the sexiest men because they exude so much of that androgynous charisma. I prefer tall, slender men with some feminine features to their face- like fashion models.
Maybe the thing that throws you off is that fashion models are not representations of sex, but rather, representations of power and ideal beauty- so their sexuality _is_ more remote. However I find that when you actually get to know someone personally who has that degree of beauty, their sexuality is even more powerful than your average man or woman.
Another thing, the girls you endorse look like they _want_ you to like them, that is part of what constitutes that visual 'femininity'; fashion models have the look of women who could care less, that's a big part of their appeal.
Please don't redact the photographs' "naughty bits." There is nothing obscene about the human body.
Please stop redacting the "naughty bits" of the photographs. There's nothing obscene about the human body.
Mr. Holland,
I must agree with Kristein Huggins that your selection of pictures depicting the African race is biased. I have no problem with your personal preference for Anglo-Saxon/Nordic traits. However, in all truth and fairness any well-read, well-travelled individual will know that people of African descent do not normally look the way you have depicted. And no legitimate study would compare pictures of glamorized fashion models (who have an idea of how posture and diet among other things affect their appearance), with outdated photographs of persons unexposed to such ideas. That alone has cast aspersions on the validity of your study.
Further more we may want to examine the possibility that the glamour models have breast implants as have become the norm today. No one can take your word that they don't or my word that they do. But the fact is that Breast augmentation is commonplace in the glamour fasion industry.
Additionally it is a well known fact among any supplier of women's clothing that the average proportions of British and most Eastern European women including Nordic regions has a significantly less defined waist than that of some ethnicities. Thus there is no reason that you should take the exception for white beauty, as exemplified by the glamour models with abnormally large buttocks adn severly arched backs to make that the rule for that race (Sally Todd looks like a man). Nor should you take exagerated photographs of ONE tribe and stereotype the entire Afican race. As a well-travelled women's clothing supplier, my obervation is that most African women do not look like that.
Mr. Holland it is my objective outlook that make me wonder what your agenda is. While your exposition on homosexuality and body form wants to convince me, I am dissuaded by your apparent thrust to prove your notions of European beauty as superior. Additionally most of your pictures of "well- formed" white women are from porn sites. Hence your arguments lack a suffiently sound scientific basis for me to hold on to.
Nevertheless, it made for an interesting read.
I have nothing to comment against the beauty of these women, frankly i am impressed, i have seen before beauty contests whit "beautiful" women. I sometimes wondered what are the selection criteria?
Philomela: If you want to tell more feminine features from more masculine features, you should go through the feminine vs. masculine page.
Alicia: Most of the VS models haven’t been big on the runway? I have addressed seven Victoria’s Secret models so far in the series that this entry is the first part of -- Karolina Kurkova, Gisele Bundchen, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Adriana Lima and Elise Crombez. Among these women, all except Heidi Klum started out and made it big as proper high-fashion models. Victoria’s Secret has also used numerous proper high-fashion models for its lingerie show: Jessica Stam, Yfke Sturm, Caroline Trentini, Heather Marks, Hana Soukupova, Natasha Poly, etc. The fact is that the company uses a lot of high-fashion model types. Of course, a number of these high-fashion models are past their prime for high-fashion modeling, i.e., in their twenties for instance. These older women have lost some of the boyishness of their physiques, sometimes in an extreme manner as in Adriana Lima, making them anywhere from less suitable to effectively useless for high-fashion modeling, and some of have even gotten breast implants.
Are big lingerie companies dominated by women? Just because there are some women or heterosexual men in prominent positions in a big lingerie company, including as owners, does not mean that the choice of models is not being or cannot be dictated in large part by homosexual designers. For instance, a mainstream big fashion magazine would typically have a woman as Editor-in-chief, yet would feature masculinized female models because this is what gay fashion designers prefer, and it is these designers that come up with the products for the magazines to pitch. i.e., the women in charge cannot piss off the designers by using feminine-looking models. The issue of which lingerie company is strongly influenced by homosexual males can be answered by looking at its models. In the case of Victoria’s Secret, there is no doubt regarding noteworthy homosexual influence behind its choice of models.
I don’t buy that fashion photography is dominated by heterosexual men. Besides, the most influential people in the fashion business are the designers; the whole industry revolves around their work.
Lingerie is more than mere underwear. Whereas some women may buy lingerie for the purposes you list, the fact is that lingerie is typically bought with the intent to using it as a prelude to sexual activity. Therefore, the preferences of heterosexual men are the most obvious consideration behind the choice of looks of lingerie models, and most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly, preferring above average femininity in the looks of women, i.e., feminine women are the most appropriate choice as lingerie models.
You tell me that fashion models are “not chosen for [heterosexual] male arousal or to be hot [to heterosexual men],” and I agree, but this entry is about lingerie modeling. The reality is that high-fashion models are chosen to be “hot” and interesting to homosexual male fashion designers, who prefer the looks of boys in their early adolescence. The “clothes hangar” argument is extensively refuted within this site; start here.
It is obvious that since expensive designer clothing is beyond the affordability of most individuals, women modeling such clothing do not need to appeal to the majority of the population. But are there reasons to believe that upper class individuals, the majority of whom are heterosexual, prefer the looks of top fashion models? Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals, regardless of their social class or whether they are men or women, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Don’t kid yourself that the 16-27 female group that buys Victoria’s Secret products does not prefer above average femininity in the looks of women as in the physique of Zuzana. Most studies that I have cited documenting higher aesthetic ratings of women with above average femininity on the part of women have used college students, most of whom are well-within the 16-27 age range.
I can totally see why all the non Swedish paitients are the ones getting rhinoplasty in Sweden. Because it must feel odd and embarassing to be surronded by all those perfect Nordic nosed Swedes.
Also by the way not all Scandinavian people are thin lipped at all many have full lips. Aishwarya Rai has a beautiful front profile but her side is well bad not pretty at all.
Do you have any photographs of Elise modeling for Victoria's Secret?
Some models such as this one may not look feminine in general, but in VS ads they are made to look feminine through photoshopping/airbrushing, etc etc. Go take a look at victoriassecret.com. Other than the supermodels such as Ambrosio, Lima, and Bunchden (whom I will never think looks cute anyways, airbrushing or not), I don't know the other models' names, and am pretty sure they're not as attractive in real life. However, in the ads, they sure do look damn cute, and that is all that matters: what they look like the advertisement, not in real life. That's what sells. I'm sure they've never used Elise for a VS fashion show, or at least not in the recent ones. Most of the women in the VS fashion shows are attractive enough to model lingerie, IMO.
Erik,
If you want me to stop commenting, then why do you insist on responding? What is it that bothers you about me commenting on your blogs? Is it the fact that I choose to disagree with you and point out to you what an ass you are? Is it my supposed "profane" language? This wouldn't be as entertaining for me if I couldn't comment, so if you want, I'll be sure to go over my entries when I am finished and try to tone it down a little, since after all, this website is directed at little children, right? I apologize for my "abusive" behavior.
I already stated time and time again that the reason I dislike you is not because of your overall message about femininity, but because you come up with ridiculous racist suggestions about attractiveness, as well as the fact that you are the biggest hypocrite on the internet and don't even know it. I admit at first, when someone linked to your website on a forum thread, I was quite pleased that SOMEONE finally acknowledged how ridiculous the fashion industry portrays some women as beautiful. Most fashion models (mostly those on the catwalks) have never been attractive to me. However, when you started ragging on certain Victoria Secret models, who I personally have always thought were deserving of their positions, I decided to post comments stating my disagreement with you. That wasn't how my loathing of you started, though. I decided to look further into other parts of this website, and found your "beauty pageant" link to be offensive and unneccessary, and then realized that it was pretty ridiculous of me in the first place to actually respect your "work," considering the fact that I finally realized what a douche bag you are. I may agree with you on some things pertaining to what is attractive and/or feminine, but I will never agree with nor ignore your arguments on femininity or lack thereof among different races. Why is that even an issue, anyways? Were you TRYING to offend people? Frank, as well as myself and others have already provided you with multiple counter arguments to your "Europeans are holier than thou" opinion, yet you refused to acknowledge them and even decided to be RUDE to those that weren't even rude in the first place. Could it possibly be that you have run out of arguments yourself? Can't list anymore plausible researches you have found? Oh right.. they were never plausible in the first place.
As you can see, my discontent with you isn't because of my "lack of femininity." Even if I was a straight up-and-down stick and had the same facial features of Hercules, that still would not be the main reason I dislike you as a human being. Some of your points on femininity in the fashion industry are very valid, and even if I disagreed with you on some of your arguments (like the fact those such as Adriana Lima are masculine/unattractive,) it would still never bother me as much as your racial superiority arguments would. That's the reason MOST people that have ever commented here are discontent with you and choose to point out to others what a jerk you are.
The standards of what is universally beautiful in this modern day is completely different than that in history. Have you ever seen paintings from, say, the French Revolution which depict "beauties" such as Marie Antoinette? Surely, rarely anyone nowadays would consider her attractive. She was pastey, had very protruding, creepy eyes, was probably extremely overweight, etc etc, according to her paintings. Ever heard of the three Ancient Chinese Beauties? Ever seen artwork of them? They were also very unattractive according to beauty standards today. However, that is what was considered beautiful then, and the standards of beauty will always change. A typically ethnic East Asian nose was probably considered very beautiful back in China years ago. In fact, I'm sure if an Asian beauty today (Zhang Ziyi, for example) lived back then, she would be considered UNattractive. However, because Asia is now so greatly influenced by the West, their beauty standards have changed indefinitely to what ours is like. I'm pretty damn sure when most Asian women get surgery, it is because they want to be more beautiful according to the universal standard, and not to look less ethnic. Looking less ethnic is a "side-effect" of looking more beautiful, however. Today, the general agreement of what is beautiful mostly consists of medium to big eyes, long eyelashes, small nose, pouty lips, etc etc. The doll look, I suppose. (There are exceptions as well.) That look is most common in Europeans, and even in a lot of Eurasians, and maybe even Hispanics and blacks. It isn't purely European. I'm sure as time goes on, the standard of beauty will change along with the rest of the world, though.
I agree that a girl with a 30-23-31 size measurement with a bigger cup size would be more feminine, but doesn't having a 30 inch bust and 23 inch waist already proves that they have a small ribcage? How is it that if someone with bigger breasts has a smaller one than one with smaller breasts, if their measurement around their chest is the same? The size of their ribcage isn't different; it's just their cup size.
I also believe the cut of the young girl I pasted has size A cups, yet you still consider her to be feminine looking. My body is actually curvier than hers, yet you still insist on me being masculine. How ironic! And quite amusing, actually. But of course, you still believe that I am in fact 5'1 and have the measurements of 30-23-31 ;)
You said yourself that my face is "apparently feminine." Don't take it back now just because you fail in your attempt to lower my self-esteem. Even if you said that my face was unfeminine, I would still know you were lying, since everything about my facial features correlate with your arguments about what is feminine (small nose, full lips, baby cheeks.) In actuality, most people have told me I always looked too young for my age, but of course, you condone looking younger because you haven't come out of the pedophile closet yet.
I guess you'll just have to face the fact that not everyone who disagrees with your preposterous arguments is just bitter because they are unfeminine themselves. What about the guys? Of course you couldn't possibly say it is because they are pissed you rag on THEM. As for gay fashion designers enforcing their views of beauty onto society... you are doing the exact same thing. You should have a problem with yourself, as well, if you're going to be so displeased with homosexual designers.
Erik,
Here are some other statements of yours which just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
You wrote: “I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.””
Well, you continually use the term “derived”. Can you explain how your use of “derived” differs from the concept of “more evolved”? For that matter, can you explain how “ancestral” – the term you use as the opposite of “derived” – differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”?
Certainly the use of such terms as “more” or “less evolved” is problematic because the ideas have been used in the past with value loading i.e. “more evolved” = “better”, “less evolved” = ”worse”. The answer is to use such terms while making clear that they are NOT value loaded. However what you have done is to replace these terms with “derived” and “ancestral”, while actually keeping the value loading, indeed adding to this, “ancestral” = ”ugly, not feminine (in women)”, “derived” = ”beautiful, feminine” etc.
You write: “Once again, I have argued that it is not objectively possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups, not that Europeans are most attractive.”
But you do often claim that there are “numerous objective correlates” to beauty, so obviously you DO believe that it is “possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups”, as is obvious in your many comments about East Asians, who you clearly do think of as less attractive than Europeans. The question of whether there are “objective correlates” to beauty is an interesting one, which I will deal with in another post. For now, I point out that the word “objective” is often used in a rather loose and misleading way (indeed I was guilty of this myself in my first post in this forum, which was posted unedited).
As for your denial that you believe that Europeans are superior in beauty, you write:
“I have also addressed whether the extent of Europeanization is a correlate of beauty and come to the conclusion that it isn’t. What may superficially seem to be a preference for European facial features, as in the Korean example above, is actually a universal preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, which just happens to considerably overlap with Europeanization given that Europeans have the most overall derived face shape (not most derived on all counts).”
That is as if someone wrote:
“I have also addressed whether the evidence shows that whites are more intelligent than blacks and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t. What may superficially seem to be greater intelligence among whites than among blacks is actually because of the distribution of genes for high intelligence, which just happens to considerably overlap with white populations given that whites have the highest concentration of genes for high intelligence”.
Whatever be the facts of the case, anyone who writes the latter clearly does believe in European/white superiority in intelligence – just as you clearly do believe in European/white superiority in beauty. (Incidentally, you also use the word "universal" in a rather loose and misleading way).
And it is NOT a GIVEN that “Europeans have the most overall derived face shape”. I know of quite a few prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree with you on this, and many others who would deny that you could really say that ANY modern population had more “derived” features than others. Others would deny that this “ancestral vs. derived” scenario had any real scientific value at all, in this context.
Your “not most derived on all counts” merely signifies that you are prepared to allow that a few insignificant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups. I am sure however that you believe that all the really important “derived” features are characteristic of Europeans/caucasoids/whites – indeed that they are characteristic especially of Northern Europeans.
There is actually a massive problem with your whole “ancestral” vs. “derived” scenario, in that these terms seem to acquire an absolute value which they don’t possess. For a feature which is, at one time and one place, “ancestral” can be, at another time and/or another place, “derived” and vice-versa. Take for example one of your favourite examples of ugly ancestral features – mid-facial flattening. Firstly, there are different types of mid-facial flattening – that found among many black Africans is NOT the same as that found among many East Asians, and any competent physical anthropologist can tell the difference. Furthermore, mid-facial flattening could in certain instances be the result of neoteny – and hence a derived rather than an ancestral feature.
But I don't expect you to accept that.
Erik
I haven’t had any time to look at your site recently, so I am going to have to ignore for the time being any reply you may have made in the last fortnight or so, to point out a number of mistakes and non-sequiturs in your earlier replies to myself.
About “stereotyping” there are at least two further instances of this. The first concerns your posting of the three faces, the one which went - From left to right: average North American white, attractive Korean, average Korean (Korean women rated by Korean judges). Once again, I am astonished at the lengths you go to try and defend a part of your viewpoint which you constantly claim isn’t important to you. Looking around the net for material about racial appearance is clearly a major activity of yours.
You claimed that your little picture gallery showed that I got it exactly opposite to the facts by saying that the ‘average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one’.
Now firstly the “average typical Asian” isn’t the same as the “average typical Korean” – Koreans have a higher proportion of epicanthus than any other major Asian people.
But even accepting your pictures as typical of Asians as a whole, it DOESN’T disprove my point, because NONE of the pictures is of a stereotypical “Mongoloid” Asian as described and pictured by the typological race classifiers of the early and mid 20th century!!! This would be way to the right of the “average Korean” you pictured. A look at a representative sample of supposed “typical Mongoloids” in books and papers produced by those sort of scholars will confirm this. So the average typical Asian face IS to the left, and thus apparently more “Caucasian”, than the stereotypical one produced by the European typological race classifiers.
You then take exception to my description as to how a stereotypical “Caucasoid” would look like.
What I was doing was simply taking what European typological race classifiers did when stereotyping East Asian “Mongoloids”, black African “Negroids” etc., and doing it in reverse. What these race classifiers did was to take the what seemed to them the most extreme features of these other “races”, i.e. those where they differed most from the European norm, and then use these to characterize the stereotypes.
Look at it from the perspective of an East Asian. He comes westwards, and looks at the caucasoids. He then takes the most extreme features – those which strike him as most dissimilar to himself – such as very large hooked noses, lots and lots of body hair, very long and narrow faces etc.etc. and uses these to stereotype “caucasoids” (or whatever he would call them).
Note that he does not distinguish between the various sub-groups of caucasoids - Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans etc.etc.. – just as the European race classifiers did not distinguish between Japanese, Northern Chinese, Southern Chinese etc. Nor has he any knowledge of your theory that Northern Europeans have the most “derived” features and therefore, according to this theory, the Northern Europeans are the most “extreme” caucasoids. No, to him, going purely on superficial initial appearance, it is those with very heavy body hair (and caucasoids as a whole have heavier body hair than East Asians), large hooked noses etc. who are the stereotypical caucasoids.
Of course he is wrong to so stereotype caucasoids that way! But that is precisely what the European race classifiers were doing when they stereotyped East Asians, black Africans etc.etc. The purpose of my description of a stereotypical “caucasoid”, was to point out the flaws in the way the European race classifiers stereotyped other races – not to claim that my stereotypical “Caucasoid” was actually a valid stereotype!
And, by the way, don’t think that people who have one or more of the features which I mentioned in my “stereotypical caucasoid” (which remember I didn’t propose as a proper stereotype!) don’t exist among your beloved Northern Europeans. I’ve lived in England virtually all my life, and believe me I’ve seen plenty of people with really huge hooked noses. A programme on our TV a few weeks ago featured a fisherman from Cornwall, and his daughter, who both had such noses. In the case of the man, when you saw his head in profile, the nose was virtually as long as the rest of the head. A member of the Scottish indie rock band “Travis” has a massive hooked nose. Since such a feature is clearly not “ancestral”, I wonder why you reacted with such fury to my putting it into the false stereotype! But of course, it is not a feature of your stereotype of feminine beauty.
Actually, in this case, I am sure that the majority of men would agree with you. Which makes me that much happier when I see couples in which a woman with a large hooked nose has managed to find love – because fortunately not all men are obsessed with a particular limited stereotype of feminine beauty.
Kim: Whereas women with somewhat below average height tend to have above average fertility and higher estrogen levels (something that I have not disputed), the point is that you will find some women with above average height that have higher estrogen levels and better fertility than most women. Therefore, tallness in women by itself does not imply masculinization.
Regarding the “(disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups,” my argument had nothing to do with this notion. A minor point of my argument was concerned with what ethnic groups are overrepresented among the most overall feminine-looking women, which is not to be confused with actual femininity. It is laughable that you describe D’Artagnan’s arguments as comprising of superior logic and evidence. He kept citing outdated studies, repeating the same points, was unware of current anthropological literature, did not have any understanding of modern genetics or statistical tools such as canonical variates analysis, and resorted to deconstructionism and ad hominem. Superior argument indeed!
I did not tell you your sexual history or made any definitive assumptions about it. I said that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and have cited a bunch of papers in this regard. Your assertion that I argued that “any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot” or that “If she has many partners and a high libido, she can’t possibly be feminine” is baseless nonsense. As in the sample of height and masculinity-femininity, some feminine women will be more promiscuous than most women notwithstanding the fact that feminine women tend to be less promiscuous. Statistical trends are about distributions. For instance, just because the Japanese are shorter than the Dutch, on average, doesn’t mean that there are no tall Japanese that are taller than most Dutch. I am not resorting to selective evidence, circular reasoning or false dichotomies; the problem is with your poor comprehension.
My book is devoid of sexism, racism, homophobia, insanity, logical fallacies and shoddy science, none of which you have bothered to document. What makes you think that I had trouble finding a publisher? I knew that it would be near impossible to find a publisher given the politically incorrect content, not shortcomings in scholarship. However, I was under the impression that I had no choice but to start sending query letters to literary agents, and I sent about ten before coming across print-on-demand technology and I didn’t bother with any query letters thereafter. Therefore, I did not go the semi-self-publishing route after having trouble finding a publisher; I chose this option shortly after I found out that it is a possibility. Somewhere down the road I will get an updated version of it published by a mainstream publisher. This will be partly possible because of upcoming studies that will increasingly make the case for my major arguments, which will appear less radical in the future than at present.
You should not be critiquing arguments that you are incapable of understanding.
Having a shorter than average height is directly correlated with high estrogen and low testosterone, and higher than average fertility. You cherry pick which "masculinized" features that are in style right now as being the measure of what is sexually attractive. Everything but the height thing is unacceptable to you. The true measure of a woman is a caricature of sexual dimorphism, oh, as long as all the features fit your "type."
You use circular reasoning constantly to reinforce your own personal preferences and assumptions, which is nothing new. Remember the (disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups? You were shot down a thousand times by the same guy with his superior logic and evidence, and it finally came to the point that you ordered him to stop posting because you hate when people don't mindlessly eat up your racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit. Every single time someone points out your utter insanity, you reply with some more bullshit and circular reasoning to talk around what everyone else says to continue supporting your own claims.
Remember when you comfortably went ahead and told me my own sexual history? You confidently posited that I had few sexual partners because I'm feminine. You have always already had your biases set as the conclusion, and you ignore all evidence that does not support your own circular reasoning! Your assumption about my personal sexual history was based on my feminine physique. And then you undermine women, and use circular reasoning that any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot, thus she cannot be a counterexample. "If she has many partners and a high libido, she can't possibly be feminine." You are constructing false dichotomies to support your own conclusions, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
I mean, you went as far as telling me what my own sexual history must be to make your insane points!
But, go ahead and only posit what YOU find attractive as being the measure of femininity. Use certain arguments based on scientific evidence to back up these claims, oh, except for the features that you like personally, where science disagrees. In those cases, just say, "it can be feminine" and be angry with anyone who doesn't automatically agree.
Picking and choosing, picking and choosing...
I noticed that your sexist, racist, homophobic, insane book based on purposeful logical fallacies and shoddy science was self-published. I can't imagine why you had trouble finding a publisher!
Pisham: A change in the looks of fashion models is desirable from two standpoints: reducing the likelihood of some girls and women believing that good looks lie in skinniness and aesthetic purposes. Note that most men and most women judge female attractiveness in a similar manner. Therefore, the aesthetic goal is from a general public perspective, roughly half of which comprises of women. Hence, this site cannot be described as saying that "fashion models should change to please men."
Once again, the criticism here is of the people/circumstances responsible for selecting masculinized fashion models rather than the looks of the models. Pointing out the masculinization of fashion models does not equate to criticizing their looks. Like I said, I don't care how most women look like. What purpose would it serve to criticize the looks of women?
I have already addressed all points you made in your previous comment. I am pleased to see you acknowledge that I am not insisting that all women fit a certain image, but you have incorrectly concluded that I want super models to fit a certain image. This entry is not about big-name models per se, but about models in a publication that is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. It is reasonable to argue that such a publication feature predominantly feminine and attractive women. One needs a variety of models, and feminine women would not be appropriate for some modeling tasks. Therefore, there is no argument here that big-name fashion models pr se should fit a certain image.
You are correct that numerous women draw a sense of what looks are desirable by looking at fashion models, but then I am not insisting that all fashion models have a specific look, and if you read around, you will come across me saying that it is unlikely that the gays who dominate the fashion business will be switching to using feminine models. In other words, one will have to set up an alternative fashion industry if one wanted to predominantly use feminine and attractive women as fashion models. This would mean that there would be competing standards in the limelight and women would not get the impression that there is only one look that is desirable.
You also have to consider that feminine beauty cannot be acquired by indulging in negative health behaviors and that most women already harbor a feminine beauty ideal, i.e., I am not pushing something at odds with the preferences of most people. Once again, I don't believe that women are here for men’s pleasure.
Pages