I realise im a bit late on this thread but felt the need to reply to some clear idiocy.
Being natalies boyfriend i can tell you that she is in no way shape or form eastern european she was born in the midlands to british parents,her hair is quite obviously dyed and she has white teeth. This is whats called a bad picture as most of the sets then were if you were to take a look at her latest un edited pictures on girl managements website you will see wht she usually looks like. It also make sme laugh when people say they wouldnt look at her twice after seeing one of her pictures yet almost every bloke always tries to hit on her. I suggest it would be best if you all went out for yourselves and found real people rather than criticising people you dont over a computer, you are what is commonly known as losers.
Amen to that! To say that Angelina is "not feminine" is like saying that Brock Lesnar is "not masculine". She is one of the most beautiful and sexy females that I have ever seen, and I have to agree with those who say that her breasts are about as close to perfect as female breasts can get.
Personally, I've never seen Celtic or Nordic peoples to be attractive races. They may have their outliers, but as a whole, both groups are host to many hairy overweight people, probably because it's so cold where they come from. May I add that hirsutism IS one of the defining ethnic traits of many European ethnic groups, and it is definitely not seen as an ideal of attractiveness. Nor are red hair and freckles. It doesn't help that many white people don't age gracefully. The point is that white folks have ethnic traits that their own people frown upon, just like every other form of ancestry. Just because many attractive people of other races have features that coincide with the features of many attractive white people doesn't mean that everyone bases their ideals of beauty on what white folks look like. In the end, beauty is always personal, because some people are attracted to those I find hideous, and vice-versa.
I don't know what 'Emily' looks like but it's evident from the tripe he/she posts that they are somewhat cerebrally challenged and quite delusional. Why? Let's break it down ..
'Emily': "You people need to lay off with the "racist" nonsense. Preferring the white race in terms of looks is not racist, it is a matter of taste. Just as you have a right to your preferences, so have others. I know, it is hard for you to grasp, probably.
Crying racist is getting old and fewer and fewer are jumping on cue as soon as you shout it anymore, since you have abused the word too often. It is losing its potency".
But this is not what our 'Emily' is doing. He/she is also denigrating people of other backgrounds, constantly as can be seen quite clearly by his/her posts above.
Emily speaks of the truth. Emily clearly has no understanding of the word's meaning. Emily puts across his or her viewpoint, nothing more and it reads like the illogical ramblings of a racist underachiever, quite possibly because that is what Emily is. Emily, dear, the TRUTH is something that is proven, factual, supportable by evidence: the polar opposite of the bigoted drivel you spin on this site.
"All we need to do is find photos of African or African American women who are truly black in order to examine what blacks look like". Emily must be the only person in the world who can irrefutably determine all of someone's heritage from looking at a picture of them. I'm sure if geneticists had this (imaginary) skill it would be a boon for them. Emily is playing smart but not being clever.
Emily "The fact is that the black race is the most primitive one - being closest to our primate ancestors - the least evolved one, the coarsest one, and also the most masculine. That is why it is also considered the least attractive one, just as Erik explains, since evolvement and appeal go hand in hand."
Fact? What fact? Are you making wild claims again and pretending they have some credibility? I wonder what qualifies the opinion of 'Erik'? One hopes that he's not just another racist misfit with a busy account on Sto*mfr*nt. It may not be a barrel of laughs being one of life's losers but perhaps seeking counselling rather than trying to grasp at straws, creating scapegoats to feel superior to would be a better approach.
Emily: "There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile with less prominent noses, thinner lips, smaller teeth, less protruding jaw, lighter skin and less wolly, wild hair. In other words, those who have more muted black traits, instead approaching the evolved Nordic white ideal, will seem more attractive than those with pronounced and heavy black racial traits, I think."
[sarcasm] ...ah, the soothing words of a non-racist! [/sarcasm]
If I ever see a woman who fits your mythical (and that's all it is, MYTH based on centuries of white-supremacist 'thinking') Nordic white ideal, who is even 20% as attractive as that total beauty second from right in the photo above I'm sure I'll keel over and need resuscitation! The arrogance of fools posting pictures of such attractive people and pretending that they themselves look more attractive! In the interests of fairness, Emily really should post up her own photograph so we can all have a chuckle. At least we could have some insight into what drives her illogical prejudices. (But he/she won't do so, of that I am quite confident). People can be so funny when they strive to be taken seriously.
I'm not reading through all of those comments word for word, but I managed to get the gist of it.
#1. The website didn't offend me at all. It's simply a comparison of the feminine traits of real women to the masculine traits of the models that the fashion designers pick. The point that I got was that most attractive women have curves and look "softer". Most fashion models have more pronounced features and less curves. That's not for all women, or all models, but it is a general trend.
#2. The guy who made this website has a thing for white chicks with about C-D cup breasts and pronounced butts. JUST LIKE MOST WHITE MEN. Most doesn't mean all.
#3. About 90% of the commenters seem to be white. Which leaves the people like me, who are not white, out of the loop. You all are having an argument about whether blue eyes or dark eyes are sexy. How about this tidbit? When women become aroused, their pupils enlarge. Color of the eyes doesn't matter as much as pupil size.
The girl in A has bigger pupils and looks more attractive. The retouched photo of Kunis has pupils that are obscured by a glare and are therefore smaller and less noticable. Which is more attractive?
So if a woman has large pupils, she's going to be more attractive regardless of eye color. The only difference is that women who have dark eyes look like they have bigger pupils anyway.
#4. Animals will seek out mates that have a higher genetic diversity. So mixed children should be more attractive.
BUT ABOVE ALL
#5. Men like women of all shapes and sizes, of all races and ethnicities, of all socio-economic backgrounds and education levels. They just love women. And there is something sexy about each of us regardless of whether we fit the ideal.
This is one of the most delightful women I've seen on the internet! I've always been particularly partial to women with small breasta and I just love the way she looks.
Emily is an avid Nordicist, and while I have absolutely no problem with that or with ethnocentrism (showing a marked preference for one's own culture & ethnic/racial background is actually very healthy), I do have a problem with the promotion of false stereotypes. Romanians are very much a White European people (NOT gypsies), as I have explained in my above post.
Emily, very few of the "Romanian" women you posted are actually ethnic Romanians. Most of them are obvious race-mixtures, and by definition cannot be Romanian since real Romanians are not non-whites. Notice how some of your "Romanian" examples have features which approximate those of the Indians you posted above - these women have had gypsy admixture, and thus are no more representative of Romanians than Bruce Lee is of Germans (he was half German, half Chinese, btw). Furthermore, hook noses are actually uncommon among Romanians; the most typical Romanian nose shape is wavy (see example below for a refined version). Your idea of what a Romanian must look like is obviously colored by the mass movements of gypsies from Romania into other European countries when Romania joined the EU. Other European nationalities tend to take these gypsies for the real thing (real Romanians) on the basis that they speak the Romanian language - the outrageous thing is that gypsies are of completely different racial stock! And, to my chagrin, there are more pictures readily available of gypsies from Romania than there are of real Romanians. Not to mention that whenever a member of the highly criminally-oriented gypsy race ends up in the news, he or she will invariably be described as "Romanian," further perpetuating this case of mistaken identity.
Alexandra Platareanu is an actual, ethnic (White) Romanian.
Romania's most famous poet: Mihai Eminescu
Romanian children in traditional dress:
Romanian performers.
You mentioned somewhere in this website that you don't like it when people perpetuate false stereotypes about Nordics, such as the one about flat backsides being more prevalent in the North. Well, I would appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate false stereotypes about Romanians. We aren't gypsies, and those "Romanians" who are mixed with gypsies are just that - race-mixes, not Romanians.
To all who spam the comments sections here with advertisements for shoes and whatnot: I won't buy your stuff (or even visit your websites for that matter) JUST TO SPITE YOU.
I'm about 2 years late to this discussion,but my theory on why longer legs might be considered more attractive is that they are a youthful trait, since legs are disproportionately longer during puberty than during adult years.
That being said, I wondered if grown women with proportionately longer legs have a development issue. In my case, I am 62 inches tall and my legs are 40 inches. I haven't measured any other people's legs to see if that's abnormal for an adult, but I have seen many other women with disproportionately long legs. If you look at teens, though, you'll see that long legs are largely an adolescent trait in both men and women.
romanians are latins not gypsies, i am romanian and never saw those ugly noses around me, actualy romanian women are typicali quite pretty, very stupid article
I don't think any of them are masculine. Some are MORE masculine then others, but no where near the look of a man, well a healthy man anyways. If a guy doesn't exercise and eat healthy then he wont develop as masculine as he should. And that might be why you find these girls unattractive. Because they kinda look like you.
Personally through reading this site, I can't believe some of the stuff posted here. As a photographer, I loathe photographing women with chubby chins and round faces.
I think high cheekbones, a strong jawline(although not a long jaw), full lips, eyes that are not spaced too close together and a unique nose make up a beautiful face.
I don't find none of the women that you listed on this site as attractive good looking in any sense of the world. Most of them look quite plain and homely to me.
Some of the most beautiful women I can think of have those features: Rachel Weisz, Angelina Jolie, Erin O'Connor, Marlene Dietrich, Louise Brooks, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Lucy Lawless, pre-surgery Rose McGowan, Karen Elson, Gong Li, Grace Jones, Alek Wek, Michelle Pfeiffier,young Angelica Huston, younger Annie Lennox (watch the video for "Why" before you comment, her face was flawless), Audrey Hepburn, Brody Dalle and Shirley Manson.
In my opinion, Shirley Manson is quite possibly the most gorgeous woman I have ever seen...
although in all honesty, I could say that I think any of the women in the list I just provided are leagues above the women listed on this site as good looking.
I can't imagine a single woman you listed as attractive going up against the looks of Rachel Weisz and besting her. She is just too beautiful for such ordinary girls to compete against.
this entire website is insulting to women everywhere. i cannot believe some dumb bitch actually wrote this bullshit.
if this website was meant to 'celebrate femininity' then it would INCLUDE women of all shapes and sizes, not sit around and criticise 'masculine' features on real women. yes, models are real women. i am one of those skinny girls u probably grew up being jealous of. guess what? i'm a real woman. and evidently more in tune with what it is to be one than you ever could be.
plenty of my guys have found me to be sexy and it is pathetic that someone would sit around and call out other womens' features and call them 'not sexy'...ur opinion is not the opinion of the rest of the world, so you should really stop writing as if it is.
....i cant believe people as ignorant and dumb as u actually exist. god help us all. putting this negativity into the world will come back to you. and karma is a bitch.
If that were true, why do many Americans think that Antonio Banderas is Mexican, and specifically "mestizo"? Same goes for Penelope Cruz. It's not just W.A.S.P. Americans who think this way, either. There is some real confusion in the U.S. over who is "white", which can end with some pretty ridiculous results.
Melsiande is hot and this forum is full of trolls.
I realise im a bit late on this thread but felt the need to reply to some clear idiocy.
Being natalies boyfriend i can tell you that she is in no way shape or form eastern european she was born in the midlands to british parents,her hair is quite obviously dyed and she has white teeth. This is whats called a bad picture as most of the sets then were if you were to take a look at her latest un edited pictures on girl managements website you will see wht she usually looks like. It also make sme laugh when people say they wouldnt look at her twice after seeing one of her pictures yet almost every bloke always tries to hit on her. I suggest it would be best if you all went out for yourselves and found real people rather than criticising people you dont over a computer, you are what is commonly known as losers.
Amen to that! To say that Angelina is "not feminine" is like saying that Brock Lesnar is "not masculine". She is one of the most beautiful and sexy females that I have ever seen, and I have to agree with those who say that her breasts are about as close to perfect as female breasts can get.
Very well-written and interesting articles! Thanks!
Personally, I've never seen Celtic or Nordic peoples to be attractive races. They may have their outliers, but as a whole, both groups are host to many hairy overweight people, probably because it's so cold where they come from. May I add that hirsutism IS one of the defining ethnic traits of many European ethnic groups, and it is definitely not seen as an ideal of attractiveness. Nor are red hair and freckles. It doesn't help that many white people don't age gracefully. The point is that white folks have ethnic traits that their own people frown upon, just like every other form of ancestry. Just because many attractive people of other races have features that coincide with the features of many attractive white people doesn't mean that everyone bases their ideals of beauty on what white folks look like. In the end, beauty is always personal, because some people are attracted to those I find hideous, and vice-versa.
I don't know what 'Emily' looks like but it's evident from the tripe he/she posts that they are somewhat cerebrally challenged and quite delusional. Why? Let's break it down ..
'Emily': "You people need to lay off with the "racist" nonsense. Preferring the white race in terms of looks is not racist, it is a matter of taste. Just as you have a right to your preferences, so have others. I know, it is hard for you to grasp, probably.
Crying racist is getting old and fewer and fewer are jumping on cue as soon as you shout it anymore, since you have abused the word too often. It is losing its potency".
But this is not what our 'Emily' is doing. He/she is also denigrating people of other backgrounds, constantly as can be seen quite clearly by his/her posts above.
Emily speaks of the truth. Emily clearly has no understanding of the word's meaning. Emily puts across his or her viewpoint, nothing more and it reads like the illogical ramblings of a racist underachiever, quite possibly because that is what Emily is. Emily, dear, the TRUTH is something that is proven, factual, supportable by evidence: the polar opposite of the bigoted drivel you spin on this site.
"All we need to do is find photos of African or African American women who are truly black in order to examine what blacks look like". Emily must be the only person in the world who can irrefutably determine all of someone's heritage from looking at a picture of them. I'm sure if geneticists had this (imaginary) skill it would be a boon for them. Emily is playing smart but not being clever.
Emily "The fact is that the black race is the most primitive one - being closest to our primate ancestors - the least evolved one, the coarsest one, and also the most masculine. That is why it is also considered the least attractive one, just as Erik explains, since evolvement and appeal go hand in hand."
Fact? What fact? Are you making wild claims again and pretending they have some credibility? I wonder what qualifies the opinion of 'Erik'? One hopes that he's not just another racist misfit with a busy account on Sto*mfr*nt. It may not be a barrel of laughs being one of life's losers but perhaps seeking counselling rather than trying to grasp at straws, creating scapegoats to feel superior to would be a better approach.
Emily: "There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile with less prominent noses, thinner lips, smaller teeth, less protruding jaw, lighter skin and less wolly, wild hair. In other words, those who have more muted black traits, instead approaching the evolved Nordic white ideal, will seem more attractive than those with pronounced and heavy black racial traits, I think."
[sarcasm] ...ah, the soothing words of a non-racist! [/sarcasm]
If I ever see a woman who fits your mythical (and that's all it is, MYTH based on centuries of white-supremacist 'thinking') Nordic white ideal, who is even 20% as attractive as that total beauty second from right in the photo above I'm sure I'll keel over and need resuscitation! The arrogance of fools posting pictures of such attractive people and pretending that they themselves look more attractive! In the interests of fairness, Emily really should post up her own photograph so we can all have a chuckle. At least we could have some insight into what drives her illogical prejudices. (But he/she won't do so, of that I am quite confident). People can be so funny when they strive to be taken seriously.
I'm not reading through all of those comments word for word, but I managed to get the gist of it.
#1. The website didn't offend me at all. It's simply a comparison of the feminine traits of real women to the masculine traits of the models that the fashion designers pick. The point that I got was that most attractive women have curves and look "softer". Most fashion models have more pronounced features and less curves. That's not for all women, or all models, but it is a general trend.
#2. The guy who made this website has a thing for white chicks with about C-D cup breasts and pronounced butts. JUST LIKE MOST WHITE MEN. Most doesn't mean all.
#3. About 90% of the commenters seem to be white. Which leaves the people like me, who are not white, out of the loop. You all are having an argument about whether blue eyes or dark eyes are sexy. How about this tidbit? When women become aroused, their pupils enlarge. Color of the eyes doesn't matter as much as pupil size.
I'm not sure how to add images, but compare these two images(already used before)
A ) http://s362.photobucket.com/albums/oo62/picturesofswedes/?action=view¤t=swed684.jpg
B ) http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu59/mogs_album/browneyes-1.jpg
The girl in A has bigger pupils and looks more attractive. The retouched photo of Kunis has pupils that are obscured by a glare and are therefore smaller and less noticable. Which is more attractive?
More evidence:
http://sapientology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Dilated-Vs-Contracted-Pupils.jpg
So if a woman has large pupils, she's going to be more attractive regardless of eye color. The only difference is that women who have dark eyes look like they have bigger pupils anyway.
#4. Animals will seek out mates that have a higher genetic diversity. So mixed children should be more attractive.
BUT ABOVE ALL
#5. Men like women of all shapes and sizes, of all races and ethnicities, of all socio-economic backgrounds and education levels. They just love women. And there is something sexy about each of us regardless of whether we fit the ideal.
finally. someone sane :)
she's korean.
learn the bloody difference.
This site is pretty much dead now, but I thought I'd chime in that Emily is a little fucking nazi. What a wretched human being she is.
This is one of the most delightful women I've seen on the internet! I've always been particularly partial to women with small breasta and I just love the way she looks.
Emily is an avid Nordicist, and while I have absolutely no problem with that or with ethnocentrism (showing a marked preference for one's own culture & ethnic/racial background is actually very healthy), I do have a problem with the promotion of false stereotypes. Romanians are very much a White European people (NOT gypsies), as I have explained in my above post.
Emily, very few of the "Romanian" women you posted are actually ethnic Romanians. Most of them are obvious race-mixtures, and by definition cannot be Romanian since real Romanians are not non-whites. Notice how some of your "Romanian" examples have features which approximate those of the Indians you posted above - these women have had gypsy admixture, and thus are no more representative of Romanians than Bruce Lee is of Germans (he was half German, half Chinese, btw). Furthermore, hook noses are actually uncommon among Romanians; the most typical Romanian nose shape is wavy (see example below for a refined version). Your idea of what a Romanian must look like is obviously colored by the mass movements of gypsies from Romania into other European countries when Romania joined the EU. Other European nationalities tend to take these gypsies for the real thing (real Romanians) on the basis that they speak the Romanian language - the outrageous thing is that gypsies are of completely different racial stock! And, to my chagrin, there are more pictures readily available of gypsies from Romania than there are of real Romanians. Not to mention that whenever a member of the highly criminally-oriented gypsy race ends up in the news, he or she will invariably be described as "Romanian," further perpetuating this case of mistaken identity.
Alexandra Platareanu is an actual, ethnic (White) Romanian.
Romania's most famous poet: Mihai Eminescu
Romanian children in traditional dress:
Romanian performers.
You mentioned somewhere in this website that you don't like it when people perpetuate false stereotypes about Nordics, such as the one about flat backsides being more prevalent in the North. Well, I would appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate false stereotypes about Romanians. We aren't gypsies, and those "Romanians" who are mixed with gypsies are just that - race-mixes, not Romanians.
To all who spam the comments sections here with advertisements for shoes and whatnot: I won't buy your stuff (or even visit your websites for that matter) JUST TO SPITE YOU.
OMG, She does not look like she is 51.
I'm about 2 years late to this discussion,but my theory on why longer legs might be considered more attractive is that they are a youthful trait, since legs are disproportionately longer during puberty than during adult years.
That being said, I wondered if grown women with proportionately longer legs have a development issue. In my case, I am 62 inches tall and my legs are 40 inches. I haven't measured any other people's legs to see if that's abnormal for an adult, but I have seen many other women with disproportionately long legs. If you look at teens, though, you'll see that long legs are largely an adolescent trait in both men and women.
romanians are latins not gypsies, i am romanian and never saw those ugly noses around me, actualy romanian women are typicali quite pretty, very stupid article
I don't think any of them are masculine. Some are MORE masculine then others, but no where near the look of a man, well a healthy man anyways. If a guy doesn't exercise and eat healthy then he wont develop as masculine as he should. And that might be why you find these girls unattractive. Because they kinda look like you.
Thank you so much for this website, it is extremely informative!
wow... this is the stupidest thing I have ever read. You are an idiot.
Personally through reading this site, I can't believe some of the stuff posted here. As a photographer, I loathe photographing women with chubby chins and round faces.
I think high cheekbones, a strong jawline(although not a long jaw), full lips, eyes that are not spaced too close together and a unique nose make up a beautiful face.
I don't find none of the women that you listed on this site as attractive good looking in any sense of the world. Most of them look quite plain and homely to me.
Some of the most beautiful women I can think of have those features: Rachel Weisz, Angelina Jolie, Erin O'Connor, Marlene Dietrich, Louise Brooks, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Lucy Lawless, pre-surgery Rose McGowan, Karen Elson, Gong Li, Grace Jones, Alek Wek, Michelle Pfeiffier,young Angelica Huston, younger Annie Lennox (watch the video for "Why" before you comment, her face was flawless), Audrey Hepburn, Brody Dalle and Shirley Manson.
In my opinion, Shirley Manson is quite possibly the most gorgeous woman I have ever seen...
although in all honesty, I could say that I think any of the women in the list I just provided are leagues above the women listed on this site as good looking.
I can't imagine a single woman you listed as attractive going up against the looks of Rachel Weisz and besting her. She is just too beautiful for such ordinary girls to compete against.
this entire website is insulting to women everywhere. i cannot believe some dumb bitch actually wrote this bullshit.
if this website was meant to 'celebrate femininity' then it would INCLUDE women of all shapes and sizes, not sit around and criticise 'masculine' features on real women. yes, models are real women. i am one of those skinny girls u probably grew up being jealous of. guess what? i'm a real woman. and evidently more in tune with what it is to be one than you ever could be.
plenty of my guys have found me to be sexy and it is pathetic that someone would sit around and call out other womens' features and call them 'not sexy'...ur opinion is not the opinion of the rest of the world, so you should really stop writing as if it is.
....i cant believe people as ignorant and dumb as u actually exist. god help us all. putting this negativity into the world will come back to you. and karma is a bitch.
Jacquetta Wheeler, I think is the 6th. The 9th... not sure, maybe Marija Vusovic?
She is pretty cute, don't be evil. Thank for google she'll be famous.
If that were true, why do many Americans think that Antonio Banderas is Mexican, and specifically "mestizo"? Same goes for Penelope Cruz. It's not just W.A.S.P. Americans who think this way, either. There is some real confusion in the U.S. over who is "white", which can end with some pretty ridiculous results.
Pages