The diversity of hair/eye/skin/size/shape/looks of Asian people.
Europeans have more diversity but there's diversity as well with Asians.
East Asians-Southeast Asians come in all different heights, shapes, and looks.
Like you say Euroepans have different looks from Mediterranean type to Nordic type.
Skin color: many have naturally porcelain white-yellowish- goldish-light tan-medium tan-dark tan. they are smooth, soft skin.
The clear white skin doesn't burn in the sun same way the White skin of many Europeans do.
Hair color: jet black, deep dark brown, natural medium brown, natural slightly light brown, natural reddish brown, natural bluish black.
Eye color: deep dark brown, medium brown, some lighter brown.
Just not easily observed but if you'd look closely or when light shines on the hair/eyes the true coloring would be abvious. No light colorings as the Europeans so it appears as if no diversity that all colorings are the same.
While blue eyes are thought to be exclusive to Caucasoid ethnic groups,the manifestation of blue eyes has been documented in pure-blooded, darkly complected tribal Africans, as well as people of mixed African and European ancestry; the former, usually the result of genetic mutation and the latter most often the manifestation of recessive European genes.
Something interesting. This is not to offend but simply providing more information about the differences.
I've read in some Sexuality forum in the past about comparisons of different races of women and the scent in the female private part. Many men testified Asian women have no smell in private part and very clean (nobody said otherwise) while many men have said White women have bad smell down there, some have white mucus around their genitalia, and 3 guys said particulary the blondes and red heads have a distinct bad smell in private part. Could it be just differences of the food they eat and differences in hygiene or it's a genetic differences?
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? On the contrary, in biological and medical sense, the recessive genetic features of light Europeans make them disadvantaged in more conditions or quite inferior.
"Superior as a whole - no. Superior (advantaged) in the cold Northern European environment that they evolved to adapt in - yes. You're correct that these were the some of the last features to have devoloped, since the environment that they developed for was one of the last settled. Though they are the latest, they may not be the greatest since they are not really superior as it only proffers an advantage in the environment it was developed in. The Caucasian race that sports these features was the most recent branch in our family tree, as they followed the retreating glaciers (global warming - oh my) and occupied Northern Europe. While the other races, which had been in place for tens of thousands of years, were already adapted to their own environments and had no need for these features. As a matter of fact these features, evolved to deal with colder environments, are actually a disadvantage/maladaption in other hotter (our original) environments. A good example is that a Caucasian in sub-Saharan Africa would be easily suceptible to sunburn, and other heat related casualties. Oddly in biological terms, these are actually specializations which , which in the long run may be a disadvantage in the hotter post-glacial world."
Source(s):
BS (Biology)
"The period of time for a mutation to appear has no correlation to the degree of "superiority" of the mutation. "
"Brown eyed/haired people are less prone to sun damage to their skin and can see better in bright conditions than blue eyed people... so no."
" No. The hair and eye colors or racial characteristics are just examples of endemicism (adaptation to local conditions).
Natural selection might have favored the development of hair and eye color in the cloudy environments they became most common in. Though I suspect sexual (mate) selection had more to do with it than anything.
Evolution is not a progressive linear transition from inferior to superior forms. If it was there would be no other life forms except the purported superior one. It is a continual reshaping of forms in response to selective factors of environment.
There is no such thing as a genetically superior organism. A form that is highly successful in one environment will fail miserably in another if the conditions that favor that form are replaced with unfavorable conditions.
I'll give a clearer example. If the ability to reproduce were determined by the ability to lift large weights people with weightlifter physiques would be more numerous than people with other builds. In an environment where sprinting determined reproductive success people with runner's builds would be more commonplace. In both instances apparent superiority would be dependent on external circumstance which, in the real world, is more complex and changeable.
Hair and eye color are the result of a very small number of genes which require only minor changes to produce. All of which could be re mutated out of existance if need be. Not some clever re-engineering that makes the organisms 'better'."
"no, it makes you more likely to get cancer"
"No and yes ...
First, I would be very reluctant to say which skin/hair/eye colouring appeared last in the general population since I have no idea about that - and I wonder if anyone has even investigated that one yet.
My main point - variations in population like skin colour etc appear as adaptations to local conditions. So blond hair & blue eyes are very likely superior for the conditions prevelant in the geographical area in which they first appeared.
*BUT* these same variations could not be 'superior' in other locations ... otherwise the same variation (or very similar) would have appeared in a number of locations around the globe.
Since populations have only recently started to be connected in the sense of mobility and social interaction we are a long way from seeing what adaptations (if any) emerge in the global population as a result of the new environment of the 21st centurary and beyond. "
Source(s):
I'm not an expert but have a good general understanding of evolutionary princciples
"It is associated with fair skin color, lighter eye colors (gray, blue, green, and hazel), freckles, and sensitivity to ultraviolet light."
"...when UV-radiation is strong (like in regions close to the equator) the lower concentration of melanin leads to several medical disadvantages, such as a higher risk of skin cancer."
"One study, however, reports a link between red hair and a higher rate of bruising.[43]
About Green eyes
sensitive to sun/bright light as well as weaker immune system.
"A gray iris may indicate the presence of a uveitis. However, other visual signs make a uveitis obvious. Gray iris color, as well as blue, are at increased risk of uveal melanoma.
The eyes of people with severe forms of albinism may appear red under certain lighting conditions owing to the extremely low quantities of melanin,[55] allowing the blood vessels to show through. In addition, flash photography can sometimes cause a "red-eye effect", in which the very bright light from a flash reflects off the back of the eyeball, which is abundantly vascular, causing the pupil to appear red in the photograph.[56]
Although the deep blue eyes of some people such as Elizabeth Taylor can appear violet at certain times, true violet-colored eyes only occur due to albinism
" In 2008, new research revealed that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.[35] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[36] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[35][36][37] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."
"The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.[35]"
"In humans, brown eyes contain large amounts of melanin within the iris stroma, which serves to absorb light at both shorter and longer wavelengths."
"Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more melanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less melanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change, and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color."
"Blond
Blond hair ranges from nearly white (platinum blond, tow-haired) to a dark golden blond. Strawberry blond, a mixture of blond and red hair is a much rarer type containing the most amounts of pheomelanin.
Blond hair can have almost any proportion of pheomelanin and eumelanin, but both only in small amounts. More pheomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond. Many children born with blond hair develop darker hair as they age, with the majority of natural blonds developing their hair color into a very dark, almost brown, color by the time they reach middle age. Blond hair is most commonly found in Northern and Eastern Europeans and their descendants, but can be found spread around most of Europe.
Blond hair is exceptionally rare among those without European heritage, however the Melanesians of New Guinea are one of the few non-European races and the only black race known to have a high blonde hair rate. This is because the Papuans/Melanesians have the highest rate of the newly-evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 59.4% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele. Sub-saharan African has the lowest while the caucasian race has the second highest of 50% which may also account for their wide range of hair colors."
It is universally well-known and highly accepted fact by most people and even biology, sexuality, and feminine beauty studies concluded that Asian women are the most feminine race of women. This is obvious look at these many Asian beauties totally feminine features from head/hair to toe compared to Nordics, and they look smart, neat delicate fine perky features, charming, classy elegant, graceful, gracile, striking, very sexy looks and body, very round perky breasts, delicate smooth facial and body structure outline, cute, sweet, gorgeous, mysteriously interesting, seductive, exotic, and so on and on: http://www.myspace.com/426126736 http://www.myspace.com/426126736/photos
Asian hair is the thickest, shiniest, strongest, silkiest, healthiest hair strands while blonde hair strand is the thinnest, weakess, dullest hair. (Google a lot of credible sources). The Asian skin is the softest, smoothest, most youthful, tightest skin pores, clearest/cleanest almost flawless; European White skin has high risk of getting skin cancer and age fast. (Google a lot of credible sources). Blue eyes have more medical implications than dark eyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color (under Medical Implications)
"Those with lighter iris color have been found to have a higher prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) than those with darker iris color;[51] lighter eye color is also associated with an increased risk of ARMD progression.[58] An increased risk of uveal melanoma has been found in those with blue, green or gray iris color.
.[42][45] However, a study in 2000 suggests that people with dark brown eyes are at increased risk of developing cataracts and therefore should protect their eyes from direct exposure to sunlight.[59]
Some study stated also stated "The lighter the eyes, the weaker the immune system."
Apparently, the light eyes have much more medical complications than the dark eyes. So in medical sense, the dark eyes is healthier and stronger gene.
Recent research shows that blue-eyed men prefer blue-eyed women. Thus it appears that, at least to some observers, eye colour is important.
But why do humans have different eye colours?
It mostly comes down to the amount and location of melanin (yes, the same substance which controls skin colour) in the human eye. Pale eyes such as blue, grey or green eyes contain little melanin, dark brown eyes more. Which eye colour you get is primarily determined from genetic variation based on the eye colour of your parents.
But does your eye colour influence how you see?
It turns out that it does. The darker the eyes, the more light is absorbed as light waves pass through the eye, and the less light is available to reflect within the eye. Light reflection (scatter) within the eye can cause susceptibility to glare (eg. sun or headlights) and to poor contrast discernment. Thus it seems that people with darker eyes may have better vision in high-glare situations – perhaps this makes them better night drivers, for example.
Eye colour may also affect your colour vision. Here it seems that lighter eyes may provide some advantages.
So it seems to me that blue-eyed people should really go for dark-eyed partners – this way one can pick the paint colours, and the other can drive home at night.
Are people with lighter eyes (blue or green) more sensitive to sun light?
(Most testify it's true)
Quite a lot of East Asians wear glasses not that the East Asian eyes geneticaly have eye problems, it's a result of too much studying as well as the Japanese have history of staring at the sun.
Asian eyes are not truly black. Most of the people who appear to have black eyes have, infact, extremely dark brown eyes that seem to be black.
When a light shines in the eyes, you can see that they're a very dark brown color.
To be honest, there's something "off" with how these Nordic women look:
-Pasty pale (look kinda sick and not normal and not AS sexy and sensual skin tone compared to other race of womne wiht nice fair and tan skin; some of these women posted look kinda freaks or vampires, to be frank)
-facial shape not so good (look closely at the shape the outline of the head)
-the facial/body features and skin not perky/tight/uplifted nor well-defined quite droopy if you know what i mean (with that they look quite aged not youthful and that's how the features/skin of other races look like when they reach their 30's)
-the low cheekbone also gives them a not perky look.
-the nose of several women are not finely shaped and quite "fleshy" at the tip.
-extremely thin eyebrows is ugly, weird, and artificial looking
-freckles is ugly as it makes the skin look dirty not clear or flawless
-thin, dry, dull, lifeless, not shiny, weak, unhealthy, ugly looking hair. That's a bad hair day for race of women with great hair.
-skin not very tight, smooth, silky and clear compared to other races. you can see lines/wrinkles in some areas esp. on the neck.
-The breasts are not round shape and perky, droopy.
-the bodies are not very shapely, skin and flesh not firm perky looking looks like a body for women in late 20's.
-Most Nordics too have pancake ass and no hips.
-Many of these women have big and quite bony masculine head- just like the women you posted.
-Most Nordics age fast. Many men even Nordic men say this that blonde age fast, by the time they reach 25-30 they look 10-15 years older. Their beauty is short term.
Beauty IS subjective. A lot of these Nordic women you put up as *epitome of beauty* are mediocre bland looking to me with no outstanding features at all and pale (not sensual) and bird thin lips and im sure to very many people as well they're so-so women who dont stand out at all. Most of these women you think the most attractive won't be voted as the most beautiful women in the world by ANY beauty magazine or beauty polls. They're bland and plain.
You said that you don't like Latin women, but you love Rita Hayworth. Rita Hayworth (née) Margarita Cansino) was born to an Irish-Italian mother, from whom she inherited, I suppose, her coarse face and broad nose, but probably also the full lips and great hair, and to a Spanish father (a gipsy, I think), from whom she probably has her eyes and forehead (and the sensual, full hair).
Rita Hayworth doesn't seem very feminine to me, although I understand that people like her figure. The waist-hip-ratio is usually the strength of Spanish and Italian women, for they have tiny waist and rounded hips seen from both the front AND the side. But Rita's face is not particularly feminine and bleached hair should never be attractive to men used to be around women with real blond or red hair, in my oppinion.
I am a little bit confused about your comments on "Latin" women. As a German, I never know what people mean when they say "Latin". Do you mean Latin-American women or do you mean Spanish women (from Spain, in Europe)? If you mean Latin-American women, your point is partially right, but "Latin-American" is not a race or etnicity. Latin-Americans are mostly Native Americans (just notice their mongoloid traits: eyes, lips, cheekbones) mixed (or not) with African slaves and/or European conquerors. So it is almost impossible that there is any semitic element in them (which by the way wouldn't have any historical explanation). Their hooked noses have a much more obvious explanations if you look at the pictures of some Peruvian or Bolivian indigenous population. Latin-Americans from other regions, like Mexico for instance, will never have that kind of nose-bridge because the indigenous population shows a much more typically mongoloid kind of nose.
And if with "Latin" you mean Spaniards, then I am sorry to disappoint you, but the population of the Iberian Peninsula (with the exeception of the Basques) have pretty low nose-bridges, lower than an average Halstatt Nordic, and very selten aquiline.
At this point I really would like to explain you something concerning "aquiline" or as you call them "hooked" noses. There is a big difference between an aquiline nose on a Swede or a German (let's take German Poet Schiller as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gerhard_von_K%C3%BCgelgen_001.jpg ) and the hooked nose on a semitic individual. Racial theorists have always consider a thin, not very "hooked" aquiline nose to be a pure Nordic trait and, if you think of it, you will probably be able to remember some people of your own etnicity who have convez bridges, but their nose will be surely not as big and wide as the one on Middle-Easterners. For many centuries, aquiline noses were considered a very noble feature, often seen in portraits of Nordic nobleman, leaders and intellectuals.
In general, a lower nose-bridge is considered more feminine, but the average nose-bridge of Halstatt Nordics (mainly Swedes and Danish) is rather high. Of course, it is lower in women than in men, but if it is very low you should consider if that person is maybe partly Finnish and therefore with a strong Asian component. What I wanted to say is that aquiline noses, if they are narrow and long (when seen from the front), that is "leptorrhine), they may be a purely Nordic trait if the rest of the face indicates so.
I hope you see that I didn't want to disagree with you in your general oppinion, I just wanted to offer some scientific terms basing on my experience as an archeologist.
I find your examples for the Early Modern and Modern Ages very accurate, but I have to disagree about the Greeks. Their ideal of beauty doesn't resemble the beauty of nordic women (that I admire myself) if you take a close look to ancient greek sculpture depicting female beauty. In the first place, Archeology teaches us that Ancient Greeks show, as an etnicity, a very high level of sexual dimorphism, that means, among their skeletons the difference between women and men are very exaggerated. On the other hand, people of a nordic etnicity (specially Halstatt Nordics) show the lowest sexual dimorphism among the Caucasian subraces. Second, the heads of these women are dolicocephalic (elongated), like those of the Nordics (and Western Mediterraneans, and Atlanto-Mediterraneans, etc.), but their cheek bones are wider are more robust than those of an average nordic woman (or a Western European woman in General). Furthermore, their nose bridge is high, but unlike in Nordic people it is so high that it falls staight from their forehead. And least but not last, Greek scuptures tend to have, like most Mediterranean Caucasians, more rounded eyes that Nordics (and of course much more rounded than today's Eastern Europeans).
It's true that the Greek appreciated blond hair, and some (not all) of their Gods and Godesses had blond hair, because this colour was related to the sun. Blond hair is also related to youth and innocence in Europe and specially in Southern Europe. Maybe you have noticed that there are many more blond children than adults in Italy or Spain, because their hair usually darkens with age. Anyway we shouldn't consider "blond" in the meaning it has for us as Northern Europeans, but much more in the sense of "golden" or "reddish", as you said. Some of the pictures you took would be a good examples.
But we shouldn't forget that the Greeks, like most nations until the Romans, were very xenophobic also concrening beauty. Their appreciation of more Northern features was mor or less reduced to the hair colour, and blue eyes or a fair complexion were not considered beautiful. Blue eyes were considered a sign of a coward or ignobel spirit and related to some animals with negative characteristics. The Greeks considered themselves to be the most perfect people on Earth, and lucky to live in a land in which they got the bronze complexion that made them difference from their Northern, pale, barbarian neighbors, but not as dark as the ugly Africans. Snub noses, as sometimes seen in Nordics (and much more often in Western Mediterraneans and Eastern Europeans) were considered very ugly by the Greeks, specially if they were turned up. Socrates, who was cosidered a very ugly man at his time, was depicted having such a nose.
Anyway, I don't think we should exaggerate the influence of the Greeks in our beauty standards, trying to defend that the Greeks (or the Japanese or whoever) actually prefered Nordic features to their own, because this is not true and, esentally, it shouldn't matter what other peoples prefere when discussing Northern European beauty.
Of course, obesity was seen as a sign of sin and corruption and in these centuries in which obesity was rare even among wealthy individuals, it was often simply a symptom of some inherited disease and therefore unattractive.
About the breasts, I have to partially disagree with you. "Large-saggy/wrinkled/misshapen/malformed breasts" were indeed used to represent unattractive or sinful women (witches, prostitutes) or even the impersonation of certain sins and vices, as seen in romanic and gothic capitels in medieval churches. But big or "full", well formed breasts were allowed in a religious context, for instance in the form of a Roman Charity or Carità romana or a Virgo lactans (Mary breast-feeding the Christ Child). An that is the point of this question: For men in the Ancient and Medieval Europe, fuller or bigger breasts meant that a woman was not a virgin (not to marry) because she was probably a mother.
In Ancient Greece, that is in a non Christian or pre-Christian context, depictions of beautiful, young women also had proportionally small breasts (let's say most of them would have a B-cup), a small waist or at least a narrow rib-cage and rounded hips. Those were the women that inspired European art from the Renaissance to the end of the 19th century.
About the vulgarity of big breasts, usually beautiful women of a higher status in medieval lyric or novels are depicted as being somehow gracile, thin or even smallish and curvacious women only appear in satires or obscene stories, representing women of the lower classes, usually rustic countrywomen or innkeepers.
I also have a preference for slightly bigger breats myself, but when I see the depiction of those high, firm, rounded breasts in greek and medieval beauties I cannot imagine there was any kind of censorship behind the artists. As a matter of fact, some posters of Cranach's small-breasted, naked Venus in the tube in London were forbidden after the complaints of some parents that considered this picture to be too lascivious to be publically shown.
DSWS-
I'm a woman.I don't agree with Erik regarding many things,particularly regarding the pornography on this site etc,however the use of this model isn't correct either.
I mean no offense,but it is naive to think of it in the way you stated.
This model was not just displaying the womans clothing for practical purposes.
Thsi male model was intentionally chosen due to his very feminine looks,the controversy and shock factor it would provide,the media attention etc.
If it was a case where there was no other option,then it would be reasonable to suggest that it's ok to use a man,a clothes dummie,hanger or other to display the women's clothing for practical/functional purposes and what does it matter what displays them as long as it does the job.
However,this isn't the case here.They purposely chose this model,this model would have got paid etc,when there are plenty of female models-of various shapes,nationalities,styles etc to choose from- that they could have gave the job to.
Discrimination in modeling? I would agree if we are in the 80s and the catwalk and magazine covers are ruled by the likes of Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and Christy Turlington. These days models either look like they need something to eat, need more sleep or need substance-abuse help. The ‘yuk factor’ is in, e.g. gap an obvious in the teeth, squinty eyes, a humpback slouch, and it is just sad that modeling has declined to this.
I find that a good supermodel needs to be a great role model as well. When I as young I look up to girls like Cindy Crawford, Isabella Rossellini, Christie Turlington and Linda Evangelista. These ladies are not only drop dead gorgeous, they also promote the importance of being beautiful, inside and out. I can still remember one of Cindy’s recommendations of a home-made facial scrub which consists mainly of used coffee grains! Many photographers will say these girls are professional supermodels and are not just about looking good. The likes of Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell have put modeling to shame.
Where can i find the discussion? Is it in this whole comment thread or there's more in other parts of the site?
If not too much trouble, can you link me?
"Unlike in women, it is harder to judge how masculine a man is because of the ease with which less masculine men can pack on more muscle mass given current technology, and the phenomenon of some men with a mix of multiple masculine and multiple effeminate characteristics."
No kidding! I'll give it a try, though . . .
Am I correct in judging:
Daniel Craig to be overall masculine in appearance?
Pierce Brosnan, Alan Rickman, David Boreanaz, Clint Eastwood, and Brad Pitt to be average overall in terms of masculinity/femininity?
Hayden Christensen, Ewan Mcgregor, Jensen Ackles, Alain Delon, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and Edward Furlong to be in the effeminate range?
Ted Danson to have a hyper-masculine face? (Couldn't find any clear pics of his body.)
Sean Connery to have a masculine face + normal body?
Latvian: Comments written in a drunken state are not welcome. If you are foolish enough to go by what your lecturer has told you about not trusting what you read on the internet and going with published materials such as books, then do not waste your time with this site. Incidentally, you did not notice that the internet source I cited is actually a published book that was put online.
my name is: Asian beauty, including many of the examples you have shown, has been discussed at this site, just not in one place, and the discussion is not politically correct. The women you posted look good. One of them is white, some are part white and some have undergone cosmetic surgery.
Markus: I hope you educate your students about your improved understanding. It is not just examples of the paintings that are inconsistent with an alleged preference for overweight female bodies, but also writings that show that there was stigma against obesity, one of the reasons for which was that it was a clear sign of the deadly sin of gluttony.
On the other hand, the depiction of breasts in classical paintings does not allow us to infer that a preference for pinups with big breasts is a modern phenomenon. There is an obvious erotic element to bare female breasts, which can be minimized by either small breasts or large-saggy/wrinkled/misshapen/malformed breasts. So if you are going to depict nude or semi-nude slender or normal women and the Church is powerful, you have no choice but to minimize the erotic element by painting small breasts. Now, there were surely cases where the nude model used by a painter had small breasts or was a man who was painted as a woman. But if medieval artists had enough freedom, I am positive that a number of them would have produced paintings along the lines of modern pinup art, where women with large, well-formed and perky breasts are depicted often.
There is also no apparent reason to believe that large breasts in the absence of obesity would be considered vulgar [pre 1950s] outside a Christian [or similar] cultural environment, controlling for how they are displayed.
Hi. I find your article about feminine beauty very interesting.
Can I get your opinion about Asian beauty.
What do you think about these some samples of beautiful Asian women? How they rate in your
feminine-masculine beauty scale? The myspace link has Many photos, prettier women, check them out.
Hello, Erik. I found this thread very interesting and I must admit that I had missed something like this here before (apparently I hadn't simply found it). I have studied History and Archeology, but I also teach Art History to undergraduates and they all have this misconception that artists in the last centuries liked fat or overweight women. The women you show here happen to be pretty fair representatives of men's preferences among Europeans in those centuries, no matter if in Italy (Botticelli), Germany (Cranach) or Spain (Goya). Rubens was much more the exception than the rule and the fattest women he painted still look much more like a next door "fatty" than like an obese woman.
Another thing that I find fascinating about this women is that their breasts are always very small in proportion to their bodies. Of course they're high and rounded, but they don't look at all like play-boy models, do they? The preference for very big breasts is a new phenomenon of the 1950s. Before, reasonably small but still noticeable breasts were a sign of youth and virginity. Women with big breasts were considered vulgar and those were attributes often connected to women of the lower classes.
Sorry but maybe u just don't have what it takes to be a fashion model. I'm not saying u aren't pretty but fashion modeling requires more than that. And so what people tell u u should model people tell me I should model but guess what I'm 5 4" so There's no point in going into something that requires height I don't have. And for u u lack the facial charchterstics like high cheekbones. A girl I worked with was signed to elite management before she got pregnant and she was 5 7 120 straight muscle tho and high cheekbones and a strong jaw. Feminine not really but it worked for her. U just need to find ur niche and if it's not fashion it can be somewhere else. But u need to get better modeling pictures those are not helping u at all
The diversity of hair/eye/skin/size/shape/looks of Asian people.
Europeans have more diversity but there's diversity as well with Asians.
East Asians-Southeast Asians come in all different heights, shapes, and looks.
Like you say Euroepans have different looks from Mediterranean type to Nordic type.
Skin color: many have naturally porcelain white-yellowish- goldish-light tan-medium tan-dark tan. they are smooth, soft skin.
The clear white skin doesn't burn in the sun same way the White skin of many Europeans do.
Hair color: jet black, deep dark brown, natural medium brown, natural slightly light brown, natural reddish brown, natural bluish black.
Eye color: deep dark brown, medium brown, some lighter brown.
Just not easily observed but if you'd look closely or when light shines on the hair/eyes the true coloring would be abvious. No light colorings as the Europeans so it appears as if no diversity that all colorings are the same.
FYI, blue eyes is not exclusive to Europeans. Goes to show blue eyes is simply a genetic mutation and not an attribute for a superior race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
While blue eyes are thought to be exclusive to Caucasoid ethnic groups,the manifestation of blue eyes has been documented in pure-blooded, darkly complected tribal Africans, as well as people of mixed African and European ancestry; the former, usually the result of genetic mutation and the latter most often the manifestation of recessive European genes.
Something interesting. This is not to offend but simply providing more information about the differences.
I've read in some Sexuality forum in the past about comparisons of different races of women and the scent in the female private part. Many men testified Asian women have no smell in private part and very clean (nobody said otherwise) while many men have said White women have bad smell down there, some have white mucus around their genitalia, and 3 guys said particulary the blondes and red heads have a distinct bad smell in private part. Could it be just differences of the food they eat and differences in hygiene or it's a genetic differences?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070622012619AAlk9xv
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? On the contrary, in biological and medical sense, the recessive genetic features of light Europeans make them disadvantaged in more conditions or quite inferior.
"Superior as a whole - no. Superior (advantaged) in the cold Northern European environment that they evolved to adapt in - yes. You're correct that these were the some of the last features to have devoloped, since the environment that they developed for was one of the last settled. Though they are the latest, they may not be the greatest since they are not really superior as it only proffers an advantage in the environment it was developed in. The Caucasian race that sports these features was the most recent branch in our family tree, as they followed the retreating glaciers (global warming - oh my) and occupied Northern Europe. While the other races, which had been in place for tens of thousands of years, were already adapted to their own environments and had no need for these features. As a matter of fact these features, evolved to deal with colder environments, are actually a disadvantage/maladaption in other hotter (our original) environments. A good example is that a Caucasian in sub-Saharan Africa would be easily suceptible to sunburn, and other heat related casualties. Oddly in biological terms, these are actually specializations which , which in the long run may be a disadvantage in the hotter post-glacial world."
Source(s):
BS (Biology)
"The period of time for a mutation to appear has no correlation to the degree of "superiority" of the mutation. "
"Brown eyed/haired people are less prone to sun damage to their skin and can see better in bright conditions than blue eyed people... so no."
" No. The hair and eye colors or racial characteristics are just examples of endemicism (adaptation to local conditions).
Natural selection might have favored the development of hair and eye color in the cloudy environments they became most common in. Though I suspect sexual (mate) selection had more to do with it than anything.
Evolution is not a progressive linear transition from inferior to superior forms. If it was there would be no other life forms except the purported superior one. It is a continual reshaping of forms in response to selective factors of environment.
There is no such thing as a genetically superior organism. A form that is highly successful in one environment will fail miserably in another if the conditions that favor that form are replaced with unfavorable conditions.
I'll give a clearer example. If the ability to reproduce were determined by the ability to lift large weights people with weightlifter physiques would be more numerous than people with other builds. In an environment where sprinting determined reproductive success people with runner's builds would be more commonplace. In both instances apparent superiority would be dependent on external circumstance which, in the real world, is more complex and changeable.
Hair and eye color are the result of a very small number of genes which require only minor changes to produce. All of which could be re mutated out of existance if need be. Not some clever re-engineering that makes the organisms 'better'."
"no, it makes you more likely to get cancer"
"No and yes ...
First, I would be very reluctant to say which skin/hair/eye colouring appeared last in the general population since I have no idea about that - and I wonder if anyone has even investigated that one yet.
My main point - variations in population like skin colour etc appear as adaptations to local conditions. So blond hair & blue eyes are very likely superior for the conditions prevelant in the geographical area in which they first appeared.
*BUT* these same variations could not be 'superior' in other locations ... otherwise the same variation (or very similar) would have appeared in a number of locations around the globe.
Since populations have only recently started to be connected in the sense of mobility and social interaction we are a long way from seeing what adaptations (if any) emerge in the global population as a result of the new environment of the 21st centurary and beyond. "
Source(s):
I'm not an expert but have a good general understanding of evolutionary princciples
ABOUT RED HAIR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair
"It is associated with fair skin color, lighter eye colors (gray, blue, green, and hazel), freckles, and sensitivity to ultraviolet light."
"...when UV-radiation is strong (like in regions close to the equator) the lower concentration of melanin leads to several medical disadvantages, such as a higher risk of skin cancer."
"One study, however, reports a link between red hair and a higher rate of bruising.[43]
About Green eyes
sensitive to sun/bright light as well as weaker immune system.
About Grey eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
"A gray iris may indicate the presence of a uveitis. However, other visual signs make a uveitis obvious. Gray iris color, as well as blue, are at increased risk of uveal melanoma.
About Red and Violet eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
The eyes of people with severe forms of albinism may appear red under certain lighting conditions owing to the extremely low quantities of melanin,[55] allowing the blood vessels to show through. In addition, flash photography can sometimes cause a "red-eye effect", in which the very bright light from a flash reflects off the back of the eyeball, which is abundantly vascular, causing the pupil to appear red in the photograph.[56]
Although the deep blue eyes of some people such as Elizabeth Taylor can appear violet at certain times, true violet-colored eyes only occur due to albinism
ABOUT BLUE EYES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
" In 2008, new research revealed that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.[35] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[36] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[35][36][37] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."
"The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.[35]"
"In humans, brown eyes contain large amounts of melanin within the iris stroma, which serves to absorb light at both shorter and longer wavelengths."
ABOUT BLONDE HAIR
Human hair color: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_color
"Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more melanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less melanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change, and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color."
"Blond
Blond hair ranges from nearly white (platinum blond, tow-haired) to a dark golden blond. Strawberry blond, a mixture of blond and red hair is a much rarer type containing the most amounts of pheomelanin.
Blond hair can have almost any proportion of pheomelanin and eumelanin, but both only in small amounts. More pheomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond. Many children born with blond hair develop darker hair as they age, with the majority of natural blonds developing their hair color into a very dark, almost brown, color by the time they reach middle age. Blond hair is most commonly found in Northern and Eastern Europeans and their descendants, but can be found spread around most of Europe.
Blond hair is exceptionally rare among those without European heritage, however the Melanesians of New Guinea are one of the few non-European races and the only black race known to have a high blonde hair rate. This is because the Papuans/Melanesians have the highest rate of the newly-evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 59.4% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele. Sub-saharan African has the lowest while the caucasian race has the second highest of 50% which may also account for their wide range of hair colors."
It is universally well-known and highly accepted fact by most people and even biology, sexuality, and feminine beauty studies concluded that Asian women are the most feminine race of women. This is obvious look at these many Asian beauties totally feminine features from head/hair to toe compared to Nordics, and they look smart, neat delicate fine perky features, charming, classy elegant, graceful, gracile, striking, very sexy looks and body, very round perky breasts, delicate smooth facial and body structure outline, cute, sweet, gorgeous, mysteriously interesting, seductive, exotic, and so on and on:
http://www.myspace.com/426126736
http://www.myspace.com/426126736/photos
Asian hair is the thickest, shiniest, strongest, silkiest, healthiest hair strands while blonde hair strand is the thinnest, weakess, dullest hair. (Google a lot of credible sources). The Asian skin is the softest, smoothest, most youthful, tightest skin pores, clearest/cleanest almost flawless; European White skin has high risk of getting skin cancer and age fast. (Google a lot of credible sources). Blue eyes have more medical implications than dark eyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color (under Medical Implications)
"Those with lighter iris color have been found to have a higher prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) than those with darker iris color;[51] lighter eye color is also associated with an increased risk of ARMD progression.[58] An increased risk of uveal melanoma has been found in those with blue, green or gray iris color.
.[42][45] However, a study in 2000 suggests that people with dark brown eyes are at increased risk of developing cataracts and therefore should protect their eyes from direct exposure to sunlight.[59]
Some study stated also stated "The lighter the eyes, the weaker the immune system."
Apparently, the light eyes have much more medical complications than the dark eyes. So in medical sense, the dark eyes is healthier and stronger gene.
http://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/do-brown-eyes-see-better-than-blue/
Do brown eyes see better than blue?
Recent research shows that blue-eyed men prefer blue-eyed women. Thus it appears that, at least to some observers, eye colour is important.
But why do humans have different eye colours?
It mostly comes down to the amount and location of melanin (yes, the same substance which controls skin colour) in the human eye. Pale eyes such as blue, grey or green eyes contain little melanin, dark brown eyes more. Which eye colour you get is primarily determined from genetic variation based on the eye colour of your parents.
But does your eye colour influence how you see?
It turns out that it does. The darker the eyes, the more light is absorbed as light waves pass through the eye, and the less light is available to reflect within the eye. Light reflection (scatter) within the eye can cause susceptibility to glare (eg. sun or headlights) and to poor contrast discernment. Thus it seems that people with darker eyes may have better vision in high-glare situations – perhaps this makes them better night drivers, for example.
Eye colour may also affect your colour vision. Here it seems that lighter eyes may provide some advantages.
So it seems to me that blue-eyed people should really go for dark-eyed partners – this way one can pick the paint colours, and the other can drive home at night.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080520153359AARz3H0
Are people with lighter eyes (blue or green) more sensitive to sun light?
(Most testify it's true)
Quite a lot of East Asians wear glasses not that the East Asian eyes geneticaly have eye problems, it's a result of too much studying as well as the Japanese have history of staring at the sun.
Asian eyes are not truly black. Most of the people who appear to have black eyes have, infact, extremely dark brown eyes that seem to be black.
When a light shines in the eyes, you can see that they're a very dark brown color.
Can humans have black eyes colors?
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090604174343AAwrsX2
Range of eye colors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
To be honest, there's something "off" with how these Nordic women look:
-Pasty pale (look kinda sick and not normal and not AS sexy and sensual skin tone compared to other race of womne wiht nice fair and tan skin; some of these women posted look kinda freaks or vampires, to be frank)
-facial shape not so good (look closely at the shape the outline of the head)
-the facial/body features and skin not perky/tight/uplifted nor well-defined quite droopy if you know what i mean (with that they look quite aged not youthful and that's how the features/skin of other races look like when they reach their 30's)
-the low cheekbone also gives them a not perky look.
-the nose of several women are not finely shaped and quite "fleshy" at the tip.
-extremely thin eyebrows is ugly, weird, and artificial looking
-freckles is ugly as it makes the skin look dirty not clear or flawless
-thin, dry, dull, lifeless, not shiny, weak, unhealthy, ugly looking hair. That's a bad hair day for race of women with great hair.
-skin not very tight, smooth, silky and clear compared to other races. you can see lines/wrinkles in some areas esp. on the neck.
-The breasts are not round shape and perky, droopy.
-the bodies are not very shapely, skin and flesh not firm perky looking looks like a body for women in late 20's.
-Most Nordics too have pancake ass and no hips.
-Many of these women have big and quite bony masculine head- just like the women you posted.
-Most Nordics age fast. Many men even Nordic men say this that blonde age fast, by the time they reach 25-30 they look 10-15 years older. Their beauty is short term.
Hey Erik,
Beauty IS subjective. A lot of these Nordic women you put up as *epitome of beauty* are mediocre bland looking to me with no outstanding features at all and pale (not sensual) and bird thin lips and im sure to very many people as well they're so-so women who dont stand out at all. Most of these women you think the most attractive won't be voted as the most beautiful women in the world by ANY beauty magazine or beauty polls. They're bland and plain.
Oh forgoodness sake. Wipe most womens make up off and pull their hair back and they will look more masculine. Ridiculous article.
About the term "Latin" again:
You said that you don't like Latin women, but you love Rita Hayworth. Rita Hayworth (née) Margarita Cansino) was born to an Irish-Italian mother, from whom she inherited, I suppose, her coarse face and broad nose, but probably also the full lips and great hair, and to a Spanish father (a gipsy, I think), from whom she probably has her eyes and forehead (and the sensual, full hair).
Rita Hayworth doesn't seem very feminine to me, although I understand that people like her figure. The waist-hip-ratio is usually the strength of Spanish and Italian women, for they have tiny waist and rounded hips seen from both the front AND the side. But Rita's face is not particularly feminine and bleached hair should never be attractive to men used to be around women with real blond or red hair, in my oppinion.
Dear Emily:
I am a little bit confused about your comments on "Latin" women. As a German, I never know what people mean when they say "Latin". Do you mean Latin-American women or do you mean Spanish women (from Spain, in Europe)? If you mean Latin-American women, your point is partially right, but "Latin-American" is not a race or etnicity. Latin-Americans are mostly Native Americans (just notice their mongoloid traits: eyes, lips, cheekbones) mixed (or not) with African slaves and/or European conquerors. So it is almost impossible that there is any semitic element in them (which by the way wouldn't have any historical explanation). Their hooked noses have a much more obvious explanations if you look at the pictures of some Peruvian or Bolivian indigenous population. Latin-Americans from other regions, like Mexico for instance, will never have that kind of nose-bridge because the indigenous population shows a much more typically mongoloid kind of nose.
And if with "Latin" you mean Spaniards, then I am sorry to disappoint you, but the population of the Iberian Peninsula (with the exeception of the Basques) have pretty low nose-bridges, lower than an average Halstatt Nordic, and very selten aquiline.
At this point I really would like to explain you something concerning "aquiline" or as you call them "hooked" noses. There is a big difference between an aquiline nose on a Swede or a German (let's take German Poet Schiller as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gerhard_von_K%C3%BCgelgen_001.jpg ) and the hooked nose on a semitic individual. Racial theorists have always consider a thin, not very "hooked" aquiline nose to be a pure Nordic trait and, if you think of it, you will probably be able to remember some people of your own etnicity who have convez bridges, but their nose will be surely not as big and wide as the one on Middle-Easterners. For many centuries, aquiline noses were considered a very noble feature, often seen in portraits of Nordic nobleman, leaders and intellectuals.
In general, a lower nose-bridge is considered more feminine, but the average nose-bridge of Halstatt Nordics (mainly Swedes and Danish) is rather high. Of course, it is lower in women than in men, but if it is very low you should consider if that person is maybe partly Finnish and therefore with a strong Asian component. What I wanted to say is that aquiline noses, if they are narrow and long (when seen from the front), that is "leptorrhine), they may be a purely Nordic trait if the rest of the face indicates so.
I hope you see that I didn't want to disagree with you in your general oppinion, I just wanted to offer some scientific terms basing on my experience as an archeologist.
Emily:
I find your examples for the Early Modern and Modern Ages very accurate, but I have to disagree about the Greeks. Their ideal of beauty doesn't resemble the beauty of nordic women (that I admire myself) if you take a close look to ancient greek sculpture depicting female beauty. In the first place, Archeology teaches us that Ancient Greeks show, as an etnicity, a very high level of sexual dimorphism, that means, among their skeletons the difference between women and men are very exaggerated. On the other hand, people of a nordic etnicity (specially Halstatt Nordics) show the lowest sexual dimorphism among the Caucasian subraces. Second, the heads of these women are dolicocephalic (elongated), like those of the Nordics (and Western Mediterraneans, and Atlanto-Mediterraneans, etc.), but their cheek bones are wider are more robust than those of an average nordic woman (or a Western European woman in General). Furthermore, their nose bridge is high, but unlike in Nordic people it is so high that it falls staight from their forehead. And least but not last, Greek scuptures tend to have, like most Mediterranean Caucasians, more rounded eyes that Nordics (and of course much more rounded than today's Eastern Europeans).
It's true that the Greek appreciated blond hair, and some (not all) of their Gods and Godesses had blond hair, because this colour was related to the sun. Blond hair is also related to youth and innocence in Europe and specially in Southern Europe. Maybe you have noticed that there are many more blond children than adults in Italy or Spain, because their hair usually darkens with age. Anyway we shouldn't consider "blond" in the meaning it has for us as Northern Europeans, but much more in the sense of "golden" or "reddish", as you said. Some of the pictures you took would be a good examples.
But we shouldn't forget that the Greeks, like most nations until the Romans, were very xenophobic also concrening beauty. Their appreciation of more Northern features was mor or less reduced to the hair colour, and blue eyes or a fair complexion were not considered beautiful. Blue eyes were considered a sign of a coward or ignobel spirit and related to some animals with negative characteristics. The Greeks considered themselves to be the most perfect people on Earth, and lucky to live in a land in which they got the bronze complexion that made them difference from their Northern, pale, barbarian neighbors, but not as dark as the ugly Africans. Snub noses, as sometimes seen in Nordics (and much more often in Western Mediterraneans and Eastern Europeans) were considered very ugly by the Greeks, specially if they were turned up. Socrates, who was cosidered a very ugly man at his time, was depicted having such a nose.
Anyway, I don't think we should exaggerate the influence of the Greeks in our beauty standards, trying to defend that the Greeks (or the Japanese or whoever) actually prefered Nordic features to their own, because this is not true and, esentally, it shouldn't matter what other peoples prefere when discussing Northern European beauty.
Of course, obesity was seen as a sign of sin and corruption and in these centuries in which obesity was rare even among wealthy individuals, it was often simply a symptom of some inherited disease and therefore unattractive.
About the breasts, I have to partially disagree with you. "Large-saggy/wrinkled/misshapen/malformed breasts" were indeed used to represent unattractive or sinful women (witches, prostitutes) or even the impersonation of certain sins and vices, as seen in romanic and gothic capitels in medieval churches. But big or "full", well formed breasts were allowed in a religious context, for instance in the form of a Roman Charity or Carità romana or a Virgo lactans (Mary breast-feeding the Christ Child). An that is the point of this question: For men in the Ancient and Medieval Europe, fuller or bigger breasts meant that a woman was not a virgin (not to marry) because she was probably a mother.
In Ancient Greece, that is in a non Christian or pre-Christian context, depictions of beautiful, young women also had proportionally small breasts (let's say most of them would have a B-cup), a small waist or at least a narrow rib-cage and rounded hips. Those were the women that inspired European art from the Renaissance to the end of the 19th century.
About the vulgarity of big breasts, usually beautiful women of a higher status in medieval lyric or novels are depicted as being somehow gracile, thin or even smallish and curvacious women only appear in satires or obscene stories, representing women of the lower classes, usually rustic countrywomen or innkeepers.
I also have a preference for slightly bigger breats myself, but when I see the depiction of those high, firm, rounded breasts in greek and medieval beauties I cannot imagine there was any kind of censorship behind the artists. As a matter of fact, some posters of Cranach's small-breasted, naked Venus in the tube in London were forbidden after the complaints of some parents that considered this picture to be too lascivious to be publically shown.
This was anyway a very interesting discussion!
Wow. Reading all these comments is like a story. What do I say to all of this? ... Tee hee, boobies. =D
DSWS-
I'm a woman.I don't agree with Erik regarding many things,particularly regarding the pornography on this site etc,however the use of this model isn't correct either.
I mean no offense,but it is naive to think of it in the way you stated.
This model was not just displaying the womans clothing for practical purposes.
Thsi male model was intentionally chosen due to his very feminine looks,the controversy and shock factor it would provide,the media attention etc.
If it was a case where there was no other option,then it would be reasonable to suggest that it's ok to use a man,a clothes dummie,hanger or other to display the women's clothing for practical/functional purposes and what does it matter what displays them as long as it does the job.
However,this isn't the case here.They purposely chose this model,this model would have got paid etc,when there are plenty of female models-of various shapes,nationalities,styles etc to choose from- that they could have gave the job to.
Discrimination in modeling? I would agree if we are in the 80s and the catwalk and magazine covers are ruled by the likes of Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and Christy Turlington. These days models either look like they need something to eat, need more sleep or need substance-abuse help. The ‘yuk factor’ is in, e.g. gap an obvious in the teeth, squinty eyes, a humpback slouch, and it is just sad that modeling has declined to this.
I find that a good supermodel needs to be a great role model as well. When I as young I look up to girls like Cindy Crawford, Isabella Rossellini, Christie Turlington and Linda Evangelista. These ladies are not only drop dead gorgeous, they also promote the importance of being beautiful, inside and out. I can still remember one of Cindy’s recommendations of a home-made facial scrub which consists mainly of used coffee grains! Many photographers will say these girls are professional supermodels and are not just about looking good. The likes of Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell have put modeling to shame.
Where can i find the discussion? Is it in this whole comment thread or there's more in other parts of the site?
If not too much trouble, can you link me?
"Unlike in women, it is harder to judge how masculine a man is because of the ease with which less masculine men can pack on more muscle mass given current technology, and the phenomenon of some men with a mix of multiple masculine and multiple effeminate characteristics."
No kidding! I'll give it a try, though . . .
Am I correct in judging:
Daniel Craig to be overall masculine in appearance?
Pierce Brosnan, Alan Rickman, David Boreanaz, Clint Eastwood, and Brad Pitt to be average overall in terms of masculinity/femininity?
Hayden Christensen, Ewan Mcgregor, Jensen Ackles, Alain Delon, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and Edward Furlong to be in the effeminate range?
Ted Danson to have a hyper-masculine face? (Couldn't find any clear pics of his body.)
Sean Connery to have a masculine face + normal body?
Latvian: Comments written in a drunken state are not welcome. If you are foolish enough to go by what your lecturer has told you about not trusting what you read on the internet and going with published materials such as books, then do not waste your time with this site. Incidentally, you did not notice that the internet source I cited is actually a published book that was put online.
my name is: Asian beauty, including many of the examples you have shown, has been discussed at this site, just not in one place, and the discussion is not politically correct. The women you posted look good. One of them is white, some are part white and some have undergone cosmetic surgery.
Markus: I hope you educate your students about your improved understanding. It is not just examples of the paintings that are inconsistent with an alleged preference for overweight female bodies, but also writings that show that there was stigma against obesity, one of the reasons for which was that it was a clear sign of the deadly sin of gluttony.
On the other hand, the depiction of breasts in classical paintings does not allow us to infer that a preference for pinups with big breasts is a modern phenomenon. There is an obvious erotic element to bare female breasts, which can be minimized by either small breasts or large-saggy/wrinkled/misshapen/malformed breasts. So if you are going to depict nude or semi-nude slender or normal women and the Church is powerful, you have no choice but to minimize the erotic element by painting small breasts. Now, there were surely cases where the nude model used by a painter had small breasts or was a man who was painted as a woman. But if medieval artists had enough freedom, I am positive that a number of them would have produced paintings along the lines of modern pinup art, where women with large, well-formed and perky breasts are depicted often.
There is also no apparent reason to believe that large breasts in the absence of obesity would be considered vulgar [pre 1950s] outside a Christian [or similar] cultural environment, controlling for how they are displayed.
Hi. I find your article about feminine beauty very interesting.
Can I get your opinion about Asian beauty.
What do you think about these some samples of beautiful Asian women? How they rate in your
feminine-masculine beauty scale? The myspace link has Many photos, prettier women, check them out.
http://www.myspace.com/426126736/photos
Hello, Erik. I found this thread very interesting and I must admit that I had missed something like this here before (apparently I hadn't simply found it). I have studied History and Archeology, but I also teach Art History to undergraduates and they all have this misconception that artists in the last centuries liked fat or overweight women. The women you show here happen to be pretty fair representatives of men's preferences among Europeans in those centuries, no matter if in Italy (Botticelli), Germany (Cranach) or Spain (Goya). Rubens was much more the exception than the rule and the fattest women he painted still look much more like a next door "fatty" than like an obese woman.
Another thing that I find fascinating about this women is that their breasts are always very small in proportion to their bodies. Of course they're high and rounded, but they don't look at all like play-boy models, do they? The preference for very big breasts is a new phenomenon of the 1950s. Before, reasonably small but still noticeable breasts were a sign of youth and virginity. Women with big breasts were considered vulgar and those were attributes often connected to women of the lower classes.
Sorry but maybe u just don't have what it takes to be a fashion model. I'm not saying u aren't pretty but fashion modeling requires more than that. And so what people tell u u should model people tell me I should model but guess what I'm 5 4" so There's no point in going into something that requires height I don't have. And for u u lack the facial charchterstics like high cheekbones. A girl I worked with was signed to elite management before she got pregnant and she was 5 7 120 straight muscle tho and high cheekbones and a strong jaw. Feminine not really but it worked for her. U just need to find ur niche and if it's not fashion it can be somewhere else. But u need to get better modeling pictures those are not helping u at all
Pages