Bob the Chef: Most of your verbiage requires no comment. As to the rest, here it is. Nothing in this site does not give thought to culture shaping preferences. I do not think there are any galleries within this site comprising of a significant number of women with round faces or “pudgy fat cheeks.” I do not have a low opinion of the attractiveness of fashion models, period, but like some of them myself.
The contention that “High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive” is misleading. Sexual maturity is indicated by more developed/contoured cheekbones. How the size increases and how the contours develop varies with exposure to sex hormones. Sexual maturity comprises of greater development of the cheekbone arches and the shrinking of cheekbones in the cheek area of men, thus resulting in a higher-placed-cheekbones- or high-cheekboned look with masculinization, and in women, the cheekbones tend to expand in the cheek area, giving a low-cheekboned look.
Your example of Grace Kelly itself fails to substantiate your statement on high cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicating sexual maturity and hence being attractive. If you contrast Grace Kelly with Amanda Heard, it is obvious who has slimmer cheeks and higher cheekbones (whereas the angles are different, feel free to search for other pictures). Both women look sexually mature, both are attractive.
Ian B.: What do I mean by “my terms”? Perhaps a visual illustration will help. If less feminine women are closer to an androgynous mean, what mean is the following woman—exaggerated feminine curves, thick bones and well-developed muscles—closer to or more distant from?
It is hardly the case that selecting a masculine man is pointless to women if the possible benefits to male offspring are negated by possible negative outcomes in female offspring. The masculine man will tend to be more dominating and thus in a better position for resource acquisition and leadership, thereby having more opportunities for inseminating women. Thus any reduced fertility in female offspring can potentially be overcompensated for by the chances of male offspring growing up to be more successful with women. Of course, if there is the risk that a masculine man is more likely to be a cad than a dad, a woman always has the opportunity to marry (or form a pair bond) with a less masculine man but have her children fathered by more masculine men. In addition, men who can develop into healthy adults under extreme conditions (in our case an extreme sex hormone profile) also have some overall good genetics. So there are plenty of reasons for women to favor having children by healthy men with above average masculinity even though there is the potential downside that the female offspring born from such men will tend to be less feminine.
My position does not amount to bearded men having bearded daughters. The daughters of bearded men are going to develop under far lesser androgen levels because they will not have testes. Similarly, the sons born to busty women are not going to have female busts because they will not have ovaries.
Please read the literature on sexually antagonistic selection. The problems that constitute this phenomenon co-exist with sexual dimorphism and sexual selection.
Erik, I am a little perplexed as to what you mean by your terms. A feminised girl is by definition more dimorphic (that is, distant from an androgynous mean) than a less feminised girl. IF we take an example of say robustness of jawline, the more dimorphic girls will have less robust jawlines, which are feminine by definition. The boys have more robust jaws, and are masculised, and more dimorphic. Feminised/masculised and "dimorphic" are just synonyms. They mean the same.
When a (genetically controlled) feature is dimorphic it means that it varies in some way between male and female. If it is inherited equally by either gender, it is not a masculine/feminine feature. It's just a feature. Like, hair colour. "Redhead" is not a gender attribute, and is not dimorphic. If the same gene produced redder hair in girls and less red hair in boys it would be; and then sexual selection could select for it. But if it doesn't, it's no use in sexual selection. So we're interested in genes that differ in effect in boys and girls.
If your thesis were correct, then there would be no phenotypical dimorphism. Mate choice becomes irrelevant. A couple will have (on average) equal numbers of boys and girls. If choosing a male with a robust jaw will give both boys and girls a robust jaw, then any advantage of the increased attractiveness the boys have is negated by the ugliness of the girls. There is thus no point for the female to choose less or more robust jawed males. She can't improve the survival of her genes by doing so. What she gains on the swings, she loses on the roundabouts. She can have precisely the same genetic success by picking mates (in terms of "masculine features") entirely at random.
But then neither will sexual dimorphism be selected for. There's no point to it. Nobody can gain advantage or disadvantage with dimoprhic features. Since our species is strongly dimorphic, we can be sure that has not been the case. Robust males marry gracile females, and have robust sons and gracile daughters. If they don't, sexual dimorphism will rapidly vanish in the population and androgyny will rule. Your position is tantamount to saying that busty women will have busty sons, and bearded men will have bearded daughters. That clearly isn't the case.
Krizalid: It is incorrect that steroids do not affect facial attractiveness. Sex steroids/hormones shape masculine-feminine facial features, and femininity is strongly related to attractiveness in women. This contention is not refuted by showing examples of unattractive feminine faces since femininity is not the sole determinant of attractiveness. The majority of attractive women are feminine. Conversely, a much greater proportion of feminine women are attractive than non-feminine women.
Ian B.: I did not argue that feminized women will have feminized offspring, but that they will tend to have more feminine offspring. The actual outcome will depend on who has fathered the offspring, but other things being the same, the tendency would be to have more feminine offspring. Regarding your statement—“If feminised women produced less masculine boys, they're dooming their own offspring to lower status and reproductive success. It would evolutionary suicide”—you forget that lowered reproductive success of their male offspring would be matched by greater reproductive success of their female offspring.
You have also stated that masculinized girls and feminized boys are less gendered/less dimorphic. This is true of some, not of all. Sometimes you will find women with an effectively high level of sex steroids and you will observe thick bones, a well-developed musculature and exaggerated feminine curves, a very different look from the less gendered appearance typical of high-fashion models. Similarly, you will find men who may have an effeminate physique but other features that are normally masculine and even hypermasculine.
Your genetic model is not applicable; you find it tempting because you think it easily accounts for why humans can be more sexually dimorphic than an ancestral species (which is not quite correct, as the comparison varies depending on which feature is compared and which sub-species is considered). Feminine women pairing with masculine men will lead to feminine daughters and masculine sons when secondary sexually characteristics, the topic being visually illustrated in the article, are shaped by genes that have opposite effects on the sexes. Whereas the latter could be true with respect to some features, there is no way it is going to be true for a large number of features that are affected by quantitative trait loci.
Why should a lantern jaw (as a young adult) in Arnold Schwarzenegger make us conclude that he is a very masculine man? The latter would be a reasonable inference if there were corroboration from other parts of his face. However, if you look at his profile view, you will notice alveolar prognathism (protruding mouth region) and nasal bones that are not so prominent, both nowhere close to highly masculine looking for central Europeans. Similarly, his wife, Maria Shriver, has robusticity in her face that should not be confused with a high level of masculinization (consider her Irish background… you can look up the literature on more facially robust ethno groups in Ireland compared to other arrivals in Britain such as the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, etc.).
Another thing as to WHY they are really attractive, and that is they are posing like sluts and of reproductive age. Just like all the other young naked whores on the Internet. They have cute button noses and Chiubby cheeks making them look submissive. That's it. They're not beautiful feminine amazing women... Just whores!! Last time I'm saying it
They look like sluts.. And they are. They are prettier than some of the unattractive celebrities not including Megan fox who is actualy pretty. It's just sad that the only way a girl can be considered beautiful is if she looks like these sluts. There is no attractive masculine guys in media why don't you post ideal masculine guys so that everyone can see what kind of guy all these sluts u would have sex with. And it's probably not u
"Infamous," Emily? Before you, I have never seen anyone else who mentioned it in that context. In my teens, when I studied in the Middle East, I and many Indian students were called something which translated from Arabic meant what "button nose" means in English. Not "big hooked nose." Did you make up in your head along with your delusions. Wait, according to you every other than Swedes have big noses: Asians, Latinas, Germans, Italians, Slavic, Romanian, Finns etc. How come no one else but you noticed Swedes apparently having the smallest nose height in the world?
Indian noses are tiny, soft, slightly broad and upturned much more than Swedes and other Europeans as proven by every scientific study known on Earth, and by any casual observer; it's also a testament that you can only find 3 to 10 photos maximum to support your false agenda.
Indian faces are small, heart-shaped and quite narrow more so than Swedes and other Europeans.
Indian eyes are large and almond-shaped more so than Swedes and other Europeans.
Indian pigmentation is dark, soft; and lovely to me.
Indian features are soft, and to me and many others feminine and beautiful.
Swedish and European features are to me hard, which makes many of them unfeminine. Though many women can have hard features and still be feminine. Hard why? Well, long faces, long large noses which are sharp and projected a lot, eyes that are often to deep set and small and unpronounced, thin lips, all this together = hard, and not beautiful more like "masculine-ly handsome." And these are just the features that a lot of Europeans share in general. If I start on Halstatt Nordids, Keltic Nordids and Faelids, which most Swedes are, the day would never end!
Oh, but see I didn't bash Swedes and Europeans or portray any of their features wrongly or make up false features for them. I didn't spam this thread with hideous unrepresentative Swedes with that a large, hooked nose which would make a Middle-Easterner blush, though I can find 100s by just logging on my facebook account, unlike you who can't even find 25 for my group with hunting like a woman possessed. I just stated facts, which are backed by scientific studies and general observations made by millions including myself, and an opinion.
slender women are sexy shut your mouth small breasts are still breasts which are FEMININE. boobs are boobs guys like them all women should be PROUD of thgeir beautiful bodies which allll have curves. everyone knows what is FAKE. FAKE tits are not natural, real shapes. Real shapes last, fake sag and you wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole 20 years from now buddy us slender girls will keep our DELICATE shape.
Look, let's take it step by step. Some general analysis of the schlock on this page....
First off, since this website likes to fetishize studies without giving any thought to the fact that statistics do not make science only charlatanism, and that stated preferences are influenced by culture, self-perception, childhood, etc, etc, I will point out that there are plenty of studies which acknowledge the softness that femininity entails, it know where they apply and where they don't. High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive. Now, knowing the crude intellectual capacities and the inability to grasp subtleties of the typical internet denizen, I will point out that this does not mean overly chiseled face. Yes, an overly robust nose looks masculine, as does a lower brow, yaddadda. We're all hear it before. The inportance general quality of softness must be applied properly. Being plush and fat does not make a woman feminine. It washes out any features she might have that would have signaled femininity. Neither does a round face (some of the examples given by the websites's author are appalling! Absolutely tasteless, bland or below average women, even downright awkward!). Some of the slovenly faces in his gallery lack any elegance. If I were to hurl accusations at the author, I would accuse him of tastelessness at the very least, and pedophilia at the worst. Pudgy fat cheeks are meant for babies, not women. There is nothing classic about it.
A few pictures of Grace Kelly's face function as generally good examples of feminine facial bone structure (I say a few, because others are questionable, and might represent distortions of the camera, or unfortuitous style).
Long face (not a round, formless blob), straight jaw line with no sagging double chin. Larger eyes, restrained nose, good jaw definition, and so on. The softness is at the edges. No sharp angles at the edges. Rounded edges! That's what is meant! Not a chipmunk, or some rubenesque monstrosity! All this talk of robustness and I fail to see mention that robust figures and fat hamhock legs and butts are extremely masculine! A women should be dainty where should be dainty, and strong where she should be strong! Describing what I mean would require lots of words. I am simply surprised so few have the cohesive aesthetic formed in their heads. And another thing: objective is a funny word. Why? Because not all men have equal powers of discernment.
Now, many runway models, if not most, fail to impress me. However, there are a few gems which I prize. Why? Because they preserve a slender figure without going into excessive anorexia or whorish obesity and hottentot ugliness. They also have stately faces.
Now, stop looking to porn sites for pictures! You pervs need to stop surfing the web and coming here for approval from a crowd of buggers.
The success rate of eating disorder prevention programs is indeed quite abysmal. However, one must also not forget the importance of choosing the right program that suits one's needs. Inevitably, it depends very much on individual whether s/he wants to recover or not. So, it is very important to understand that an effective program is the one that takes into consideration both the physical and psychological aspect of a person.
I can't say I'm not pleased to see this, I'm actually devilishly pleased. I am growing sick and tired of trying to be perfect, to wear a ton of make-up, wigs and what-not. It's so ironic that even though men say we look great without make-up, they still turn their heads after such modern followers of Eve.
Ok, thankyou :). It's actually in interest in my nose but also an interest in others. I think it might anomaly because my family has done research and not until far far back in my family history does my family come from anywhere but Sweden. And then from Lithuania. I also have the typical nordic cheekbones (very marked), strawberry blonde hair, freckles, light green eyes and a nordic body type. I actually enjoy this feature since my nose is still fine, narrow, and elegant, many people say I'm very beautiful and it just gives me a more original look, but I'm curious about my ancestry.
(The nose of the girl on the photo doesn't resemblance mine AT ALL :)). When I told some friends I have a tiny bump, they said they haven't noticed, that my nose looks interly straight. And it does look interly straight on photos. I tried to photograph my nose in an angle so the bump could be seen I succeeded but only on one photo. It's really strange because it is a clear bump.
Um.. that girl you posted doesn't have a Nordic nose, it seems like an east European or central European nose. The Nordic nose is more narrower, larger and straight (as Admin wrote himself), not upturned. Her nose wasn't common in Sweden from what I saw. But I knew some Polish who had the same nose you define and the girl you posted. Maybe it's a mix or anomaly.
Hello everyone. I'm not sure if you possess much knowledge of this certain area but I can't seem to find an explanation for "nordic type" noses (straight, elegant, sometimes slightly pointed upwards) with a small bump anywhere online. A more prominent nasal bone basically. Do you think this trait could identify with a specific type of nose, e.g. a nordic nose, could it be a mix or simply happen by accident?
I'm meaning a straight fine nose with a tiny bump in the beginning of the nose(note: not a hump)
I've done my best to find pictures of this but I found they were very uncommon.
I daresay you're probably not reading this old thread any more, but I can't resist commenting anyway. I've read a lot of the site and it has some interesting ideas and good stuff, but this post makes no sense to me as somebody interested in evolutioanry theory and I think you've made an erroneous presumption, if I've understood the article correctly; that is that feminine women will have feminised offspring etc. That is, feminisation or masculisation applies to both sex offspring. I don't think sexual dimorphism works that way.
Instead, consider (for simplicity) two genomes in the population. Type A responds strongly to sexual development hormones, Type B responds weakly. The result of Type A is strongly gendered phenotypes. The result of Type B is weakly gendered phenotypes. That is, Type B genomes result in masculised girls and feminised boys; but what they actually are is less dimorphic; they are closer to an androgenous middle. That, I would argue, is what your masculised girls and feminised boys are. They are less gendered; less dimorphic.
It is then easily possible for strong sexual dimorphism to develop under natural selection, as appears to have happened to us since we split from chimps (who are weakly dimorphic compared to us). Strongly gendered phenotypes will be higher status in the society (we care a *lot* about attractiveness as a species) and mate together; their strongly dimorphic genomes will produce more of the same. Butch boys, girlie girls. If feminised women produced less masculine boys, they're dooming their own offspring to lower status and reproductive success. It would evolutionary suicide. If feminine women and masculine men have strongly dimoprhic genomes that produce feminine girls and masculine boys, then our system works.
Trying to think up an example, I thought of Schwarzenegger, who is *very* masculised with his massive lantern jaw etc. What pictures I can find of his daughters they do not appear masculised, they are rather attractive. THey are not *very* feminised though; then I took a look at Maria Shriver- and she's actually rather masculised facially at least. So that would explain not very girly daughters. Whatever, the daughters do not look like Arnie with his massive jaw etc. They're not masculised.
Anyway, if I am correct, couples featuring a very masculised father and very feminised mother should produce strongly dimorphic children. It would be nice to see a study of that.
Oh, really? Europeans show greater sexual dimorphism than Asians? When was this fact established? Do you and Erik (if he indeed does espouse this opinion) have any citations and studies to back it up?
Can you clarify which "non-Europeans" you mean when you compare them to Europeans (which itself is a highly diversified group). Middle Easterners (Lebanon, Iran etc.) and North Africans (Berbers) have just about as angular features many Europeans have, and East Africans (Somalia, etc.) and Indians (from India) have just as much or probably even more delicate facial features than most Europeans.
Erik: How would you judge the femininity of these three models: Candice Swanepoel, Elisandra Tomacheski, Kate Upton (try google image search). Would they make your "attractive women" section?
High cheek bones and a defined jaw line are not masculine features. They are features that make an individual attractive whether they are male or female. I found many of the females in right column(glamour models) to be unattractive. The difference between the right and the left column is not the amount of femininity they possess, but maturity. Round faces and sunken or low cheekbones are childlike features. High cheekbones and a defined jawline are a sign of facial maturity, which is why most people are attracted to these features. Evolution usually stops people from being attracted to childlike features as children are not fit to reproduce. If you are attracted to childlike features, you may want to seek therapy. However, I will agree with some of the features on this site that are considered to be more female. Larger breasts are more attractive in a females because it means that the female is at an appropriate age for procreation. Many high fashion models have little to no breasts. This is not because they are masculinized, but because breasts are mostly made of fat tissues. Models do not have enough fat on their bodies to possess large breasts. If they gained about twenty pounds, they would have breasts. I will also agree with full hips being attractive in women. I believe for a women to be ideal for procreation, she must measure eleven inches from one hip bone to the other. This is to allow space for an infant during development. Attractiveness in humans whether they are male or female is directly related to procreation. As far as facial features go this site does not promote femininity, but childlike features. If you don't agree, please do some research.
Justwanttosay, Rachel looks like a feminine 100% European woman. The European women in your link are masculinized, which is why they have larger noses, closer set eyes, and stronger features. You probably missed the part where Erik pointed out that Europeans are more sexually dismorphic than Asians; in other words, there is greater observable difference between the genders in Europeans than in Asians. A feminine European woman and a masculine European man will generally appear more feminized and masculinized, respectively, than a feminine Asian woman and a masculine Asian man. Of note, a masculinized European woman will look more masculine compared to ordinary European women than a masculinized Asian woman will look compared to ordinary Asian women. This is because sex differences are more exaggerated among Europeans.
Eurasian Sophia Jannok does not appear to be feminine. You are mistaking some ethnic traits Sophia got from her Asian side for femininity - mainly the decreased angularity of her facial features. Every race has certain ethnic traits that can be mistaken for increased femininity; for example, less angular facial features in non-Europeans, and more delicate facial features in Europeans.
Here is a better picture of Sophia. Notice the absence of a curvy, feminine physique.
Contrast the following pictures of Sophia with those of Rachel, and you should see that there is nothing "Asian" about Rachel's features. Notice Sophia's highly robust jaws and cheekbones - very typical of Asians or part-Asians. Rachel's finer features are within European norms.
Suffering from Anorexia is nothing compared to drugs. I would rather take part in a Drug Treatment rather than an Anorexia one. Just my 2 cents.
Bob the Chef: Most of your verbiage requires no comment. As to the rest, here it is. Nothing in this site does not give thought to culture shaping preferences. I do not think there are any galleries within this site comprising of a significant number of women with round faces or “pudgy fat cheeks.” I do not have a low opinion of the attractiveness of fashion models, period, but like some of them myself.
The contention that “High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive” is misleading. Sexual maturity is indicated by more developed/contoured cheekbones. How the size increases and how the contours develop varies with exposure to sex hormones. Sexual maturity comprises of greater development of the cheekbone arches and the shrinking of cheekbones in the cheek area of men, thus resulting in a higher-placed-cheekbones- or high-cheekboned look with masculinization, and in women, the cheekbones tend to expand in the cheek area, giving a low-cheekboned look.
Your example of Grace Kelly itself fails to substantiate your statement on high cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicating sexual maturity and hence being attractive. If you contrast Grace Kelly with Amanda Heard, it is obvious who has slimmer cheeks and higher cheekbones (whereas the angles are different, feel free to search for other pictures). Both women look sexually mature, both are attractive.
Ian B.: What do I mean by “my terms”? Perhaps a visual illustration will help. If less feminine women are closer to an androgynous mean, what mean is the following woman—exaggerated feminine curves, thick bones and well-developed muscles—closer to or more distant from?
http://hiphopvideomodels.net/amazinAmie/home.html
It is hardly the case that selecting a masculine man is pointless to women if the possible benefits to male offspring are negated by possible negative outcomes in female offspring. The masculine man will tend to be more dominating and thus in a better position for resource acquisition and leadership, thereby having more opportunities for inseminating women. Thus any reduced fertility in female offspring can potentially be overcompensated for by the chances of male offspring growing up to be more successful with women. Of course, if there is the risk that a masculine man is more likely to be a cad than a dad, a woman always has the opportunity to marry (or form a pair bond) with a less masculine man but have her children fathered by more masculine men. In addition, men who can develop into healthy adults under extreme conditions (in our case an extreme sex hormone profile) also have some overall good genetics. So there are plenty of reasons for women to favor having children by healthy men with above average masculinity even though there is the potential downside that the female offspring born from such men will tend to be less feminine.
My position does not amount to bearded men having bearded daughters. The daughters of bearded men are going to develop under far lesser androgen levels because they will not have testes. Similarly, the sons born to busty women are not going to have female busts because they will not have ovaries.
Please read the literature on sexually antagonistic selection. The problems that constitute this phenomenon co-exist with sexual dimorphism and sexual selection.
Erik, I am a little perplexed as to what you mean by your terms. A feminised girl is by definition more dimorphic (that is, distant from an androgynous mean) than a less feminised girl. IF we take an example of say robustness of jawline, the more dimorphic girls will have less robust jawlines, which are feminine by definition. The boys have more robust jaws, and are masculised, and more dimorphic. Feminised/masculised and "dimorphic" are just synonyms. They mean the same.
When a (genetically controlled) feature is dimorphic it means that it varies in some way between male and female. If it is inherited equally by either gender, it is not a masculine/feminine feature. It's just a feature. Like, hair colour. "Redhead" is not a gender attribute, and is not dimorphic. If the same gene produced redder hair in girls and less red hair in boys it would be; and then sexual selection could select for it. But if it doesn't, it's no use in sexual selection. So we're interested in genes that differ in effect in boys and girls.
If your thesis were correct, then there would be no phenotypical dimorphism. Mate choice becomes irrelevant. A couple will have (on average) equal numbers of boys and girls. If choosing a male with a robust jaw will give both boys and girls a robust jaw, then any advantage of the increased attractiveness the boys have is negated by the ugliness of the girls. There is thus no point for the female to choose less or more robust jawed males. She can't improve the survival of her genes by doing so. What she gains on the swings, she loses on the roundabouts. She can have precisely the same genetic success by picking mates (in terms of "masculine features") entirely at random.
But then neither will sexual dimorphism be selected for. There's no point to it. Nobody can gain advantage or disadvantage with dimoprhic features. Since our species is strongly dimorphic, we can be sure that has not been the case. Robust males marry gracile females, and have robust sons and gracile daughters. If they don't, sexual dimorphism will rapidly vanish in the population and androgyny will rule. Your position is tantamount to saying that busty women will have busty sons, and bearded men will have bearded daughters. That clearly isn't the case.
Krizalid: It is incorrect that steroids do not affect facial attractiveness. Sex steroids/hormones shape masculine-feminine facial features, and femininity is strongly related to attractiveness in women. This contention is not refuted by showing examples of unattractive feminine faces since femininity is not the sole determinant of attractiveness. The majority of attractive women are feminine. Conversely, a much greater proportion of feminine women are attractive than non-feminine women.
Ian B.: I did not argue that feminized women will have feminized offspring, but that they will tend to have more feminine offspring. The actual outcome will depend on who has fathered the offspring, but other things being the same, the tendency would be to have more feminine offspring. Regarding your statement—“If feminised women produced less masculine boys, they're dooming their own offspring to lower status and reproductive success. It would evolutionary suicide”—you forget that lowered reproductive success of their male offspring would be matched by greater reproductive success of their female offspring.
You have also stated that masculinized girls and feminized boys are less gendered/less dimorphic. This is true of some, not of all. Sometimes you will find women with an effectively high level of sex steroids and you will observe thick bones, a well-developed musculature and exaggerated feminine curves, a very different look from the less gendered appearance typical of high-fashion models. Similarly, you will find men who may have an effeminate physique but other features that are normally masculine and even hypermasculine.
Your genetic model is not applicable; you find it tempting because you think it easily accounts for why humans can be more sexually dimorphic than an ancestral species (which is not quite correct, as the comparison varies depending on which feature is compared and which sub-species is considered). Feminine women pairing with masculine men will lead to feminine daughters and masculine sons when secondary sexually characteristics, the topic being visually illustrated in the article, are shaped by genes that have opposite effects on the sexes. Whereas the latter could be true with respect to some features, there is no way it is going to be true for a large number of features that are affected by quantitative trait loci.
Why should a lantern jaw (as a young adult) in Arnold Schwarzenegger make us conclude that he is a very masculine man? The latter would be a reasonable inference if there were corroboration from other parts of his face. However, if you look at his profile view, you will notice alveolar prognathism (protruding mouth region) and nasal bones that are not so prominent, both nowhere close to highly masculine looking for central Europeans. Similarly, his wife, Maria Shriver, has robusticity in her face that should not be confused with a high level of masculinization (consider her Irish background… you can look up the literature on more facially robust ethno groups in Ireland compared to other arrivals in Britain such as the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, etc.).
Another thing as to WHY they are really attractive, and that is they are posing like sluts and of reproductive age. Just like all the other young naked whores on the Internet. They have cute button noses and Chiubby cheeks making them look submissive. That's it. They're not beautiful feminine amazing women... Just whores!! Last time I'm saying it
They look like sluts.. And they are. They are prettier than some of the unattractive celebrities not including Megan fox who is actualy pretty. It's just sad that the only way a girl can be considered beautiful is if she looks like these sluts. There is no attractive masculine guys in media why don't you post ideal masculine guys so that everyone can see what kind of guy all these sluts u would have sex with. And it's probably not u
"Infamous," Emily? Before you, I have never seen anyone else who mentioned it in that context. In my teens, when I studied in the Middle East, I and many Indian students were called something which translated from Arabic meant what "button nose" means in English. Not "big hooked nose." Did you make up in your head along with your delusions. Wait, according to you every other than Swedes have big noses: Asians, Latinas, Germans, Italians, Slavic, Romanian, Finns etc. How come no one else but you noticed Swedes apparently having the smallest nose height in the world?
Indian noses are tiny, soft, slightly broad and upturned much more than Swedes and other Europeans as proven by every scientific study known on Earth, and by any casual observer; it's also a testament that you can only find 3 to 10 photos maximum to support your false agenda.
Indian faces are small, heart-shaped and quite narrow more so than Swedes and other Europeans.
Indian eyes are large and almond-shaped more so than Swedes and other Europeans.
Indian pigmentation is dark, soft; and lovely to me.
Indian features are soft, and to me and many others feminine and beautiful.
Swedish and European features are to me hard, which makes many of them unfeminine. Though many women can have hard features and still be feminine. Hard why? Well, long faces, long large noses which are sharp and projected a lot, eyes that are often to deep set and small and unpronounced, thin lips, all this together = hard, and not beautiful more like "masculine-ly handsome." And these are just the features that a lot of Europeans share in general. If I start on Halstatt Nordids, Keltic Nordids and Faelids, which most Swedes are, the day would never end!
Oh, but see I didn't bash Swedes and Europeans or portray any of their features wrongly or make up false features for them. I didn't spam this thread with hideous unrepresentative Swedes with that a large, hooked nose which would make a Middle-Easterner blush, though I can find 100s by just logging on my facebook account, unlike you who can't even find 25 for my group with hunting like a woman possessed. I just stated facts, which are backed by scientific studies and general observations made by millions including myself, and an opinion.
well i found this pic of an indian girl ina wedding site ...she sure seems to have a square jaw and yet feminine
slender women are sexy shut your mouth small breasts are still breasts which are FEMININE. boobs are boobs guys like them all women should be PROUD of thgeir beautiful bodies which allll have curves. everyone knows what is FAKE. FAKE tits are not natural, real shapes. Real shapes last, fake sag and you wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole 20 years from now buddy us slender girls will keep our DELICATE shape.
She does have a big nose, which looks biggish even after airbrushing, apparently.
Look, let's take it step by step. Some general analysis of the schlock on this page....
First off, since this website likes to fetishize studies without giving any thought to the fact that statistics do not make science only charlatanism, and that stated preferences are influenced by culture, self-perception, childhood, etc, etc, I will point out that there are plenty of studies which acknowledge the softness that femininity entails, it know where they apply and where they don't. High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive. Now, knowing the crude intellectual capacities and the inability to grasp subtleties of the typical internet denizen, I will point out that this does not mean overly chiseled face. Yes, an overly robust nose looks masculine, as does a lower brow, yaddadda. We're all hear it before. The inportance general quality of softness must be applied properly. Being plush and fat does not make a woman feminine. It washes out any features she might have that would have signaled femininity. Neither does a round face (some of the examples given by the websites's author are appalling! Absolutely tasteless, bland or below average women, even downright awkward!). Some of the slovenly faces in his gallery lack any elegance. If I were to hurl accusations at the author, I would accuse him of tastelessness at the very least, and pedophilia at the worst. Pudgy fat cheeks are meant for babies, not women. There is nothing classic about it.
A few pictures of Grace Kelly's face function as generally good examples of feminine facial bone structure (I say a few, because others are questionable, and might represent distortions of the camera, or unfortuitous style).
http://www.05news.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Grace-Kelly.jpg.
Long face (not a round, formless blob), straight jaw line with no sagging double chin. Larger eyes, restrained nose, good jaw definition, and so on. The softness is at the edges. No sharp angles at the edges. Rounded edges! That's what is meant! Not a chipmunk, or some rubenesque monstrosity! All this talk of robustness and I fail to see mention that robust figures and fat hamhock legs and butts are extremely masculine! A women should be dainty where should be dainty, and strong where she should be strong! Describing what I mean would require lots of words. I am simply surprised so few have the cohesive aesthetic formed in their heads. And another thing: objective is a funny word. Why? Because not all men have equal powers of discernment.
Now, many runway models, if not most, fail to impress me. However, there are a few gems which I prize. Why? Because they preserve a slender figure without going into excessive anorexia or whorish obesity and hottentot ugliness. They also have stately faces.
Now, stop looking to porn sites for pictures! You pervs need to stop surfing the web and coming here for approval from a crowd of buggers.
The success rate of eating disorder prevention programs is indeed quite abysmal. However, one must also not forget the importance of choosing the right program that suits one's needs. Inevitably, it depends very much on individual whether s/he wants to recover or not. So, it is very important to understand that an effective program is the one that takes into consideration both the physical and psychological aspect of a person.
I can't say I'm not pleased to see this, I'm actually devilishly pleased. I am growing sick and tired of trying to be perfect, to wear a ton of make-up, wigs and what-not. It's so ironic that even though men say we look great without make-up, they still turn their heads after such modern followers of Eve.
Those breasts are amazing and you sure as hell have a great body!
Ok, thankyou :). It's actually in interest in my nose but also an interest in others. I think it might anomaly because my family has done research and not until far far back in my family history does my family come from anywhere but Sweden. And then from Lithuania. I also have the typical nordic cheekbones (very marked), strawberry blonde hair, freckles, light green eyes and a nordic body type. I actually enjoy this feature since my nose is still fine, narrow, and elegant, many people say I'm very beautiful and it just gives me a more original look, but I'm curious about my ancestry.
(The nose of the girl on the photo doesn't resemblance mine AT ALL :)). When I told some friends I have a tiny bump, they said they haven't noticed, that my nose looks interly straight. And it does look interly straight on photos. I tried to photograph my nose in an angle so the bump could be seen I succeeded but only on one photo. It's really strange because it is a clear bump.
How are anomaly types categorized? :)
Um.. that girl you posted doesn't have a Nordic nose, it seems like an east European or central European nose. The Nordic nose is more narrower, larger and straight (as Admin wrote himself), not upturned. Her nose wasn't common in Sweden from what I saw. But I knew some Polish who had the same nose you define and the girl you posted. Maybe it's a mix or anomaly.
Hello everyone. I'm not sure if you possess much knowledge of this certain area but I can't seem to find an explanation for "nordic type" noses (straight, elegant, sometimes slightly pointed upwards) with a small bump anywhere online. A more prominent nasal bone basically. Do you think this trait could identify with a specific type of nose, e.g. a nordic nose, could it be a mix or simply happen by accident?
I'm meaning a straight fine nose with a tiny bump in the beginning of the nose(note: not a hump)
I've done my best to find pictures of this but I found they were very uncommon.
http://www.realself.com/files/S4020460-41255.JPG
I daresay you're probably not reading this old thread any more, but I can't resist commenting anyway. I've read a lot of the site and it has some interesting ideas and good stuff, but this post makes no sense to me as somebody interested in evolutioanry theory and I think you've made an erroneous presumption, if I've understood the article correctly; that is that feminine women will have feminised offspring etc. That is, feminisation or masculisation applies to both sex offspring. I don't think sexual dimorphism works that way.
Instead, consider (for simplicity) two genomes in the population. Type A responds strongly to sexual development hormones, Type B responds weakly. The result of Type A is strongly gendered phenotypes. The result of Type B is weakly gendered phenotypes. That is, Type B genomes result in masculised girls and feminised boys; but what they actually are is less dimorphic; they are closer to an androgenous middle. That, I would argue, is what your masculised girls and feminised boys are. They are less gendered; less dimorphic.
It is then easily possible for strong sexual dimorphism to develop under natural selection, as appears to have happened to us since we split from chimps (who are weakly dimorphic compared to us). Strongly gendered phenotypes will be higher status in the society (we care a *lot* about attractiveness as a species) and mate together; their strongly dimorphic genomes will produce more of the same. Butch boys, girlie girls. If feminised women produced less masculine boys, they're dooming their own offspring to lower status and reproductive success. It would evolutionary suicide. If feminine women and masculine men have strongly dimoprhic genomes that produce feminine girls and masculine boys, then our system works.
Trying to think up an example, I thought of Schwarzenegger, who is *very* masculised with his massive lantern jaw etc. What pictures I can find of his daughters they do not appear masculised, they are rather attractive. THey are not *very* feminised though; then I took a look at Maria Shriver- and she's actually rather masculised facially at least. So that would explain not very girly daughters. Whatever, the daughters do not look like Arnie with his massive jaw etc. They're not masculised.
Anyway, if I am correct, couples featuring a very masculised father and very feminised mother should produce strongly dimorphic children. It would be nice to see a study of that.
Oh, really? Europeans show greater sexual dimorphism than Asians? When was this fact established? Do you and Erik (if he indeed does espouse this opinion) have any citations and studies to back it up?
Can you clarify which "non-Europeans" you mean when you compare them to Europeans (which itself is a highly diversified group). Middle Easterners (Lebanon, Iran etc.) and North Africans (Berbers) have just about as angular features many Europeans have, and East Africans (Somalia, etc.) and Indians (from India) have just as much or probably even more delicate facial features than most Europeans.
High cheek bones and a strong jaw line are not masculine features. They are features that make an individual attractive whether they are
male or female. I found many of the women in the right column or the glamour column to be unattractive. These columns do not
compare which women have more femininity, but maturity. High cheekbones and a defined jawline have features that suggest facial
maturity. This is why most people are drawn to these features. A round face and sunken or low cheekbones are childlike features as
are smaller lips, a low forehead, and smaller chins. Evolution usually stops people from being attracted to childlike features as
children are not fit for procreation. If you are attracted to childlike features, you might want to seek therapy. However, I will agree
with some of the features on this site. Larger breasts make a female more appealing. They are a sign that the female is at an
appropriate age to reproduce. Models do tend to have little to no breast. This is not because they have been masculinized, but
because breasts are made mostly of fat tissues. Models do not have enough fat on their bodies for large breasts. If they gained
twenty pounds, they would have breasts. Wider hips are also a more female trait. For ideal procreation a woman's hips should be at
least eleven inches from one hip bone to the other. This is to allow space for fetal development. The attractiveness of any human is
related directly to procreation. As far as facial features go, this site does not promote femininity. It promotes childlike features. If
you do not agree, please do some research.
http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/28/2/441/F2.large.jpg
Take a look at this link. It compares the facial structure of a child to the facial structure of an adult. Now, tell me whats wrong with
this site? Does this site compare women who possess masculine features with women who possess feminine features OR does it
compare women who have mature faces with women who look like their features have not fully matured since the age of twelve?
There is a name for people who like this. Its called PEDO! This site should be abolished for so many reasons. You accuse people in
the fashion industry of being homosexuals who push the masculinization of women. I accuse you of secretly preferring the features
of children. Men have 20 percent more testosterone than women, but women do have testosterone. Just like men have some
estrogen. Yes, women can have higher levels of testosterone that would make them appear masculine, but no woman posted on this
site fits that category. Women can also have unusually low levels of testosterone.
Erik: How would you judge the femininity of these three models: Candice Swanepoel, Elisandra Tomacheski, Kate Upton (try google image search). Would they make your "attractive women" section?
High cheek bones and a defined jaw line are not masculine features. They are features that make an individual attractive whether they are male or female. I found many of the females in right column(glamour models) to be unattractive. The difference between the right and the left column is not the amount of femininity they possess, but maturity. Round faces and sunken or low cheekbones are childlike features. High cheekbones and a defined jawline are a sign of facial maturity, which is why most people are attracted to these features. Evolution usually stops people from being attracted to childlike features as children are not fit to reproduce. If you are attracted to childlike features, you may want to seek therapy. However, I will agree with some of the features on this site that are considered to be more female. Larger breasts are more attractive in a females because it means that the female is at an appropriate age for procreation. Many high fashion models have little to no breasts. This is not because they are masculinized, but because breasts are mostly made of fat tissues. Models do not have enough fat on their bodies to possess large breasts. If they gained about twenty pounds, they would have breasts. I will also agree with full hips being attractive in women. I believe for a women to be ideal for procreation, she must measure eleven inches from one hip bone to the other. This is to allow space for an infant during development. Attractiveness in humans whether they are male or female is directly related to procreation. As far as facial features go this site does not promote femininity, but childlike features. If you don't agree, please do some research.
Justwanttosay, Rachel looks like a feminine 100% European woman. The European women in your link are masculinized, which is why they have larger noses, closer set eyes, and stronger features. You probably missed the part where Erik pointed out that Europeans are more sexually dismorphic than Asians; in other words, there is greater observable difference between the genders in Europeans than in Asians. A feminine European woman and a masculine European man will generally appear more feminized and masculinized, respectively, than a feminine Asian woman and a masculine Asian man. Of note, a masculinized European woman will look more masculine compared to ordinary European women than a masculinized Asian woman will look compared to ordinary Asian women. This is because sex differences are more exaggerated among Europeans.
Eurasian Sophia Jannok does not appear to be feminine. You are mistaking some ethnic traits Sophia got from her Asian side for femininity - mainly the decreased angularity of her facial features. Every race has certain ethnic traits that can be mistaken for increased femininity; for example, less angular facial features in non-Europeans, and more delicate facial features in Europeans.
Here is a better picture of Sophia. Notice the absence of a curvy, feminine physique.
Contrast the following pictures of Sophia with those of Rachel, and you should see that there is nothing "Asian" about Rachel's features. Notice Sophia's highly robust jaws and cheekbones - very typical of Asians or part-Asians. Rachel's finer features are within European norms.
Pages