erik you cant explain your comment in any better manner yet you can explain everything else. Why is it that you want me to start emailing you? Have i caused any problems?
Kyle Morgan: This site does not exist to change people’s preferences, including yours. This entry is pointing out the central tendency of the masculinity-femininity of face shape preferred by people, and regardless of your preferences, the fact remains that people strongly and overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity in the face shape of women, as the data cited above show, notwithstanding individual variation in likes and dislikes. The physique pictures are just an addendum/trivial addition, not the meat of this entry.
Of course, I have an agendum as far as this website is concerned, and I have explicitly stated it on the home page, namely the promotion of feminine beauty among models and beauty pageant contestants. This agendum is not being forced on others. You are under no obligation to browse this site and agree with it. I have never argued that I would like to see feminine and attractive women replace all other types of models and beauty pageant contestants. I believe that there should be a competing feminine beauty standard in the limelight. Setting up this competing standard will not be an easy task and will take a while; this site is merely an educational resource that will go toward bringing more feminine and attractive women in the limelight in mainstream settings, not nude modeling. An educational resource is poorly described as an “up in arms” approach. When there is a feminine beauty alternative in the limelight, it will become clear what most people prefer.
Sexual orientation is obviously related to preferred shape. For instance, “-R” above elsewhere identified herself as a lesbian with a preference for masculinized women and shares her preference with your lesbian friend. The person posting as “Jordan” left a comment under a different [male name] alias where he described his preference for skinny women but did not describe his sexual orientation in spite of my asking him. Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals are the least likely to prefer masculinization in the looks of women, but this does not imply that the subtlety of sexual preferences can be precisely assessed by preferred shape.
I have already explained why homosexual fashion designers can get away with using masculinized models to sell clothing items notwithstanding discordant preferences on the part of most buyers, namely their domination of the fashion business. There are hardly any comparable alternatives, and the public will surely not reduce its consumption of designer clothing or other clothing items because the models used to market them are typically unattractive from the perspective of most people.
Your comment about a range of preferences is uncalled for since I prepared the entry above and am obviously aware of the variability of preferences in the population, but it is clear that with respect to a preference pertaining to masculinity-femininity, the scatter is overwhelmingly on the feminine side of average.
Citing two articles written by me as a student seven years ago does nothing to undermine the arguments on this page or this site. The first article expressed opposition to hate crimes legislation and there is nothing “homophobic” about it. The allegedly “homophobic” reference in it is the sexual abuse and murder of a 13-year-old boy, Jesse Dirkhising, by a male homosexual couple, which was ignored by the mainstream media, in contrast to the drug-fueled robbery-cum-beating of Matthew Shepard by petty criminals, one a bisexual, which eventually led to Shepard’s death, making “martyr Shepard” a victim of a horrendous “hate crime.” I stand by what I wrote. On the other hand, the second article was an angry piece defending the Boy Scouts, which I wrote at a time when I knew little about homosexuality. I am embarrassed that I wrote this article; there are things in it that are incorrect. I do not stand by this article, but I will say this, namely that there was a passage in the original submission that the editors did not publish, which, to my chagrin, made the article look like a conspiracy, and I could not subsequently clarify it because I was banned from the paper. The omitted passage argued against a conspiracy. Anyway, the only part of the second article that has anything to do with this site is the domination of the fashion business by homosexual men, which is a fact. If you still hold either article against me as far as this site is concerned, all I have to say is get lost!
8D: Corsets will not render your physique normally feminine. They make the waist look cartoonishly small, and do nothing about a large rib cage, even if the lower ribs are surgically removed. I am not promoting a feminine beauty standard because of the impossibility of achieving it but because of its aesthetic appeal to myself and many others and also its utility in counteracting the negative impact of the high status of high-fashion models. Besides, if you wanted a standard for high-fashion modeling that would convey both exclusivity and would also be something that cannot be acquired by negative health behaviors, then feminine beauty would be the way to go.
Sarah: People who have been undereating lately are not necessarily anorexic. They could be bulimic or have disordered eating symptomatology that does not meet diagnostic criteria for anorexia. In addition, like you have said, people can be naturally skinny, but in terms of looks, naturally skinny individuals will look like they haven’t been eating enough. Therefore, it does not follow that I was implying that the women are anorexic.
I have already cited a bunch of studies regarding percentage body fat in various ethnic groups in the U.S., and your reply comprised of profanity and anecdotal observations. Of course, people with a similar body mass can have different body fat levels, which is why I cited the statistics regarding percentage body fat. Why the hell do you keep coming back to this “bullsh*t site” (to use your preferred description of it)? Do something better with your time.
Andy: Sorry, I cannot explain my comment in a better manner. It is also time for you to stop commenting here as Andy or under another alias and start emailing me instead.
Mako: There is extensive information on eating disorders within this site, including disorderd eating among fashion models. There is also an extensive discussion regarding why girls and women should not regard the looks of high-fashion models as an ideal worth emulating. You have apparently not looked around enough. Please read this site more thoroughly. As to why the masculinization of models such as Karolina Kurkova needs to be addressed, there are numerous reasons: aesthetics in various settings such as lingerie modeling, and the fact that the reason why high-fashion models are typically skinny becomes clearer/obvious when you address the masculinization among them, too.
It's kind of funny how he feels justified in promoting a beauty standard which is even more impossible to achieve than the current beauty standard in fashion modelling. Way to go! Corsets are so passe, Erik, so passe.
Gong Li is a favorite of many, but personally I don't see it.
These are Chinese women, since the last ones I mentioned were mostly Korean. These Chinese women are natural, I'm sure.
And Brenda/Kimberly, here are some statistics I found on plastic surgery around the world:
Plastic surgery procedures (Top 100 Countries):
1. United States 90,992
2. Mexico 52,956
3. Brazil 47,957
4. Japan 42,842
5. Spain 40,164
6. Germany 23,140
7. France 21,170
8. Argentina 17,698
9. Switzerland 16,073
10. Italy 14,784
11. Australia 13,305
12. South Africa 11,140
13. Canada 11,102
14. Taiwan 10,048
15. Korea, South 9,560
16. Greece 8,300
17. Ecuador 5,979
18. Hong Kong 5,096
19. Turkey 4,865
20. United Kingdom 4,668
21. Sweden 4,326
22. Lebanon 3,270
23. Colombia 2,772
24. Finland 2,277
25. India 2,259
Plastic surgery procedures (per capita) (Top 100 Countries):
1. Switzerland 2.19 per 1000 people
2. Cyprus 1.87 per 1000 people
3. Spain 0.99 per 1000 people
4. Lebanon 0.87 per 1000 people
5. Greece 0.77 per 1000 people
6. Hong Kong 0.68 per 1000 people
7. Australia 0.67 per 1000 people
8. Slovenia 0.54 per 1000 people
9. Mexico 0.50 per 1000 people
10. Sweden 0.48 per 1000 people
11. Argentina 0.45 per 1000 people
12. Taiwan 0.44 per 1000 people
13. Finland 0.43 per 1000 people
14. Ecuador 0.43 per 1000 people
15. Norway 0.35 per 1000 people
16. France 0.35 per 1000 people
17. Canada 0.34 per 1000 people
18. Japan 0.33 per 1000 people
19. United Arab Emirates 0.31 per 1000 people
20. United States 0.31 per 1000 people
21. Jordan 0.29 per 1000 people
22. Germany 0.28 per 1000 people
23. Brazil 0.26 per 1000 people
24. South Africa 0.26 per 1000 people
25. Italy 0.25 per 1000 people
26. Singapore 0.23 per 1000 people
27. Korea, South 0.19 per 1000 people
28. United Kingdom 0.07 per 1000 people
29. Turkey 0.07 per 1000 people
30. Colombia 0.06 per 1000 people
31. Saudi Arabia 0.02 per 1000 people
32. Romania 0.01 per 1000 people
33. Russia 0.00 per 1000 people
34. India 0.00 per 1000 people
I found this information on a forum and they didn't link a source, so I don't know if it's accurate, though. Erik, would you care to research that? I'm sure you have some information on this subject.
Thanks, Sarah. I'm going to look them up. Even though plastic surgery is very rampant in Asia, I sure hope those women whose pictures you posted are natural. I'm an Asian myself.
In your suggestion that they look like they haven't been eating for a while and that Trump needs to buy them food implies that you think they're anorexic. Duh. That statement wouldn't be coming from someone that knows not all thin women are anorexic.
I'm not saying that I think these contestants all don't have eating disorders, since many women do, especially those that are under pressure from competing in these pageants. However, some women, no matter how much they eat, cannot gain weight due to their fast metabolism.
And please. I wasn't blaming you for the famine in third world countries; it's just ridiculous to tell skinny women to go eat something just because they're thin. It's wasting food. If you're not hungry, then don't eat anything.
Excess body fat in minorities? Hmm that's funny. I don't see a lot of fat Asians here in California. There are a few overweight Latinos/Hispanics and some overweight black people, but mostly the overweight people I see waddling around are white. And "excess body fat" doesn't necessarily mean they LOOK fat. My friend who looks perfectly normal, even skinny, has a BMI that is over average. Thin people could also have more body fat than normal if they don't exercise.
Hahahaa.. How would anything I have previously stated imply that I was masculine looking? Please indulge me on that one. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't mean it is.
As for you looking like JMK, it was a joke. Since you seem to present yourself as being a creepy pedophile, I can only assume you look like one. Of course, I wouldn't know though, since it's impossible to tell what one looks like through a computer, now isn't it? Why don't you put up a picture of yourself, Erik, so all us women could have a voice in how masculine YOU look ;)
I never said anything about agreeing with Karl Marx's theories. For example, Hitler was a brilliant man even though he was sick in the head. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean their personal opinions are right. As for Communism, yes, in theory it is a good idea to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. It's just impossible to actually acheive it.
As for the link you sent me, I didn't even bother looking through it since it obviously is a biased website.
Brenda: I actually just searched "beautiful Asian women" and came upon a forum thread where someone posted these pictures. Other forum members were to guess who they were, and so here is one answer received. I don't know much about Asian celebrities so I'm not sure if the names really match the girls in the photos, though.
A. BoA
B. Nam Gyu Ri (I remember her because people used to tell me she looks like Hyori)
C. Lee Jung Hyun
E. U;Nee (RIP)
G. Park han Byul
H. Go Ara
Who CARES?! This is so pointless! Why are you worrying if these walking mannequins look like trannys, when you could be exposing bulimia in the modeling world or how these fashion models are impossible blueprints for young girls to mold their bodies into. This reminds me of my time hanging out with high school girls talking shit about other girls bodies .
I use the term "bashing" because some of your descriptions regarding a few of the supermodels just seems to cheapen or demean them. I agree that while Giselle has awful posture and well...extremely skinny hips, I don't think it's necessary to say that she would look mannish, or that any model looks like a drag queen, or a man with fake breasts, etc-- even IF they truly have those features!!
My friend Nad has just started in the industry and so far she has been welcomed quite well-- but even she doubts she'll be walking down the catwalk with Versace on (they would say that her breasts are too big and her hips too big) but at least diversifying the scene is a good start!
As far as the master's student I'm assisting-- the data so far has not been completely collected, and they still need more randomized samples. She's also been doing cross-generational comparative research and from what the data shows, in the past striving for a female ideal was a measure of good health, but that is not the case nowadays. OOps, I may have said too much :P "Technically speaking" I'm not supposed to give out details for fear of tampering with randomization...
I think it is still possible to bring feminine figures into the limelight without regarding masculinized supermodels as inferior beauty. That's what I meant by that your true message is lost in the rubble. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, there is always a better way to say it.
Frank: I don’t believe I am making “simplistic” arguments about face and teeth size. You talked about the pitfalls of old anthropological studies, yet cited one from 1974, which is of little relevance to start with. I cited Hanihara’s study on teeth size from 2005. You bet Hanihara was well aware of the fact that the teeth in a given individual are of different sizes. This is why he measured the mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth in each specimen, and then found that Mainland East Asian teeth are, on average, larger than European teeth (exceptions: Jomon and Ainu, but no surprise here). You mentioned the larger crania (heads) of East Asians, but Brace has shown that adjusting for cranial size, East Asian teeth are still larger than European teeth, and you bet the same applies to face size, too. Yes, there are populations with even lager teeth, but we are not discussing them.
You bring into the picture brachycephaly (roundish skulls). There are numerous central European populations with roundish skulls, but they still have smaller faces than Northeast Asians. So you believe that the larger East Asian teeth are possibly compensating for weaker masticatory muscles compared to what you see in Europeans? Just take a look (Am J Phys Anthropol, 2004;123:340-) at who between Europeans and East Asians has a more powerfully built lower jaw and ask yourself whether it is likely that East Asians have weaker masticatory muscles.
You accuse of me of not believing the [recent] out-of-Africa hypothesis. Let us state this hypothesis for the general readership. This hypothesis states that modern humans rose in Africa between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and spread outward, replacing all other human-like beings living elsewhere. I will comment on this hypothesis later. For now, the more interesting argument on your part is that these people who spread from Africa were of ‘broadly “caucasoid” appearance,’ and evolved into other forms such as East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines, etc. Well, well. Euro-types were the first people to start cooking food before eating it and thereby the first to experience a reduction in tooth size, but curiously, as they “evolved” into other types such as East Asians, Australian aborigines, etc., they developed larger teeth! Hanihara (facial flatness study) showed a clear tendency for greater mid-facial flattening to correlate with greater jaw protrusion (only first root significant in table), which should not be surprising given the tendency in our closest primate relatives, yet Euro-types “evolved” into people with the more ancestral condition! Vioarsdottir et al. (cited above) analyzed the facial growth patterns of people from different populations and found out that Europeans and Polynesians stood out from others, yet all the non-African people (except the Polynesians) that have “evolved” from Euros, along with the Africans, somehow display the broadly normal pattern of facial growth for the humans species, curiously making the Europeans stand out!
Learn bro! The recent out-of-Africa hypothesis is well-supported by mitochondrial DNA evidence, but there is an abundance of nuclear DNA evidence that refutes it. Please read this paper to understand that yes there was a spread of modern humans from African 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, but they extensively bred with people already living outside of Africa for a long time. I don’t find your scenario implausible because of the difficulty of imagining a “more evolved” people evolving into a “less evolved” people, but because of tremendous evidence against your account of the origin of modern humans.
You have again resorted to straw man arguments. I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.” Once gain, 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. 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). Why do you keep bringing up the “race” issue when I haven’t bothered with it, let alone the straw man of “pure races.” Even biggies like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Darwin implied no such thing. Like I said before, notwithstanding much overlap between continental populations and clinal variation, average differences between populations remain and clusters emerge.
Where did you encounter an account of the Celts being described as fair-haired by the Romans? Don’t come up with a trivial source, especially dating toward the later period of the Romans. In Early Rome, the Patricians were generally of Northern European descent, and it would be remarkable if the ruling elite then had a perception of the Celts as fair-haired.
Of course, Koreans are not synonymous for Asian, but the point of the study cited and the image shown is that it refutes your contention that the average East Asian is closer to Europeans than a supposed “extreme” pick supposed to represent the stereotypical East Asian. Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are much closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans and hence the study basically covers East Asians in general, which would be clearer if you look up literature on the aesthetics of East Asians. And no, I haven’t argued that the study implies a preference for Europeans over Asians; it simply implies a preference for Asian features shifted toward European norms. Besides, my objection to your “extreme Caucasoid” was not based on a failure to take into account “sub-types” but the fact that the most “extreme” ones are Northern Europeans, whose norms do not hover around your “extreme” features.
As to why I am posting at length, the agenda is not “racial,” but the promotion of feminine beauty in the limelight. Do you expect me to sit back if my arguments are misrepresented?
Of course, I believe that there are numerous objective correlates of beauty, and here is a page that links to most pages within this site where I have explained these correlates, but nowhere have I argued or implied that white women are the most attractive, let alone that this is due to having a more advanced physical type or “higher hormone levels.” I talked about testosterone-to-estradiol ratio. As I have already explained, this site is targeting people of European ancestry because all problems that it is addressing are of Western origin and this is the reason that it focuses on white women.
I prefer #8, and nothing you say about her body or face type will change that. #1 would be my second choice.
I do not understand why you're all "up in arms" about what women look like in magazines. It really sounds like you've got an agenda that you're trying to enforce on others. Oh, and I just love how you equate people's sexual preferences to their selection of female shapes!
I prefer the athletic, slightly hourglass female form. So does a lesbian friend of mine. What does that tell you?
Everyone has their own likes and dislikes in the body shapes and facial features of others.
If you want a true measure of whether people prefer "your" ideal female body shape, why don't you publish your own magazine or web site with "your" choice of female body types, and then we'll see how many people go to your site or buy your publication over others that contain "masculine" women...
I go to websites (MET-ART, Karups, etc.) based on the types of women I LIKE TO LOOK AT -- you seem to prefer the playboy body type with a very soft face. Those are simply our individual preferences.
It sounds like you want there to be JUST ONE model in every magazine -- YOUR favorite body and face type. Boy, that would be boring. "Variety is the spice of life".
The bottom line is that people buy magazines and go to web sites that present the style of women that they prefer. If the type of women shown at Victoria's Secret was "wrong" as you seem to think, then why are they selling so much lingerie?
PS -- I don't care how many references you site, or how many studies you cite. You're still simply pushing your own agenda. Perhaps you should see a psychologist.
[I rather think 8D has rather clicked on to what you really believe!]
You write "The first humans to arrive in the Americas clustered with Europeans whereas the later ones clustered with Asians. In other words, some of the early populations in East Asia and the Americas that you are referring to were roughly speaking European-type people who were replaced by other populations with more ancestral features."
This of course accords with your basic tenet that Caucasians are the most attractive because they are the least ancestral and most evolved. As I've pointed out before, whether this is true or not (and there are many reasons to suggest that it is, at very best, misleading) more evolved does not mean better, and would not necessarily mean more attractive - that is unless you believe that there is some mysterious evolutionary force impelling a species towards a more "perfect" phenotype. But there we are outside the realm of science and into metaphysics.
But on the simple point as to what you assert happened (and I'm not at all sure that Brace would entirely agree with you), you clearly don't believe in the out-of-Africa hypothesis for Homo sapiens sapiens, which is more and more being supported by the evidence from DNA, since this shows that all non-Africans derive from the same small group of emigrants from Africa. As I pointed out, evidence, such as that from Brace, and in this case fortunately not just from him, shows that this group were most probably of broadly "caucasoid" appearance. Thus it appears that East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines etc. are descended from groups who looked on average more "caucasoid" than their present-day descendants. The idea that this is all due to replacement of populations just won't wash. Primarily because it goes against the DNA evidence, but also because no one has suggested where the mysterious homelands for these replacing populations might be.
There is of course a psychological barrier to you, or others who think like you, accepting the idea that roughly "European-type" people might have evolved into groups less "European" looking (besides the incorrect, but psychologically pervasive, idea that "more evolved = better"). After all, looking at the, to you, supremely beautiful examples of feminine attractiveness represented by the white women you so proudly display on this site, how could a population such as this end up looking like Koreans, or Australian aborigines? Let me help you a bit here. Put your women in the conditions in which ancient stone age Eurasians and Amerindians lived, and they wouldn't look much like the women in your pictures! They might still look more attractive than the average non-white woman, but I am sure the difference wouldn't be as marked, even to you. And perhaps in the particular conditions of the times other factors, other selective pressures were at work. If sexual attractiveness is heavily culturally conditioned (and it is certainly so to some extent), there is no problem with this. But if it is partly genetically conditioned, this might explain how particular groups have a preference for features different from their average, because these preferences have evolved to fit an ancestral condition, and there hasn't as yet been enough time for evolution of preferences to fit the current condition.
Incidentally, with regard to East Asian features - if they are not the result of natural or sexual selection, what are they the result of? I have already shown that they are unlikely to be purely "ancestral", but even if they are, "ancestral" features must surely themselves be the result of natural and/or sexual selection? Unless some different (as yet unknown to science) process was responsible for the original appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens? (Which reminds me that before the theory of evolution was accepted, most people in the West believed that God created Adam and Eve ex nihilo, and that all humans were descended from them. Numerous theories arose as to how differing races arose, but most prominent were the ideas involving a white, indeed, Nordic looking, Adam and Eve, with non-white peoples arising as the result of degeneration from the primitive God-created Nordic European ideal.)
As for stereotyping, of course it existed long before the European typological race stereotyping. In fact I suspect it existed between different groups of Homo erectus etc. on the African Savanna. The difference with the European typological stereotyping of the late 19th and early 20th century is that it claimed to be "scientific", and that it went on, without scientific justification, to claim that the "Caucasoids" "Mongoloids" "Negroids" etc. represented ancient pure races - and that the clines in physical characteristics so clearly observable today, are due to the mixture of these pure races. This led almost inevitably to the Nazi ideas of racial purity and racial pollution. Of course an idea is not wrong purely because people can misuse it, but the fact is that there wasn't any scientific justification for the pure race idea in the first place. Nevertheless it still retains a deep, if unconscious, hold in the realms of popular pseudo-science about "races".
I have no doubt that my particular picture as to how the typological stereotyping of the supposed pure races is an accurate description of what went on. The early anthropologists didn't have access to computer morphing, but they had no need to. Looking around at their own populations they naturally came up with what was in general the average, as far as facial features were concerned. Of course most of them did not associate these features with "attractiveness", as they were claiming to be involved with racial taxonomy, not with the subject of sexual attraction. The "surprise" occasioned when it appeared that "average" = "attractive", was largely a semantic one, since "average" often means "mediocre" or "ordinary". And the early anthropologists did select the more extreme features of other races to stereotype them - this was a natural process, since they would be most impressed with what was different. Similarly the ancient Romans described the Celts as fair haired, as a whole, when they were almost certainly little different from their descendants today, among whom dark or medium hair is the commonest - but they were on average fairer than the Romans, so that's what the Romans noted. And so my description as to what a stereotyping of "caucasoids" form the viewpoint of other "races" still stands. Of course "caucasoids" vary in amount of body hair, prominence of noses etc.etc. But it is a fact that, on average, "caucasoids" do have, for example, more body and facial hair than East Asians. So East Asians, using the principles of the European typological race classifiers, would stereotype "caucasoids" in the way I have described. Of course, as you have pointed out, the stereotype is misleading and simplistic. Among other things, it doesn't distinguish between various "sub-groups" of "caucasoids". But that's precisely my point about this sort of racial stereotyping, which you seem happy to go in for when describing other races! In this you actually make my point for me!
As for your images of "average American white" etc., I am not sure what that proves at all. Firstly, Korean does not equal "Asian". In any case I am quite prepared to believe that some - maybe many - Asian groups do prefer the more "caucasian" types among their own population to the average of their population. This doesn't of course necessarily mean that they prefer the actual "caucasian" types to the more "caucasian" of the "Asian" types. Note that the more "caucasian" of the Asian types is closer to what might be termed the average "world morph", and I certainly read recently a report which suggested that what was considered attractive by the majority of westerners seems to be moving similarly towards a more "world" average - perhaps that's why Jessica Alba was voted the sexiest woman in a recent British poll (I know that won't please you, but that's how it goes!). In any case, unless there is some racial agenda here, why are you posting at such length on this? You happen to believe that white women are the most attractive. I happen to believe that women of any race can be attractive, but that I personally find attractive East Asian women the most attractive. Many will agree with you. Some, I believe a growing number, will agree with me. You have a right to your viewpoint, I have a right to mine. I post not to disagree with your personal preferences, but when you, in my opinion, misuse science to "prove" that your views on female attractiveness are somehow more objective than those of others who disgree with you, such as myself (or Hugh Hefner - I actually largely agree with you about him, but he too has a right to his preferences!).
It is quite clear that, despite your denials, you do believe in some objective, or at least, genetically determined standard of beauty. It is also clear that you believe that white women are the most attractive, and that you do associate this with being of a more advanced i.e. recent physical type, and that you do attribute this attractiveness to higher hormone levels etc. (although the highest oestrogen levels are actually to be found among black women, such as the Yorubas with their very high rate of dizygotic twinning).
It is also clear that you believe that the basis of this attractiveness, in terms of male preference, is largely genetic and not cultural in origin. This is in fact highly debatable. But, if the truth is as you say, you haven't considered the consequences of this. As I pointed out, it bears the very strong implication that other races must have passed through a "caucasoid" type phase in their evolution.
I've probably spent too much time already on this, but I've still to post an edited version of my original reply to your attacks. This will show that in many ways you actually make the points for me which I was arguing, if a truly scientifically consistent approach is used.
As for larger faces, larger teeth etc., I have looked up some of the data, and it shows just how simplistic your representation of this is. In fact, on a worldwide basis, both Europeans and Asians are at the smaller end of the scale, the largest faces and teeth being found outside Eurasia. There has been as yet little, if any, consideration given to the fact that East Asians have, on average, among the largest heads of any group, both absolutely and proportionately, larger than Europeans, and larger than Africans. This "large face" business would be further complicated by the greater incidence of brachycephaly among East Asians. Brachycephaly would also tend to give rise to larger faces. Incidentally, brachycephaly is often considered, in the context of Homo sapiens sapiens, a more recent feature than dolichocephaly. It is possible that when the, on average, larger skull sizes and greater brachycephaly of East Asians is considered, much of the difference in face size between East Asians and Europeans disappears.
Similarly, if not identically, with tooth size. There is a problem about tooth size comparisons, as of course each person normally has 32 teeth, none of which are identical. Comparisons between groups often show a situation where Group A might have, say, bigger upper medial incisors than Group B, but smaller lower lateral incisors - and that's without even considering canines, premolars, and molars. However even taking a grossly simplistic view, again looking at the data reveals that both Europeans and East Asians are at the smaller end of the scale as far as the worldwide picture is concerned. Interesting studies, such as that by C.L.B.Lavelle J.Dent.Res. Vol 53 No 5 (1974), who looked only at white British men, have shown that [1]tooth size is on average slightly larger (2.7% in his study)in brachycephalic than in dolichocephalic men, that [2]there is a tendency for tooth size to increase with skull size, and that [3]this tendency is greater for brachycephalics than dolichocephalics. This is of course consonant with the fact that general face size is going to be on average larger for brachycephalics for any particular skull size. And indeed Lavelle found that the degree of correlation in brachycephalics was greater with skull breadth than with skull length, as one would expect given my above suppositions.
Incidentally, dolichocephaly has been associated in some studies with stronger jaw muscles, the effect of the larger area of attachment of these muscles being to lengthen the skull. If this is so, it might give a clue as to why brachycephaly is associated with slightly larger teeth, as this might compensate for rather weaker masticatory muscles. Which particular "strategy" is selected for might be due to pure chance (genetic drift), or it might be due to the minutiae of dietary details, such as the relative amounts of meat or plant material in the diet.
Whatever the case, it is clear that looking closely at the data, you are making a very great deal out of not very much, in your larger face, larger teeth, "arguments". Similarly with all your points with regard to facial features. Of all human characteristics, the face is the most complex, and by merely parroting phrases such as "mid-facial flattening", "prognathism", "high cheekbones" etc.etc., without realisation that these can cover a multitude of different "sins", you ignore the fact that superficially similar features might be arrived at by very different processes. Thus if a feature can be shown to be "ancestral", or due to particular hormone levels in particular situations, does not necessarily mean that the same applies in all situations.
Andy: Yes, a more dramatic hourglass figure does not necessarily make a woman more beautiful to heterosexual men since there are numerous correlates of beauty. I have also noted that slight masculinization among women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men; see the discussion here.
Sarah: If there is an argument here that would appear to be outrageous to many people, then it is necessary to show that I am not alone, which doesn’t mean that an “I am not alone” entry implies that people generally disagree with most of the arguments here. Besides, some commentators have left comments saying that they are pleased with this site.
You have left numerous cues about how you look in your comments, which anyone can guess is not feminine. On the other hand, you have baselessly made a bunch of assumptions about my looks, even claiming that I am likely in my 50s and probably resemble John Mark Karr. Boy, would you be surprised if you saw me! I’d be willing to do the favor that you have asked, but not by slapping your face; I believe you deserve a proper spanking.
As far as the statement about decent bars go, I described something and didn’t express approval or disapproval of it, i.e., no racism on my part was implied. Speaking of racism, did you know that Karl Marx was a racist and his evil ideas led to the slaughter of a hundred million people? Calling super criminal Karl Marx a “brilliant theorist” shows just what kind of education you have gotten.
Sarah: Of course, thin women are not necessarily anorexic. I didn’t call any of the women posted by you anorexic. Don’t blame me for those Americans who are eating excessive food. I am certainly not one of these people. As I already pointed out elsewhere, excess body fat is more prevalent in ethnic minorities in the U.S., mostly originating in developing nations. Besides, the U.S. donates a lot of food to poor people around the world.
erik you cant explain your comment in any better manner yet you can explain everything else. Why is it that you want me to start emailing you? Have i caused any problems?
Kyle Morgan: This site does not exist to change people’s preferences, including yours. This entry is pointing out the central tendency of the masculinity-femininity of face shape preferred by people, and regardless of your preferences, the fact remains that people strongly and overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity in the face shape of women, as the data cited above show, notwithstanding individual variation in likes and dislikes. The physique pictures are just an addendum/trivial addition, not the meat of this entry.
Of course, I have an agendum as far as this website is concerned, and I have explicitly stated it on the home page, namely the promotion of feminine beauty among models and beauty pageant contestants. This agendum is not being forced on others. You are under no obligation to browse this site and agree with it. I have never argued that I would like to see feminine and attractive women replace all other types of models and beauty pageant contestants. I believe that there should be a competing feminine beauty standard in the limelight. Setting up this competing standard will not be an easy task and will take a while; this site is merely an educational resource that will go toward bringing more feminine and attractive women in the limelight in mainstream settings, not nude modeling. An educational resource is poorly described as an “up in arms” approach. When there is a feminine beauty alternative in the limelight, it will become clear what most people prefer.
Sexual orientation is obviously related to preferred shape. For instance, “-R” above elsewhere identified herself as a lesbian with a preference for masculinized women and shares her preference with your lesbian friend. The person posting as “Jordan” left a comment under a different [male name] alias where he described his preference for skinny women but did not describe his sexual orientation in spite of my asking him. Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals are the least likely to prefer masculinization in the looks of women, but this does not imply that the subtlety of sexual preferences can be precisely assessed by preferred shape.
No, I don’t prefer Playboy centerfold types.
I have already explained why homosexual fashion designers can get away with using masculinized models to sell clothing items notwithstanding discordant preferences on the part of most buyers, namely their domination of the fashion business. There are hardly any comparable alternatives, and the public will surely not reduce its consumption of designer clothing or other clothing items because the models used to market them are typically unattractive from the perspective of most people.
Your comment about a range of preferences is uncalled for since I prepared the entry above and am obviously aware of the variability of preferences in the population, but it is clear that with respect to a preference pertaining to masculinity-femininity, the scatter is overwhelmingly on the feminine side of average.
Citing two articles written by me as a student seven years ago does nothing to undermine the arguments on this page or this site. The first article expressed opposition to hate crimes legislation and there is nothing “homophobic” about it. The allegedly “homophobic” reference in it is the sexual abuse and murder of a 13-year-old boy, Jesse Dirkhising, by a male homosexual couple, which was ignored by the mainstream media, in contrast to the drug-fueled robbery-cum-beating of Matthew Shepard by petty criminals, one a bisexual, which eventually led to Shepard’s death, making “martyr Shepard” a victim of a horrendous “hate crime.” I stand by what I wrote. On the other hand, the second article was an angry piece defending the Boy Scouts, which I wrote at a time when I knew little about homosexuality. I am embarrassed that I wrote this article; there are things in it that are incorrect. I do not stand by this article, but I will say this, namely that there was a passage in the original submission that the editors did not publish, which, to my chagrin, made the article look like a conspiracy, and I could not subsequently clarify it because I was banned from the paper. The omitted passage argued against a conspiracy. Anyway, the only part of the second article that has anything to do with this site is the domination of the fashion business by homosexual men, which is a fact. If you still hold either article against me as far as this site is concerned, all I have to say is get lost!
8D: Corsets will not render your physique normally feminine. They make the waist look cartoonishly small, and do nothing about a large rib cage, even if the lower ribs are surgically removed. I am not promoting a feminine beauty standard because of the impossibility of achieving it but because of its aesthetic appeal to myself and many others and also its utility in counteracting the negative impact of the high status of high-fashion models. Besides, if you wanted a standard for high-fashion modeling that would convey both exclusivity and would also be something that cannot be acquired by negative health behaviors, then feminine beauty would be the way to go.
Sarah: People who have been undereating lately are not necessarily anorexic. They could be bulimic or have disordered eating symptomatology that does not meet diagnostic criteria for anorexia. In addition, like you have said, people can be naturally skinny, but in terms of looks, naturally skinny individuals will look like they haven’t been eating enough. Therefore, it does not follow that I was implying that the women are anorexic.
I have already cited a bunch of studies regarding percentage body fat in various ethnic groups in the U.S., and your reply comprised of profanity and anecdotal observations. Of course, people with a similar body mass can have different body fat levels, which is why I cited the statistics regarding percentage body fat. Why the hell do you keep coming back to this “bullsh*t site” (to use your preferred description of it)? Do something better with your time.
Andy: Sorry, I cannot explain my comment in a better manner. It is also time for you to stop commenting here as Andy or under another alias and start emailing me instead.
Mako: There is extensive information on eating disorders within this site, including disorderd eating among fashion models. There is also an extensive discussion regarding why girls and women should not regard the looks of high-fashion models as an ideal worth emulating. You have apparently not looked around enough. Please read this site more thoroughly. As to why the masculinization of models such as Karolina Kurkova needs to be addressed, there are numerous reasons: aesthetics in various settings such as lingerie modeling, and the fact that the reason why high-fashion models are typically skinny becomes clearer/obvious when you address the masculinization among them, too.
Kyle-
Wow, you just pwned him.
It's kind of funny how he feels justified in promoting a beauty standard which is even more impossible to achieve than the current beauty standard in fashion modelling. Way to go! Corsets are so passe, Erik, so passe.
Oops sorry some of the links didn't present as pictures.
You're welcome. Here are more Asian women I've come across that I think are stunning.
Vivian Hsu
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5mYZwktGEtAAmwijzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5mdMwktGEM0AlB2jzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA
hang Ziyi
http://www.rentyman.com/zhangziyi/ziyiz003.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5x55xEtG7sYAzyejzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA
Shu Qi/Hsu Chi
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5meaw0tGJ80AmVOjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA
http://216.118.80.244/picts2c/hsuchi16.jpg
Gong Li is a favorite of many, but personally I don't see it.
These are Chinese women, since the last ones I mentioned were mostly Korean. These Chinese women are natural, I'm sure.
And Brenda/Kimberly, here are some statistics I found on plastic surgery around the world:
Plastic surgery procedures (Top 100 Countries):
1. United States 90,992
2. Mexico 52,956
3. Brazil 47,957
4. Japan 42,842
5. Spain 40,164
6. Germany 23,140
7. France 21,170
8. Argentina 17,698
9. Switzerland 16,073
10. Italy 14,784
11. Australia 13,305
12. South Africa 11,140
13. Canada 11,102
14. Taiwan 10,048
15. Korea, South 9,560
16. Greece 8,300
17. Ecuador 5,979
18. Hong Kong 5,096
19. Turkey 4,865
20. United Kingdom 4,668
21. Sweden 4,326
22. Lebanon 3,270
23. Colombia 2,772
24. Finland 2,277
25. India 2,259
Plastic surgery procedures (per capita) (Top 100 Countries):
1. Switzerland 2.19 per 1000 people
2. Cyprus 1.87 per 1000 people
3. Spain 0.99 per 1000 people
4. Lebanon 0.87 per 1000 people
5. Greece 0.77 per 1000 people
6. Hong Kong 0.68 per 1000 people
7. Australia 0.67 per 1000 people
8. Slovenia 0.54 per 1000 people
9. Mexico 0.50 per 1000 people
10. Sweden 0.48 per 1000 people
11. Argentina 0.45 per 1000 people
12. Taiwan 0.44 per 1000 people
13. Finland 0.43 per 1000 people
14. Ecuador 0.43 per 1000 people
15. Norway 0.35 per 1000 people
16. France 0.35 per 1000 people
17. Canada 0.34 per 1000 people
18. Japan 0.33 per 1000 people
19. United Arab Emirates 0.31 per 1000 people
20. United States 0.31 per 1000 people
21. Jordan 0.29 per 1000 people
22. Germany 0.28 per 1000 people
23. Brazil 0.26 per 1000 people
24. South Africa 0.26 per 1000 people
25. Italy 0.25 per 1000 people
26. Singapore 0.23 per 1000 people
27. Korea, South 0.19 per 1000 people
28. United Kingdom 0.07 per 1000 people
29. Turkey 0.07 per 1000 people
30. Colombia 0.06 per 1000 people
31. Saudi Arabia 0.02 per 1000 people
32. Romania 0.01 per 1000 people
33. Russia 0.00 per 1000 people
34. India 0.00 per 1000 people
I found this information on a forum and they didn't link a source, so I don't know if it's accurate, though. Erik, would you care to research that? I'm sure you have some information on this subject.
Gee... I'd be willing to bet that you are the same Erik Holland that wrote these homophobic pieces:
http://www.alligator.org/edit/issues/00-fall/000921/c02column21.htm
and
http://alligator.org/edit/issues/00-fall/000926/c01column26.htm
Am I right?
Thanks, Sarah. I'm going to look them up. Even though plastic surgery is very rampant in Asia, I sure hope those women whose pictures you posted are natural. I'm an Asian myself.
In your suggestion that they look like they haven't been eating for a while and that Trump needs to buy them food implies that you think they're anorexic. Duh. That statement wouldn't be coming from someone that knows not all thin women are anorexic.
I'm not saying that I think these contestants all don't have eating disorders, since many women do, especially those that are under pressure from competing in these pageants. However, some women, no matter how much they eat, cannot gain weight due to their fast metabolism.
And please. I wasn't blaming you for the famine in third world countries; it's just ridiculous to tell skinny women to go eat something just because they're thin. It's wasting food. If you're not hungry, then don't eat anything.
Excess body fat in minorities? Hmm that's funny. I don't see a lot of fat Asians here in California. There are a few overweight Latinos/Hispanics and some overweight black people, but mostly the overweight people I see waddling around are white. And "excess body fat" doesn't necessarily mean they LOOK fat. My friend who looks perfectly normal, even skinny, has a BMI that is over average. Thin people could also have more body fat than normal if they don't exercise.
Hahahaa.. How would anything I have previously stated imply that I was masculine looking? Please indulge me on that one. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't mean it is.
As for you looking like JMK, it was a joke. Since you seem to present yourself as being a creepy pedophile, I can only assume you look like one. Of course, I wouldn't know though, since it's impossible to tell what one looks like through a computer, now isn't it? Why don't you put up a picture of yourself, Erik, so all us women could have a voice in how masculine YOU look ;)
I never said anything about agreeing with Karl Marx's theories. For example, Hitler was a brilliant man even though he was sick in the head. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean their personal opinions are right. As for Communism, yes, in theory it is a good idea to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. It's just impossible to actually acheive it.
As for the link you sent me, I didn't even bother looking through it since it obviously is a biased website.
Brenda: I actually just searched "beautiful Asian women" and came upon a forum thread where someone posted these pictures. Other forum members were to guess who they were, and so here is one answer received. I don't know much about Asian celebrities so I'm not sure if the names really match the girls in the photos, though.
A. BoA
B. Nam Gyu Ri (I remember her because people used to tell me she looks like Hyori)
C. Lee Jung Hyun
E. U;Nee (RIP)
G. Park han Byul
H. Go Ara
Who CARES?! This is so pointless! Why are you worrying if these walking mannequins look like trannys, when you could be exposing bulimia in the modeling world or how these fashion models are impossible blueprints for young girls to mold their bodies into. This reminds me of my time hanging out with high school girls talking shit about other girls bodies .
Also look at the 95% confidence limits. people DO have a range of what they prefer, even just in face types!
The standard deviation is half or more per rating, too, which says that the data has a lot of scatter.
sorry i meant to write by andy (above comment)
Sorry Erik I dont quiet understand what you are saying in response to my comment about the nose please can yuo explain it again.
hi again,
I use the term "bashing" because some of your descriptions regarding a few of the supermodels just seems to cheapen or demean them. I agree that while Giselle has awful posture and well...extremely skinny hips, I don't think it's necessary to say that she would look mannish, or that any model looks like a drag queen, or a man with fake breasts, etc-- even IF they truly have those features!!
My friend Nad has just started in the industry and so far she has been welcomed quite well-- but even she doubts she'll be walking down the catwalk with Versace on (they would say that her breasts are too big and her hips too big) but at least diversifying the scene is a good start!
As far as the master's student I'm assisting-- the data so far has not been completely collected, and they still need more randomized samples. She's also been doing cross-generational comparative research and from what the data shows, in the past striving for a female ideal was a measure of good health, but that is not the case nowadays. OOps, I may have said too much :P "Technically speaking" I'm not supposed to give out details for fear of tampering with randomization...
I think it is still possible to bring feminine figures into the limelight without regarding masculinized supermodels as inferior beauty. That's what I meant by that your true message is lost in the rubble. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, there is always a better way to say it.
Frank: I don’t believe I am making “simplistic” arguments about face and teeth size. You talked about the pitfalls of old anthropological studies, yet cited one from 1974, which is of little relevance to start with. I cited Hanihara’s study on teeth size from 2005. You bet Hanihara was well aware of the fact that the teeth in a given individual are of different sizes. This is why he measured the mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth in each specimen, and then found that Mainland East Asian teeth are, on average, larger than European teeth (exceptions: Jomon and Ainu, but no surprise here). You mentioned the larger crania (heads) of East Asians, but Brace has shown that adjusting for cranial size, East Asian teeth are still larger than European teeth, and you bet the same applies to face size, too. Yes, there are populations with even lager teeth, but we are not discussing them.
You bring into the picture brachycephaly (roundish skulls). There are numerous central European populations with roundish skulls, but they still have smaller faces than Northeast Asians. So you believe that the larger East Asian teeth are possibly compensating for weaker masticatory muscles compared to what you see in Europeans? Just take a look (Am J Phys Anthropol, 2004;123:340-) at who between Europeans and East Asians has a more powerfully built lower jaw and ask yourself whether it is likely that East Asians have weaker masticatory muscles.
You accuse of me of not believing the [recent] out-of-Africa hypothesis. Let us state this hypothesis for the general readership. This hypothesis states that modern humans rose in Africa between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and spread outward, replacing all other human-like beings living elsewhere. I will comment on this hypothesis later. For now, the more interesting argument on your part is that these people who spread from Africa were of ‘broadly “caucasoid” appearance,’ and evolved into other forms such as East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines, etc. Well, well. Euro-types were the first people to start cooking food before eating it and thereby the first to experience a reduction in tooth size, but curiously, as they “evolved” into other types such as East Asians, Australian aborigines, etc., they developed larger teeth! Hanihara (facial flatness study) showed a clear tendency for greater mid-facial flattening to correlate with greater jaw protrusion (only first root significant in table), which should not be surprising given the tendency in our closest primate relatives, yet Euro-types “evolved” into people with the more ancestral condition! Vioarsdottir et al. (cited above) analyzed the facial growth patterns of people from different populations and found out that Europeans and Polynesians stood out from others, yet all the non-African people (except the Polynesians) that have “evolved” from Euros, along with the Africans, somehow display the broadly normal pattern of facial growth for the humans species, curiously making the Europeans stand out!
Learn bro! The recent out-of-Africa hypothesis is well-supported by mitochondrial DNA evidence, but there is an abundance of nuclear DNA evidence that refutes it. Please read this paper to understand that yes there was a spread of modern humans from African 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, but they extensively bred with people already living outside of Africa for a long time. I don’t find your scenario implausible because of the difficulty of imagining a “more evolved” people evolving into a “less evolved” people, but because of tremendous evidence against your account of the origin of modern humans.
You have again resorted to straw man arguments. I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.” Once gain, 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. 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). Why do you keep bringing up the “race” issue when I haven’t bothered with it, let alone the straw man of “pure races.” Even biggies like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Darwin implied no such thing. Like I said before, notwithstanding much overlap between continental populations and clinal variation, average differences between populations remain and clusters emerge.
Where did you encounter an account of the Celts being described as fair-haired by the Romans? Don’t come up with a trivial source, especially dating toward the later period of the Romans. In Early Rome, the Patricians were generally of Northern European descent, and it would be remarkable if the ruling elite then had a perception of the Celts as fair-haired.
Of course, Koreans are not synonymous for Asian, but the point of the study cited and the image shown is that it refutes your contention that the average East Asian is closer to Europeans than a supposed “extreme” pick supposed to represent the stereotypical East Asian. Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are much closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans and hence the study basically covers East Asians in general, which would be clearer if you look up literature on the aesthetics of East Asians. And no, I haven’t argued that the study implies a preference for Europeans over Asians; it simply implies a preference for Asian features shifted toward European norms. Besides, my objection to your “extreme Caucasoid” was not based on a failure to take into account “sub-types” but the fact that the most “extreme” ones are Northern Europeans, whose norms do not hover around your “extreme” features.
As to why I am posting at length, the agenda is not “racial,” but the promotion of feminine beauty in the limelight. Do you expect me to sit back if my arguments are misrepresented?
Of course, I believe that there are numerous objective correlates of beauty, and here is a page that links to most pages within this site where I have explained these correlates, but nowhere have I argued or implied that white women are the most attractive, let alone that this is due to having a more advanced physical type or “higher hormone levels.” I talked about testosterone-to-estradiol ratio. As I have already explained, this site is targeting people of European ancestry because all problems that it is addressing are of Western origin and this is the reason that it focuses on white women.
Erik,
I prefer #8, and nothing you say about her body or face type will change that. #1 would be my second choice.
I do not understand why you're all "up in arms" about what women look like in magazines. It really sounds like you've got an agenda that you're trying to enforce on others. Oh, and I just love how you equate people's sexual preferences to their selection of female shapes!
I prefer the athletic, slightly hourglass female form. So does a lesbian friend of mine. What does that tell you?
Everyone has their own likes and dislikes in the body shapes and facial features of others.
If you want a true measure of whether people prefer "your" ideal female body shape, why don't you publish your own magazine or web site with "your" choice of female body types, and then we'll see how many people go to your site or buy your publication over others that contain "masculine" women...
I go to websites (MET-ART, Karups, etc.) based on the types of women I LIKE TO LOOK AT -- you seem to prefer the playboy body type with a very soft face. Those are simply our individual preferences.
It sounds like you want there to be JUST ONE model in every magazine -- YOUR favorite body and face type. Boy, that would be boring. "Variety is the spice of life".
The bottom line is that people buy magazines and go to web sites that present the style of women that they prefer. If the type of women shown at Victoria's Secret was "wrong" as you seem to think, then why are they selling so much lingerie?
PS -- I don't care how many references you site, or how many studies you cite. You're still simply pushing your own agenda. Perhaps you should see a psychologist.
Erik,
[I rather think 8D has rather clicked on to what you really believe!]
You write "The first humans to arrive in the Americas clustered with Europeans whereas the later ones clustered with Asians. In other words, some of the early populations in East Asia and the Americas that you are referring to were roughly speaking European-type people who were replaced by other populations with more ancestral features."
This of course accords with your basic tenet that Caucasians are the most attractive because they are the least ancestral and most evolved. As I've pointed out before, whether this is true or not (and there are many reasons to suggest that it is, at very best, misleading) more evolved does not mean better, and would not necessarily mean more attractive - that is unless you believe that there is some mysterious evolutionary force impelling a species towards a more "perfect" phenotype. But there we are outside the realm of science and into metaphysics.
But on the simple point as to what you assert happened (and I'm not at all sure that Brace would entirely agree with you), you clearly don't believe in the out-of-Africa hypothesis for Homo sapiens sapiens, which is more and more being supported by the evidence from DNA, since this shows that all non-Africans derive from the same small group of emigrants from Africa. As I pointed out, evidence, such as that from Brace, and in this case fortunately not just from him, shows that this group were most probably of broadly "caucasoid" appearance. Thus it appears that East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines etc. are descended from groups who looked on average more "caucasoid" than their present-day descendants. The idea that this is all due to replacement of populations just won't wash. Primarily because it goes against the DNA evidence, but also because no one has suggested where the mysterious homelands for these replacing populations might be.
There is of course a psychological barrier to you, or others who think like you, accepting the idea that roughly "European-type" people might have evolved into groups less "European" looking (besides the incorrect, but psychologically pervasive, idea that "more evolved = better"). After all, looking at the, to you, supremely beautiful examples of feminine attractiveness represented by the white women you so proudly display on this site, how could a population such as this end up looking like Koreans, or Australian aborigines? Let me help you a bit here. Put your women in the conditions in which ancient stone age Eurasians and Amerindians lived, and they wouldn't look much like the women in your pictures! They might still look more attractive than the average non-white woman, but I am sure the difference wouldn't be as marked, even to you. And perhaps in the particular conditions of the times other factors, other selective pressures were at work. If sexual attractiveness is heavily culturally conditioned (and it is certainly so to some extent), there is no problem with this. But if it is partly genetically conditioned, this might explain how particular groups have a preference for features different from their average, because these preferences have evolved to fit an ancestral condition, and there hasn't as yet been enough time for evolution of preferences to fit the current condition.
Incidentally, with regard to East Asian features - if they are not the result of natural or sexual selection, what are they the result of? I have already shown that they are unlikely to be purely "ancestral", but even if they are, "ancestral" features must surely themselves be the result of natural and/or sexual selection? Unless some different (as yet unknown to science) process was responsible for the original appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens? (Which reminds me that before the theory of evolution was accepted, most people in the West believed that God created Adam and Eve ex nihilo, and that all humans were descended from them. Numerous theories arose as to how differing races arose, but most prominent were the ideas involving a white, indeed, Nordic looking, Adam and Eve, with non-white peoples arising as the result of degeneration from the primitive God-created Nordic European ideal.)
As for stereotyping, of course it existed long before the European typological race stereotyping. In fact I suspect it existed between different groups of Homo erectus etc. on the African Savanna. The difference with the European typological stereotyping of the late 19th and early 20th century is that it claimed to be "scientific", and that it went on, without scientific justification, to claim that the "Caucasoids" "Mongoloids" "Negroids" etc. represented ancient pure races - and that the clines in physical characteristics so clearly observable today, are due to the mixture of these pure races. This led almost inevitably to the Nazi ideas of racial purity and racial pollution. Of course an idea is not wrong purely because people can misuse it, but the fact is that there wasn't any scientific justification for the pure race idea in the first place. Nevertheless it still retains a deep, if unconscious, hold in the realms of popular pseudo-science about "races".
I have no doubt that my particular picture as to how the typological stereotyping of the supposed pure races is an accurate description of what went on. The early anthropologists didn't have access to computer morphing, but they had no need to. Looking around at their own populations they naturally came up with what was in general the average, as far as facial features were concerned. Of course most of them did not associate these features with "attractiveness", as they were claiming to be involved with racial taxonomy, not with the subject of sexual attraction. The "surprise" occasioned when it appeared that "average" = "attractive", was largely a semantic one, since "average" often means "mediocre" or "ordinary". And the early anthropologists did select the more extreme features of other races to stereotype them - this was a natural process, since they would be most impressed with what was different. Similarly the ancient Romans described the Celts as fair haired, as a whole, when they were almost certainly little different from their descendants today, among whom dark or medium hair is the commonest - but they were on average fairer than the Romans, so that's what the Romans noted. And so my description as to what a stereotyping of "caucasoids" form the viewpoint of other "races" still stands. Of course "caucasoids" vary in amount of body hair, prominence of noses etc.etc. But it is a fact that, on average, "caucasoids" do have, for example, more body and facial hair than East Asians. So East Asians, using the principles of the European typological race classifiers, would stereotype "caucasoids" in the way I have described. Of course, as you have pointed out, the stereotype is misleading and simplistic. Among other things, it doesn't distinguish between various "sub-groups" of "caucasoids". But that's precisely my point about this sort of racial stereotyping, which you seem happy to go in for when describing other races! In this you actually make my point for me!
As for your images of "average American white" etc., I am not sure what that proves at all. Firstly, Korean does not equal "Asian". In any case I am quite prepared to believe that some - maybe many - Asian groups do prefer the more "caucasian" types among their own population to the average of their population. This doesn't of course necessarily mean that they prefer the actual "caucasian" types to the more "caucasian" of the "Asian" types. Note that the more "caucasian" of the Asian types is closer to what might be termed the average "world morph", and I certainly read recently a report which suggested that what was considered attractive by the majority of westerners seems to be moving similarly towards a more "world" average - perhaps that's why Jessica Alba was voted the sexiest woman in a recent British poll (I know that won't please you, but that's how it goes!). In any case, unless there is some racial agenda here, why are you posting at such length on this? You happen to believe that white women are the most attractive. I happen to believe that women of any race can be attractive, but that I personally find attractive East Asian women the most attractive. Many will agree with you. Some, I believe a growing number, will agree with me. You have a right to your viewpoint, I have a right to mine. I post not to disagree with your personal preferences, but when you, in my opinion, misuse science to "prove" that your views on female attractiveness are somehow more objective than those of others who disgree with you, such as myself (or Hugh Hefner - I actually largely agree with you about him, but he too has a right to his preferences!).
It is quite clear that, despite your denials, you do believe in some objective, or at least, genetically determined standard of beauty. It is also clear that you believe that white women are the most attractive, and that you do associate this with being of a more advanced i.e. recent physical type, and that you do attribute this attractiveness to higher hormone levels etc. (although the highest oestrogen levels are actually to be found among black women, such as the Yorubas with their very high rate of dizygotic twinning).
It is also clear that you believe that the basis of this attractiveness, in terms of male preference, is largely genetic and not cultural in origin. This is in fact highly debatable. But, if the truth is as you say, you haven't considered the consequences of this. As I pointed out, it bears the very strong implication that other races must have passed through a "caucasoid" type phase in their evolution.
I've probably spent too much time already on this, but I've still to post an edited version of my original reply to your attacks. This will show that in many ways you actually make the points for me which I was arguing, if a truly scientifically consistent approach is used.
Erik,
As for larger faces, larger teeth etc., I have looked up some of the data, and it shows just how simplistic your representation of this is. In fact, on a worldwide basis, both Europeans and Asians are at the smaller end of the scale, the largest faces and teeth being found outside Eurasia. There has been as yet little, if any, consideration given to the fact that East Asians have, on average, among the largest heads of any group, both absolutely and proportionately, larger than Europeans, and larger than Africans. This "large face" business would be further complicated by the greater incidence of brachycephaly among East Asians. Brachycephaly would also tend to give rise to larger faces. Incidentally, brachycephaly is often considered, in the context of Homo sapiens sapiens, a more recent feature than dolichocephaly. It is possible that when the, on average, larger skull sizes and greater brachycephaly of East Asians is considered, much of the difference in face size between East Asians and Europeans disappears.
Similarly, if not identically, with tooth size. There is a problem about tooth size comparisons, as of course each person normally has 32 teeth, none of which are identical. Comparisons between groups often show a situation where Group A might have, say, bigger upper medial incisors than Group B, but smaller lower lateral incisors - and that's without even considering canines, premolars, and molars. However even taking a grossly simplistic view, again looking at the data reveals that both Europeans and East Asians are at the smaller end of the scale as far as the worldwide picture is concerned. Interesting studies, such as that by C.L.B.Lavelle J.Dent.Res. Vol 53 No 5 (1974), who looked only at white British men, have shown that [1]tooth size is on average slightly larger (2.7% in his study)in brachycephalic than in dolichocephalic men, that [2]there is a tendency for tooth size to increase with skull size, and that [3]this tendency is greater for brachycephalics than dolichocephalics. This is of course consonant with the fact that general face size is going to be on average larger for brachycephalics for any particular skull size. And indeed Lavelle found that the degree of correlation in brachycephalics was greater with skull breadth than with skull length, as one would expect given my above suppositions.
Incidentally, dolichocephaly has been associated in some studies with stronger jaw muscles, the effect of the larger area of attachment of these muscles being to lengthen the skull. If this is so, it might give a clue as to why brachycephaly is associated with slightly larger teeth, as this might compensate for rather weaker masticatory muscles. Which particular "strategy" is selected for might be due to pure chance (genetic drift), or it might be due to the minutiae of dietary details, such as the relative amounts of meat or plant material in the diet.
Whatever the case, it is clear that looking closely at the data, you are making a very great deal out of not very much, in your larger face, larger teeth, "arguments". Similarly with all your points with regard to facial features. Of all human characteristics, the face is the most complex, and by merely parroting phrases such as "mid-facial flattening", "prognathism", "high cheekbones" etc.etc., without realisation that these can cover a multitude of different "sins", you ignore the fact that superficially similar features might be arrived at by very different processes. Thus if a feature can be shown to be "ancestral", or due to particular hormone levels in particular situations, does not necessarily mean that the same applies in all situations.
8D: There is no "white > Asian" argument above. It is just a neutral description of some population differences and their origins.
LOL @ erik for writing a huge essay about how white > asian.
yay white power!!!
Andy: Yes, a more dramatic hourglass figure does not necessarily make a woman more beautiful to heterosexual men since there are numerous correlates of beauty. I have also noted that slight masculinization among women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men; see the discussion here.
Sarah: If there is an argument here that would appear to be outrageous to many people, then it is necessary to show that I am not alone, which doesn’t mean that an “I am not alone” entry implies that people generally disagree with most of the arguments here. Besides, some commentators have left comments saying that they are pleased with this site.
You have left numerous cues about how you look in your comments, which anyone can guess is not feminine. On the other hand, you have baselessly made a bunch of assumptions about my looks, even claiming that I am likely in my 50s and probably resemble John Mark Karr. Boy, would you be surprised if you saw me! I’d be willing to do the favor that you have asked, but not by slapping your face; I believe you deserve a proper spanking.
As far as the statement about decent bars go, I described something and didn’t express approval or disapproval of it, i.e., no racism on my part was implied. Speaking of racism, did you know that Karl Marx was a racist and his evil ideas led to the slaughter of a hundred million people? Calling super criminal Karl Marx a “brilliant theorist” shows just what kind of education you have gotten.
Sarah: Of course, thin women are not necessarily anorexic. I didn’t call any of the women posted by you anorexic. Don’t blame me for those Americans who are eating excessive food. I am certainly not one of these people. As I already pointed out elsewhere, excess body fat is more prevalent in ethnic minorities in the U.S., mostly originating in developing nations. Besides, the U.S. donates a lot of food to poor people around the world.
Pages