I have to call you out on this. The women in from the "fashion" world look much better than the women feminine but unimpressive waist to hip ratio "glamour" models you have in the second table. Are you kidding me?
I think any man would prefer a slightly more masculine woman with an nice hourglass figure to a woman that has the body of a little girl/boy? and a little girl/boy face to go with it thank you.
I think you butchered this one.
Please oh please try to convince ANY man that the more feminine women are more attractive. PLEASE! I want to see you try....
I think this just goes to show that OMG I can't believe I'm saying this, but WHR and overall good bone structure and genes make up for some lack of femininity and can even compete and win against more femininity with unimpressive WHR. However, the true competition would be between feminine women with good WHR and less-non feminine women with good WHR. Of course the more feminine women would outcompete the less feminine ones, however it depends on other factors too like bone structure. In addition, some feminine women are overly feminine and even appear matronly. There has to be a delicate balance, and I doubt a lot of women fit in this criteria. The perfect woman doesn't exist guys, but keep on looking if you want. In all honesty, I doubt that even if you found her she'd be worth much to you considering you probably don't stand a chance with her anyways. Who does? Who knows!
I'd also like to add that I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some crazy scientist or world leader or racist or something decides he wants to propel evolution, which seems to be dying. He would probably forcibly match people up, on which he percieves to be the best matches to create the best humans. In addition he would use the new technology in genetic engineering to further select for certain genes. We then would evolved perhaps to even a new species or something.
I mean good could come out of it. Of course everyone would just be... better. Or would they? Because should we trust our logic, research on what is "good" and what is "bad". We might just be selecting out some very very important genes we percieve to be negative. So it could be very very bad, disastorous.We might even create monsters out of ourselves eventually.
You know and the worst part would be lack of freedom and all...
But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised. There are some crazy people in this world. You know the kind that get rejected from an art school or something, turn emo because nobody appreciates them, spend too much time alone and come up with certain ideologies which aren't even necessarily their own personal ideologies but ones they can use to easily manipulate masses of people with. Thats all.
Women with hourglass shapes are not necessarily being selected for. You have to consider the fact that nearly any woman that wants to bang someone and have kids can. This is because men in general will screw anything. Perhaps they wouldn't particularly choose the women they screw as life partners whom they would need to commit to. It doesn't matter. Once you screw someone you screw them and women these days are strong enough that they overall don't necessarily need to be dependent on the male to ensure their offsprings survival. Therefore, that offspring survives and the less-than-desirable genes are carried on.
So certain women are not being selected for. No one is dying out here and therefore no genes are dying out.
You can argue... Well, the most attractive men will select the most attractive women. Therefore, in a sense they ARE being selected for.
Well...
You have to take certain things into consideration. I am not convinced that the most attractive male and the most attractive female will produce the most attractive children. Erik claims on this site that masculine men should mate with feminine women. That's great and all, but in all honesty the offspring would result in not being as masculine as the male or as feminine as the female. Therefore, whether the offspring is male or female, they will not live up to the looks of their parents. I feel that it IS possible for masculine men and feminine women to have extremley attractive children. However, this would require them to have extremely specific features and genes to compensate for the hormonal problem in the equation. Therefore, offspring like this would be rare.
In my opinion chances are if you take a feminine woman and a kinda feminine guy or not very masculine guy, you will have more feminine female children and they will have an advantage over the female child from a very masculine man and a feminine woman.
Therefore, nature just sucks. Although from our perspective evolution is a climb and a positive things going into the direction of positiveness and sunshine and all... I doubt evolution has "perfected" us to the extent we so naivley believe. In addition looking around me evolution has stopped, is actually regressing, or is still going forward but taking a slightly different path related less to looks and more to qualities like humor, intelligence, etc.This isn't surprising considering now we can communicate and therefore judge each other on more than certain behaviors and physical appearance.
However, I don't believe that even in the old days sexual selection was as strong as scientists claim. Let's say that blue eyes were sexually selected for. Please do tell me, when we were cave men what kept the men from screwing both the blue-eyed chick and the brown-eyed chick? Why screw one and not both? My observation is that usually, and obviously more so thousands of years ago than today, men have this almost impulsive need to screw almost anything in sight. Therefore, I highly doubt most women were "sexually selected" for, because what I can observe from males even today is that if they don't need to commit they will screw all. Sorry to speak of men like this, but come on, it is true. What is one of the top sexual fantasies of males across the world? Multiple women. Nuff said.
This is actually probably the product of evolution as well, which isn't a bad thing. I'm not judging anything here.
Either way, I would also like to ask: If the hourglass is so "selected" for, why is it so rare among women today. Around 8% of women across the world have an hourglass figure. I don't even think I have a "true" hourglass figure. This figure is so rare! If it were SO sexually selected for, it occur more often. To me, a few pieces of the puzzle are missing.
I understand that you are saying, "Hey, life is not fair." There are people that are smarter than you, more athletic than you, etc.
However, women will easily get offended because we are wired to depend on our looks for validation. Afterall, in the human species the FEMALE must attract the male. The male was dominant in the olden days and women didn't always necessarily have a choice. The way nature works is that a human female must attract the male for the most part. Yes, I to prefer the bird's way, where a male should have colorful feathers and perform a dance to attract the very plain female. Why? Because we have holes, thats obviously enough for you men so why do we need to be pretty too? I think the men should look good and attract the women. But whatever. You know evolution caused us to be the way we are, and the birds to be the way they are.
I'd like to say its only natural for a woman to get catty when you suggest she is literally less of a woman then the next girl. If anyone should understand it should be men, because they naturally have huge egos and always feel the need to OVER compensate for their shortcomings. Men just don't care about their looks as much as women. They are not wired to. However, in today's society they are slowly starting to care. Doesn't matter if they aren't wired to, they can take notice that women enjoy eye candy as well. In addition attractive men to women will have a certain build and certain qualities related to masculinity and high testosterone levels which would be related to a male's athletic ability which is connected to how competitive the male is. It is here that the way a man looks is connected to his survival and therefore at one point males too will become concious of their looks.
So its not a fair world, but our identities greatly depend on our sex and sexual roles. When you tell a woman she looks closer to a man and is not woman enough this will crush her view of herself because she is wired and then in addition socialized and conditioned to make her sex a HUGE part of her identity and the way she views who she is. So don't pretend like it is not going to effect people when you say these things. Life isn't fair, but I was it were more fair. If I were the most beautiful women in the world I would gladly subtract beauty from myself and give it to other women to equal us all out. But then there would be little to go from there and evolution would halt.
Life just fuckin sucks! There better be a heaven where this shit doesn't matter.
Yes, some things are more healthy, more attractive and desirable than others. Everything is not the same, things are different, and differences are healthy and desirable. It is important to realize and to accept that some varieties are more attractive, healthy and desirable than others.
What creates the polarity and the resultant attraction between the sexes are the differences. An androgynous world is not a desirable world, since it is the differences and the polarities that create attraction and bonding. The stronger the polarity and differences between the sexes, the more powerful and intense - and more satisfying - the bonding.
The differences in body shape between women and men, most strongly shown by the most feminine and beautiful women having a true hourglass shape with a swinging gait and a soft, curvaceous appearance to the whole body is not caused by fat deposits. It is caused by a feminine anatomy and skeletal structure. The reason why this shape is existing in the population is that it is attractive, so that it has been selected for. Because differences are functional and enhance attraction and bonding, they will continue to be selected for. There is nothing wrong with this, in the same way as there is nothing wrong in selecting a partner with other desirable qualities. Or for that matter, seek to develop good qualities within oneself. Some might feel that "it is a low proportion of all women who have this shape" or "it is wrong/unfair to say that something is more attractive and desirable." But Life is not about misunderstood human notions of "fairness." We may feel that it is not "fair" if someone is running faster than us or is better than us at this or that subject, but differences and competition is crucial to Nature - as is cooperation and interdependence. It may also be argued that the proportion of humans with what is defined as high intelligence is low, but does that make the quality "unfair" or less desirable? In fact, we enjoy our qualities because our forebears have selected for them. In that sense, we are all winners.
To honor, respect and love Nature's manifestations also means to honor, respect and love the best manifestations and be able to genuinely appreciate the highest quality. Nobody should be disappointed with him/herself, but that statement is no ground for rejecting the idea that we should have ideals. In subtle ways, healthy ideals enhance life, particularly in the long term. The feminine hourglass shape is such an ideal. We should all honor the feminine, soft and immensely beautiful curvaceous shapes and be thankful towards Nature for providing this beauty which certainly serves a purpose.
Again, thank you very much for your valuable and impressive work!
Weird, so chicks who are skinny are only thought of as attractive by bisexuals and gays? Something tells me the author of this article is... umm... biased?
link | Submitted by Emily on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 09:22.
''And for the record, I don't "believe" Nordics and whites in general are the best looking, they just are. Political correctness will never change that fact''
For the record Erik (countless others) doesnt ''believe'' Nordics and Whites in general are NOT the best looking its just they arent. Political correctness will never change that fact.
link | Submitted by Erik on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:45.
If you believe that Asian mixture can improve the looks of a Nordic, I’d say you are correct; it can sometimes, but this improvement will almost never be because the face is shifted toward East Asian norms but because of other factors.
"Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory:
"Of coursetheories have been proven. We just call them facts."
Yes. All I wanted to say was that the THEORY of evolution would have to be proven as fact to be fact. Simple as that. The theory of evolution cannot be fact, but the theory of evolution can be proven and turn into fact.
Well I ain't no model, but I am a little horrified at the idea of these women being considered "masculine", when I personally find my face to be extremely masculine in appearance-heavy set eyebrows and jaw, close set eyes, but would never put those women in the same category! Anyway, I feel that this person, whoever they are, are just a part of the machine that seeks to perpetuate the self-loathing that exists among women today b/c they don't fit "this" or "that" standard. It makes me sick, b/c has anyone seen such blog composed by a woman deciphering such characteristics of men based on trite foolishness! Once again we have given the upper hand to men, and I really just want to say "fuck you" please stay the hell away from women with your garbage. One of the great things about beauty, is that it is universal, but at the same there characteristics of someone's face that give it a distinct quality that makes it more memorable and enticing ie-Angie Stone's full lips, Tyra Banks' sparkling green eyes, Christy Turlington's hooked nose, Kate Moss' delicate jawline or Alek Wek's apple shaped cheeks, everyone male of female is beautiful in their own right and let's not forget inner beauty far outshines what is on the outside:)
Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory. It is widely accepted but it has not been entirely proved.
Secondly, why do we keep using the word "primitive" in such a demeaning fashion?
"People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts"
People who are "broad/open minded" are not ignorant of the facts. People who TRULY are open minded invidividuals, where open minded is defined properly, are individuals who see things from multiple perspectives aka they see the "BIG PICTURE". People who are open minded are more creative and innovative because they can see things from different perspective. That is what makes them OPEN MINDED. Not everyone on Earth is a LINEAR thinker, because we do not live in a LINEAR world, where everything falls on a LINEAR spectrum.
Open minded does not mean you accept everything hence the "open" part. Open minded does not mean that you don't have a brain. Yes, open minded people are more receptive to new ideas because they have the ability to see things from a different and many perspectives. Just because you are receptive to many ideas, does not mean you accept all these ideas.
You actually contradicted yourself. If you truly knew what "open-minded" meant you would understand that you are actually claiming that closed minded people should be more open minded, not that open minded people should be more close minded. Although you believe you were explaining the later.
I'd also like to add, that all you people, need to get out of the forest, climb the mountain, and look at ALL the trees, not just one or two. In other words, LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!!
I wrote the above. And I am sorry, I was starting to go in a million directions. I am 100% sure I have ADD, whatever ADD is, I have all the symptoms badly. I have trouble concentrating on any area. My mind wanders into a million directions and it becomes extremely hard for me to organize my thoughts coherently after a while. This is one reason, I assume, I struggle with logic.
I am not very educated and recently I have truly realized that logic is not my strong point(and I was in complete denial about this before and convinced myself I actually am a very logical person). However, it is my opinion that we cannot label any human being as "primitive" until we can prove that they are primitive. In terms of the way people look, we can prove that someone has more ancestral or "primitive" characterisitics by comparing them to our earlier not-quite-human-yet ancestors. However, even in terms of physical characteristics it is hard to actually "prove" those characteristics are primitive because you are basing your proof on two assumptions:
1) That the theory of evolution is fact in every sense. This means that our ideas about evolution up until now are 100% correct and provable? Not sure what the standards of "fact" are, but I'm sure they are high.
2)That the seemingly ancestral qualities are purely primitive in themselves and not the result of hormone levels or any other factors
However, although things are not always provable, sometimes we humans just "know" that they are so. In all honesty, many times these things are obvious to us. I call this "intuition"? and its what I personally seem to rely on, since I struggle with logic. So let's say your "intuition" is 100% correct, and just by looking at someone you can tell they are primitive. You cannot make the assumption that someone is primitive overall based on qualities like behavior. It will be 10X harder to get the right idea of why someone is the way they are based simply on more complex abstract qualities, like behavior, personality in general, intelligence, etc. Basing this on intuition, just won't do. These are all extremely complex things. Even today there is debate about what percentage of personality is genetic, and often any science on this is tainted with personal agendas and bias. We don't even understand the brain 100% so how can we prove that lower intelligence is based on being more "primitive"? There are too many other factors to consider. What affects intelligence? How much is based on nature? How much on nurture?
We don't have all these answers! Some of you may be reading this and saying, "Godis, we DO NOT NEED to have all the answers to come to a logical conclusion about these things. We can figure it out from the pieces we have. We can make the connections from what we do have. We can OBSERVE."
Yes, but there are too many missing pieces. The theory of evolution is still evolving itself. Observing more primitive animals, like chimps, and comparing them to us won't work either. Because making that connection is not strong enough. When it comes to classifying human beings and placing them on a scale of more human to less human we need MORE. These are human beings we are talking about! I think we can all agree that even the most "primitive" humans are still humans.
Another point I would like to make is: Is more evolved and less primitive really better? Especially in terms of humans. Humans are so much more complex!
Let's take into consideration birds. There is a type of bird called Crow, and they are pure black. Well, let's pretend that a small group of baby crows got abandoned by their mother because she was eaten by a predator. One of the baby crows is mutated, and instead of being black, it is light gray.
Now these crows live in an area with many big light gray boulders and rocks. A predator comes and spots the obvious black baby crows and eats them. But he doesn't eat the gray one, because the nest is on a gray rock, and the gray crow was camoflauged very well. Because the gray crow survives, it is able to find a mate and pass on its genes. Now there are crows that carry the mutated gene, and when two mutated crows mate, the gene now is expressed among the offspring (I am assuming this gene is recessive). These light gray crows thrive in the rocky area, because they camoflauge so well. These crows are more "evolved" than their ancestors, the primtive original black crows.
However, in what ways are these light gray crows BETTER than the black crows? The only difference is the color of the crow. The mutation has not affected intelligence, behavior, etc. Therefore, they are only better in terms of color because their color enables them to survive better, remember that everything(evolution specifically) is driven by SURVIVAL both the survival of the individual(crow, human, whatever) and the survival of the GENES through offspring. However, remember that their color only enables them to survive better in their specific environment. Therefore, the light crows are only superior in their environment. If a little light crow were to wander in the woody areas, where it is dark, it would not survive. In the dark woody area, the original black crows are superior, because they camoflauge with the darkness. Therefore, both crows are only superior in their specific environment. In life many people try to see things black and white. There is no black and white. There is no good and bad. What is, just is. Almost everything is subjective. Let nature be the first to demonstrate this to you.
Now, humans ARE more complex and their mutated genes have affected every aspect of them from coloring, to bone strucutre, to behavior, to intelligence. Can we really identify which race of human beings has the best combination of these genes to make them over all superior? Can we really label any of these mutations superior since many times they are most successful in a specific environment just like for example: the light crow gene was superior in the rocky environment while the black in the woods.
I would assume the most important mutations would be those that have contributed to higher intelligence, because intelligence and creativity is what puts us at the top of the food chain and is the single most important contributor to the success and survival of the human species. Certainly, the race of humans that has the best "intelligence" genes is probably the most superior.
To understand which mutations are linked to higher intelligence, we first must have a complete understanding of intelligence itself. Have the FINER features of Northern Europeans for example contributed to their intelligence? I ask this because many on this board believe that finer features are superior because they are more attractive and universally attractive. Do finer features create more room for a bigger skull in comparison to the face... which leaves more room for a bigger brain, which contributes to higher intelligence? But are big brains linked to higher intelligence?
From the evidence Erik has mounted up, it seems to me that finer features are selected for, but for what specific reason? What advantage do fine features provide human beings in terms of survival? One thing that intrigues me is why these features are universally attractive? I ask this because we have evolved to find fine features more attractive. Evolution has shaped us this way, because those that originally found fine features attractive were able to pass on their genes, and those who found more robust features attractive, were not. Therefore,almost all the offspring of modern humans(or so Erik's evidence tells us), are wired to find finer features attractive, because it is in their genes. It is amazing that this preference for fine features is universal, this means that we have preferred fine features from the very beginning.
And you know what, I'm going to stop there because I am very busy. If I let this go on, it will go into the direction of Neaderthals and points they are not inferior on. For example, many scientists believe that Neadnerthals had better brains than us, and were just overall A LOT more intelligent, just not a tad bit more intelligent. Interesting, because Neanderthals were for so long viewed as more primitive(which they were) and more inferior(which supposedly they were not in terms of intelligence at least) to us.
This is also going to go into the direction of aliens (which many believe evolved here on Earth, hence why they have similarities to us, at least the ones in pop culture) coming down to Earth and helping us evolve to multi-verses and how evolution isn't always right and for the better, and how certain qualities evolution has created in us can be hindering our future evolution, and how there is the possiblity of every possibility being played out in multi-verses. Of course that goes into more of MY personal speculation, that in some cases I have come up with now, in a matter of minutes. That also goes into philosiphy and quantum physics. These are ALL subjects I know little about, and what I do know about them I use for my speculation, which isn't very logically driven. Therefore, I'm going to stop, but maybe I'll go on later.
The point is Salman, there is a lot you are not seeing here. In addition, you may be viewing things from a right and wrong perspective. I struggle a lot with my philosiphies and my biggest struggle is morality and what makes something right vs. wrong, what makes something good vs. bad. I'm starting to see, and in all honesty I hate this, that everything truly is subjective in terms of positive and negative, and sometimes negative can be positive and visa versa. Oh the complexity!
And for your information Salman, when you refer to Africans you have to be more specific. Consider that there are Northern Africans and Southern Africans. Some are Caucasoid and some are not. For example, Subsaharan Africans are not Caucasoid. Northern Africans, however, like the Egyptians or the Moroccons or Iberians, for example are caucasoid. Now, by no means are they WHITE, the way we ignorantly view "Caucasian". However, they are still caucasian and probably more so than you, despite the fact they are "Africans"
I see nothing wrong with what Jake is saying. Blacks do look and behave primitive on average. People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts. Or maybe some of these these educated farts (I have an MSc in Engineering BTW) are above living in reality. There is no reason why primitive humanoids would not survive till today.
I am not a White guy but Jake is only stating what I had suspected all along, that black Africans are the left-overs of some unevolved primitive humanoids. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
I agree with Emily. I am a non-White, but yes White people especially northern Europeans are the mist attractive and must be preserved. Mixing with WHites tend to improve the looks of the non-White group and it is the opposite with blacks.
I wasn't implying that masculine women are "men". I was noting that their physical traits and characteristics are "masculine" because of the influence of natural testosterone in them. See this information can be seen as an attack of identity and character of "man" and "woman" but these are just concepts that societies have imposed which are out-dated. Yes, there are woman that are very "girly" but then there are also those woman who can keep up with the boys in any sport. Vice versa as well.
I also wasn't saying that all men who are attracted to these women are gay. However, I am going to guess (just my hypothesis) that more often than not those men who continually and genuinely are attracted to women who are very masculine from head to toe are not 100% heterosexual. I do not say this as an insult. It would come across this way nowadays because of the rampant homophobia that exists in our world. If this were a more mature society (and hopefully one day it will be), then these issues and comments wouldn't be seen as any sort of an attack.
I'm reminded of many stories I've heard on TV when a man would recount a time he met woman but found out later on that he actually was a man. When I looked at these "women" I wonder how these men were fooled since they were so masculine. Now with this information it makes me wonder if they are really totally straight. If they aren't completely or not at all straight, they might not even realize it which is sadly very common in our world.
It's an interesting topic to think about. Because really, "gay" and "straight" isn't about the personality of who a person is attracted to, it's the physical features that one is attracted to. A penis and vagina are the main components in that formula for attraction but it is not the only part. Faces and bodies come into play for physical attraction and I think that physical masculinity and femininity are the other elements. It would make sense when helping to understand "gay", "straight" and bisexual. More studies should be done on this.
In regards of Twiggy, Erik noted in one of his articles that the fashion models back in a specific era (I think 40s-60s) were more feminine and not underweight and at this point it was run by mostly heterosexuals. The shift in power went back to homosexuals and that's when the change started back to what has been continuing to this day. One can make almost anything popular by good promotion and reeling in the right people tyo support your cause or taste. Like I noted before, people in higher class societies tend to involve themselves in activities exclusive to them which would lead to following many trends which would then become desirable for those in lower classes simply because the rich partake in this.
As far as fashion designers being disproportionately gay, it is a pretty well known fact. But if you want some reading material, you can start here as Erik wrote an article here about this in fact: http://www.femininebeauty.info/gay-fashion-designers/
Weight is definitely a key issue but the example of hip reduction surgery I gave was to note not the actual procedure, but the motive that many of the clients who request this have. Wide hips (a very feminine trait) is considered "fat" in the current mainstream society. Therefore, what the surgeons do is to make the illusion that the hips are more narrow. Of course they can't alter the bone structure but they can creatively re-sculpt it to make the hips look less feminine or in the mainstream society's eyes "more attractive".
Notice also the pattern in Hollywood with female actresses. When they start to achieve a spike in popularity they almost always go on to lose unnecessary weight and also undergo plastic surgery that makes their faces come across more masculine. A good example of this is Angelina Jolie. Compare her face from years ago. It was rounder fuller. Now she not only looks emaciated but her face looks more "chiseled" bringing about a more masculine look. A shame. I thought she was a lot better looking back then.
I'm glad to see you find Christina Hendricks gorgeous. I think she is an amazing woman. Her body is so beautiful and such a rarity in mainstream Hollywood for a white woman. It's a sight for sore eyes in a sea of skin and bones. Only thing is that I wonder how much of that is due to her being on the show. The show's producers want to accurately recreate that era and that includes how women looked, which ties back to what we were taking about of how femininity was more appreciated back in that era. She is encouraged to have the body that she has for the show. But when the show ends, I hope that doesn't mean she will then become another victim of the fashion industry's influence.
This is really homophobic language you're using. Calling the fashion designers 'the homosexuals' (as if they were some other group of people removed from general society), and pretending that their choices in models is a way of promoting some broader anti-feminist agenda is just strange and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Oh and Erik,
I have to call you out on this. The women in from the "fashion" world look much better than the women feminine but unimpressive waist to hip ratio "glamour" models you have in the second table. Are you kidding me?
I think any man would prefer a slightly more masculine woman with an nice hourglass figure to a woman that has the body of a little girl/boy? and a little girl/boy face to go with it thank you.
I think you butchered this one.
Please oh please try to convince ANY man that the more feminine women are more attractive. PLEASE! I want to see you try....
I think this just goes to show that OMG I can't believe I'm saying this, but WHR and overall good bone structure and genes make up for some lack of femininity and can even compete and win against more femininity with unimpressive WHR. However, the true competition would be between feminine women with good WHR and less-non feminine women with good WHR. Of course the more feminine women would outcompete the less feminine ones, however it depends on other factors too like bone structure. In addition, some feminine women are overly feminine and even appear matronly. There has to be a delicate balance, and I doubt a lot of women fit in this criteria. The perfect woman doesn't exist guys, but keep on looking if you want. In all honesty, I doubt that even if you found her she'd be worth much to you considering you probably don't stand a chance with her anyways. Who does? Who knows!
I'd also like to add that I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some crazy scientist or world leader or racist or something decides he wants to propel evolution, which seems to be dying. He would probably forcibly match people up, on which he percieves to be the best matches to create the best humans. In addition he would use the new technology in genetic engineering to further select for certain genes. We then would evolved perhaps to even a new species or something.
I mean good could come out of it. Of course everyone would just be... better. Or would they? Because should we trust our logic, research on what is "good" and what is "bad". We might just be selecting out some very very important genes we percieve to be negative. So it could be very very bad, disastorous.We might even create monsters out of ourselves eventually.
You know and the worst part would be lack of freedom and all...
But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised. There are some crazy people in this world. You know the kind that get rejected from an art school or something, turn emo because nobody appreciates them, spend too much time alone and come up with certain ideologies which aren't even necessarily their own personal ideologies but ones they can use to easily manipulate masses of people with. Thats all.
Per Inge Oestmoen.
Women with hourglass shapes are not necessarily being selected for. You have to consider the fact that nearly any woman that wants to bang someone and have kids can. This is because men in general will screw anything. Perhaps they wouldn't particularly choose the women they screw as life partners whom they would need to commit to. It doesn't matter. Once you screw someone you screw them and women these days are strong enough that they overall don't necessarily need to be dependent on the male to ensure their offsprings survival. Therefore, that offspring survives and the less-than-desirable genes are carried on.
So certain women are not being selected for. No one is dying out here and therefore no genes are dying out.
You can argue... Well, the most attractive men will select the most attractive women. Therefore, in a sense they ARE being selected for.
Well...
You have to take certain things into consideration. I am not convinced that the most attractive male and the most attractive female will produce the most attractive children. Erik claims on this site that masculine men should mate with feminine women. That's great and all, but in all honesty the offspring would result in not being as masculine as the male or as feminine as the female. Therefore, whether the offspring is male or female, they will not live up to the looks of their parents. I feel that it IS possible for masculine men and feminine women to have extremley attractive children. However, this would require them to have extremely specific features and genes to compensate for the hormonal problem in the equation. Therefore, offspring like this would be rare.
In my opinion chances are if you take a feminine woman and a kinda feminine guy or not very masculine guy, you will have more feminine female children and they will have an advantage over the female child from a very masculine man and a feminine woman.
Therefore, nature just sucks. Although from our perspective evolution is a climb and a positive things going into the direction of positiveness and sunshine and all... I doubt evolution has "perfected" us to the extent we so naivley believe. In addition looking around me evolution has stopped, is actually regressing, or is still going forward but taking a slightly different path related less to looks and more to qualities like humor, intelligence, etc.This isn't surprising considering now we can communicate and therefore judge each other on more than certain behaviors and physical appearance.
However, I don't believe that even in the old days sexual selection was as strong as scientists claim. Let's say that blue eyes were sexually selected for. Please do tell me, when we were cave men what kept the men from screwing both the blue-eyed chick and the brown-eyed chick? Why screw one and not both? My observation is that usually, and obviously more so thousands of years ago than today, men have this almost impulsive need to screw almost anything in sight. Therefore, I highly doubt most women were "sexually selected" for, because what I can observe from males even today is that if they don't need to commit they will screw all. Sorry to speak of men like this, but come on, it is true. What is one of the top sexual fantasies of males across the world? Multiple women. Nuff said.
This is actually probably the product of evolution as well, which isn't a bad thing. I'm not judging anything here.
Either way, I would also like to ask: If the hourglass is so "selected" for, why is it so rare among women today. Around 8% of women across the world have an hourglass figure. I don't even think I have a "true" hourglass figure. This figure is so rare! If it were SO sexually selected for, it occur more often. To me, a few pieces of the puzzle are missing.
I understand that you are saying, "Hey, life is not fair." There are people that are smarter than you, more athletic than you, etc.
However, women will easily get offended because we are wired to depend on our looks for validation. Afterall, in the human species the FEMALE must attract the male. The male was dominant in the olden days and women didn't always necessarily have a choice. The way nature works is that a human female must attract the male for the most part. Yes, I to prefer the bird's way, where a male should have colorful feathers and perform a dance to attract the very plain female. Why? Because we have holes, thats obviously enough for you men so why do we need to be pretty too? I think the men should look good and attract the women. But whatever. You know evolution caused us to be the way we are, and the birds to be the way they are.
I'd like to say its only natural for a woman to get catty when you suggest she is literally less of a woman then the next girl. If anyone should understand it should be men, because they naturally have huge egos and always feel the need to OVER compensate for their shortcomings. Men just don't care about their looks as much as women. They are not wired to. However, in today's society they are slowly starting to care. Doesn't matter if they aren't wired to, they can take notice that women enjoy eye candy as well. In addition attractive men to women will have a certain build and certain qualities related to masculinity and high testosterone levels which would be related to a male's athletic ability which is connected to how competitive the male is. It is here that the way a man looks is connected to his survival and therefore at one point males too will become concious of their looks.
So its not a fair world, but our identities greatly depend on our sex and sexual roles. When you tell a woman she looks closer to a man and is not woman enough this will crush her view of herself because she is wired and then in addition socialized and conditioned to make her sex a HUGE part of her identity and the way she views who she is. So don't pretend like it is not going to effect people when you say these things. Life isn't fair, but I was it were more fair. If I were the most beautiful women in the world I would gladly subtract beauty from myself and give it to other women to equal us all out. But then there would be little to go from there and evolution would halt.
Life just fuckin sucks! There better be a heaven where this shit doesn't matter.
I want to thank you very much for this page.
Yes, some things are more healthy, more attractive and desirable than others. Everything is not the same, things are different, and differences are healthy and desirable. It is important to realize and to accept that some varieties are more attractive, healthy and desirable than others.
What creates the polarity and the resultant attraction between the sexes are the differences. An androgynous world is not a desirable world, since it is the differences and the polarities that create attraction and bonding. The stronger the polarity and differences between the sexes, the more powerful and intense - and more satisfying - the bonding.
The differences in body shape between women and men, most strongly shown by the most feminine and beautiful women having a true hourglass shape with a swinging gait and a soft, curvaceous appearance to the whole body is not caused by fat deposits. It is caused by a feminine anatomy and skeletal structure. The reason why this shape is existing in the population is that it is attractive, so that it has been selected for. Because differences are functional and enhance attraction and bonding, they will continue to be selected for. There is nothing wrong with this, in the same way as there is nothing wrong in selecting a partner with other desirable qualities. Or for that matter, seek to develop good qualities within oneself. Some might feel that "it is a low proportion of all women who have this shape" or "it is wrong/unfair to say that something is more attractive and desirable." But Life is not about misunderstood human notions of "fairness." We may feel that it is not "fair" if someone is running faster than us or is better than us at this or that subject, but differences and competition is crucial to Nature - as is cooperation and interdependence. It may also be argued that the proportion of humans with what is defined as high intelligence is low, but does that make the quality "unfair" or less desirable? In fact, we enjoy our qualities because our forebears have selected for them. In that sense, we are all winners.
To honor, respect and love Nature's manifestations also means to honor, respect and love the best manifestations and be able to genuinely appreciate the highest quality. Nobody should be disappointed with him/herself, but that statement is no ground for rejecting the idea that we should have ideals. In subtle ways, healthy ideals enhance life, particularly in the long term. The feminine hourglass shape is such an ideal. We should all honor the feminine, soft and immensely beautiful curvaceous shapes and be thankful towards Nature for providing this beauty which certainly serves a purpose.
Again, thank you very much for your valuable and impressive work!
Weird, so chicks who are skinny are only thought of as attractive by bisexuals and gays? Something tells me the author of this article is... umm... biased?
Eric,
Right on! You are a very a thoughtful person. It's rare these days. Great website, btw!
-M
Eric,
Right on! You are a very a thoughtful person. It's rare these days. Great website, btw!
-M
link | Submitted by Emily on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 09:22.
''And for the record, I don't "believe" Nordics and whites in general are the best looking, they just are. Political correctness will never change that fact''
For the record Erik (countless others) doesnt ''believe'' Nordics and Whites in general are NOT the best looking its just they arent. Political correctness will never change that fact.
link | Submitted by Erik on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:45.
If you believe that Asian mixture can improve the looks of a Nordic, I’d say you are correct; it can sometimes, but this improvement will almost never be because the face is shifted toward East Asian norms but because of other factors.
I don't remember addressing you regarding any of what you said. You might be confused.
"Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory:
"Of coursetheories have been proven. We just call them facts."
Yes. All I wanted to say was that the THEORY of evolution would have to be proven as fact to be fact. Simple as that. The theory of evolution cannot be fact, but the theory of evolution can be proven and turn into fact.
Well I ain't no model, but I am a little horrified at the idea of these women being considered "masculine", when I personally find my face to be extremely masculine in appearance-heavy set eyebrows and jaw, close set eyes, but would never put those women in the same category! Anyway, I feel that this person, whoever they are, are just a part of the machine that seeks to perpetuate the self-loathing that exists among women today b/c they don't fit "this" or "that" standard. It makes me sick, b/c has anyone seen such blog composed by a woman deciphering such characteristics of men based on trite foolishness! Once again we have given the upper hand to men, and I really just want to say "fuck you" please stay the hell away from women with your garbage. One of the great things about beauty, is that it is universal, but at the same there characteristics of someone's face that give it a distinct quality that makes it more memorable and enticing ie-Angie Stone's full lips, Tyra Banks' sparkling green eyes, Christy Turlington's hooked nose, Kate Moss' delicate jawline or Alek Wek's apple shaped cheeks, everyone male of female is beautiful in their own right and let's not forget inner beauty far outshines what is on the outside:)
Of course theories have been proven. We just call them facts.
"Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory"
I know that. That was my point. Evolution is not fact, it is theory.
However, what happens when theories become facts? Has that ever happened?
Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory. It is widely accepted but it has not been entirely proved.
Secondly, why do we keep using the word "primitive" in such a demeaning fashion?
ACUSE ME THIS IS THE CORRECT Answers for anything u would of asked that is related to this
This is so stupid give some straight forward answers
Oh and I just have to adress this:
"People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts"
People who are "broad/open minded" are not ignorant of the facts. People who TRULY are open minded invidividuals, where open minded is defined properly, are individuals who see things from multiple perspectives aka they see the "BIG PICTURE". People who are open minded are more creative and innovative because they can see things from different perspective. That is what makes them OPEN MINDED. Not everyone on Earth is a LINEAR thinker, because we do not live in a LINEAR world, where everything falls on a LINEAR spectrum.
Open minded does not mean you accept everything hence the "open" part. Open minded does not mean that you don't have a brain. Yes, open minded people are more receptive to new ideas because they have the ability to see things from a different and many perspectives. Just because you are receptive to many ideas, does not mean you accept all these ideas.
You actually contradicted yourself. If you truly knew what "open-minded" meant you would understand that you are actually claiming that closed minded people should be more open minded, not that open minded people should be more close minded. Although you believe you were explaining the later.
I'd also like to add, that all you people, need to get out of the forest, climb the mountain, and look at ALL the trees, not just one or two. In other words, LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!!
How is EVERYTHING connected?
BTW:
I wrote the above. And I am sorry, I was starting to go in a million directions. I am 100% sure I have ADD, whatever ADD is, I have all the symptoms badly. I have trouble concentrating on any area. My mind wanders into a million directions and it becomes extremely hard for me to organize my thoughts coherently after a while. This is one reason, I assume, I struggle with logic.
Salman,
I am not very educated and recently I have truly realized that logic is not my strong point(and I was in complete denial about this before and convinced myself I actually am a very logical person). However, it is my opinion that we cannot label any human being as "primitive" until we can prove that they are primitive. In terms of the way people look, we can prove that someone has more ancestral or "primitive" characterisitics by comparing them to our earlier not-quite-human-yet ancestors. However, even in terms of physical characteristics it is hard to actually "prove" those characteristics are primitive because you are basing your proof on two assumptions:
1) That the theory of evolution is fact in every sense. This means that our ideas about evolution up until now are 100% correct and provable? Not sure what the standards of "fact" are, but I'm sure they are high.
2)That the seemingly ancestral qualities are purely primitive in themselves and not the result of hormone levels or any other factors
However, although things are not always provable, sometimes we humans just "know" that they are so. In all honesty, many times these things are obvious to us. I call this "intuition"? and its what I personally seem to rely on, since I struggle with logic. So let's say your "intuition" is 100% correct, and just by looking at someone you can tell they are primitive. You cannot make the assumption that someone is primitive overall based on qualities like behavior. It will be 10X harder to get the right idea of why someone is the way they are based simply on more complex abstract qualities, like behavior, personality in general, intelligence, etc. Basing this on intuition, just won't do. These are all extremely complex things. Even today there is debate about what percentage of personality is genetic, and often any science on this is tainted with personal agendas and bias. We don't even understand the brain 100% so how can we prove that lower intelligence is based on being more "primitive"? There are too many other factors to consider. What affects intelligence? How much is based on nature? How much on nurture?
We don't have all these answers! Some of you may be reading this and saying, "Godis, we DO NOT NEED to have all the answers to come to a logical conclusion about these things. We can figure it out from the pieces we have. We can make the connections from what we do have. We can OBSERVE."
Yes, but there are too many missing pieces. The theory of evolution is still evolving itself. Observing more primitive animals, like chimps, and comparing them to us won't work either. Because making that connection is not strong enough. When it comes to classifying human beings and placing them on a scale of more human to less human we need MORE. These are human beings we are talking about! I think we can all agree that even the most "primitive" humans are still humans.
Another point I would like to make is: Is more evolved and less primitive really better? Especially in terms of humans. Humans are so much more complex!
Let's take into consideration birds. There is a type of bird called Crow, and they are pure black. Well, let's pretend that a small group of baby crows got abandoned by their mother because she was eaten by a predator. One of the baby crows is mutated, and instead of being black, it is light gray.
Now these crows live in an area with many big light gray boulders and rocks. A predator comes and spots the obvious black baby crows and eats them. But he doesn't eat the gray one, because the nest is on a gray rock, and the gray crow was camoflauged very well. Because the gray crow survives, it is able to find a mate and pass on its genes. Now there are crows that carry the mutated gene, and when two mutated crows mate, the gene now is expressed among the offspring (I am assuming this gene is recessive). These light gray crows thrive in the rocky area, because they camoflauge so well. These crows are more "evolved" than their ancestors, the primtive original black crows.
However, in what ways are these light gray crows BETTER than the black crows? The only difference is the color of the crow. The mutation has not affected intelligence, behavior, etc. Therefore, they are only better in terms of color because their color enables them to survive better, remember that everything(evolution specifically) is driven by SURVIVAL both the survival of the individual(crow, human, whatever) and the survival of the GENES through offspring. However, remember that their color only enables them to survive better in their specific environment. Therefore, the light crows are only superior in their environment. If a little light crow were to wander in the woody areas, where it is dark, it would not survive. In the dark woody area, the original black crows are superior, because they camoflauge with the darkness. Therefore, both crows are only superior in their specific environment. In life many people try to see things black and white. There is no black and white. There is no good and bad. What is, just is. Almost everything is subjective. Let nature be the first to demonstrate this to you.
Now, humans ARE more complex and their mutated genes have affected every aspect of them from coloring, to bone strucutre, to behavior, to intelligence. Can we really identify which race of human beings has the best combination of these genes to make them over all superior? Can we really label any of these mutations superior since many times they are most successful in a specific environment just like for example: the light crow gene was superior in the rocky environment while the black in the woods.
I would assume the most important mutations would be those that have contributed to higher intelligence, because intelligence and creativity is what puts us at the top of the food chain and is the single most important contributor to the success and survival of the human species. Certainly, the race of humans that has the best "intelligence" genes is probably the most superior.
To understand which mutations are linked to higher intelligence, we first must have a complete understanding of intelligence itself. Have the FINER features of Northern Europeans for example contributed to their intelligence? I ask this because many on this board believe that finer features are superior because they are more attractive and universally attractive. Do finer features create more room for a bigger skull in comparison to the face... which leaves more room for a bigger brain, which contributes to higher intelligence? But are big brains linked to higher intelligence?
From the evidence Erik has mounted up, it seems to me that finer features are selected for, but for what specific reason? What advantage do fine features provide human beings in terms of survival? One thing that intrigues me is why these features are universally attractive? I ask this because we have evolved to find fine features more attractive. Evolution has shaped us this way, because those that originally found fine features attractive were able to pass on their genes, and those who found more robust features attractive, were not. Therefore,almost all the offspring of modern humans(or so Erik's evidence tells us), are wired to find finer features attractive, because it is in their genes. It is amazing that this preference for fine features is universal, this means that we have preferred fine features from the very beginning.
And you know what, I'm going to stop there because I am very busy. If I let this go on, it will go into the direction of Neaderthals and points they are not inferior on. For example, many scientists believe that Neadnerthals had better brains than us, and were just overall A LOT more intelligent, just not a tad bit more intelligent. Interesting, because Neanderthals were for so long viewed as more primitive(which they were) and more inferior(which supposedly they were not in terms of intelligence at least) to us.
This is also going to go into the direction of aliens (which many believe evolved here on Earth, hence why they have similarities to us, at least the ones in pop culture) coming down to Earth and helping us evolve to multi-verses and how evolution isn't always right and for the better, and how certain qualities evolution has created in us can be hindering our future evolution, and how there is the possiblity of every possibility being played out in multi-verses. Of course that goes into more of MY personal speculation, that in some cases I have come up with now, in a matter of minutes. That also goes into philosiphy and quantum physics. These are ALL subjects I know little about, and what I do know about them I use for my speculation, which isn't very logically driven. Therefore, I'm going to stop, but maybe I'll go on later.
The point is Salman, there is a lot you are not seeing here. In addition, you may be viewing things from a right and wrong perspective. I struggle a lot with my philosiphies and my biggest struggle is morality and what makes something right vs. wrong, what makes something good vs. bad. I'm starting to see, and in all honesty I hate this, that everything truly is subjective in terms of positive and negative, and sometimes negative can be positive and visa versa. Oh the complexity!
And for your information Salman, when you refer to Africans you have to be more specific. Consider that there are Northern Africans and Southern Africans. Some are Caucasoid and some are not. For example, Subsaharan Africans are not Caucasoid. Northern Africans, however, like the Egyptians or the Moroccons or Iberians, for example are caucasoid. Now, by no means are they WHITE, the way we ignorantly view "Caucasian". However, they are still caucasian and probably more so than you, despite the fact they are "Africans"
AS FAR AS RACE MIXING IS CONCERNED, READ THESE.
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap29.html
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap30.html
I see nothing wrong with what Jake is saying. Blacks do look and behave primitive on average. People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts. Or maybe some of these these educated farts (I have an MSc in Engineering BTW) are above living in reality. There is no reason why primitive humanoids would not survive till today.
I am not a White guy but Jake is only stating what I had suspected all along, that black Africans are the left-overs of some unevolved primitive humanoids.
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
I agree with Emily. I am a non-White, but yes White people especially northern Europeans are the mist attractive and must be preserved. Mixing with WHites tend to improve the looks of the non-White group and it is the opposite with blacks.
Hey Elle!
Glad to see you are still checking in.
I wrote a reply for you in the reply section for this article: http://www.femininebeauty.info/stephen-marquardt-phi-mask-refuted
When you get a chance, please read it. :)
Hey Tim89 :)
I wasn't implying that masculine women are "men". I was noting that their physical traits and characteristics are "masculine" because of the influence of natural testosterone in them. See this information can be seen as an attack of identity and character of "man" and "woman" but these are just concepts that societies have imposed which are out-dated. Yes, there are woman that are very "girly" but then there are also those woman who can keep up with the boys in any sport. Vice versa as well.
I also wasn't saying that all men who are attracted to these women are gay. However, I am going to guess (just my hypothesis) that more often than not those men who continually and genuinely are attracted to women who are very masculine from head to toe are not 100% heterosexual. I do not say this as an insult. It would come across this way nowadays because of the rampant homophobia that exists in our world. If this were a more mature society (and hopefully one day it will be), then these issues and comments wouldn't be seen as any sort of an attack.
I'm reminded of many stories I've heard on TV when a man would recount a time he met woman but found out later on that he actually was a man. When I looked at these "women" I wonder how these men were fooled since they were so masculine. Now with this information it makes me wonder if they are really totally straight. If they aren't completely or not at all straight, they might not even realize it which is sadly very common in our world.
It's an interesting topic to think about. Because really, "gay" and "straight" isn't about the personality of who a person is attracted to, it's the physical features that one is attracted to. A penis and vagina are the main components in that formula for attraction but it is not the only part. Faces and bodies come into play for physical attraction and I think that physical masculinity and femininity are the other elements. It would make sense when helping to understand "gay", "straight" and bisexual. More studies should be done on this.
In regards of Twiggy, Erik noted in one of his articles that the fashion models back in a specific era (I think 40s-60s) were more feminine and not underweight and at this point it was run by mostly heterosexuals. The shift in power went back to homosexuals and that's when the change started back to what has been continuing to this day. One can make almost anything popular by good promotion and reeling in the right people tyo support your cause or taste. Like I noted before, people in higher class societies tend to involve themselves in activities exclusive to them which would lead to following many trends which would then become desirable for those in lower classes simply because the rich partake in this.
As far as fashion designers being disproportionately gay, it is a pretty well known fact. But if you want some reading material, you can start here as Erik wrote an article here about this in fact: http://www.femininebeauty.info/gay-fashion-designers/
Weight is definitely a key issue but the example of hip reduction surgery I gave was to note not the actual procedure, but the motive that many of the clients who request this have. Wide hips (a very feminine trait) is considered "fat" in the current mainstream society. Therefore, what the surgeons do is to make the illusion that the hips are more narrow. Of course they can't alter the bone structure but they can creatively re-sculpt it to make the hips look less feminine or in the mainstream society's eyes "more attractive".
Notice also the pattern in Hollywood with female actresses. When they start to achieve a spike in popularity they almost always go on to lose unnecessary weight and also undergo plastic surgery that makes their faces come across more masculine. A good example of this is Angelina Jolie. Compare her face from years ago. It was rounder fuller. Now she not only looks emaciated but her face looks more "chiseled" bringing about a more masculine look. A shame. I thought she was a lot better looking back then.
I'm glad to see you find Christina Hendricks gorgeous. I think she is an amazing woman. Her body is so beautiful and such a rarity in mainstream Hollywood for a white woman. It's a sight for sore eyes in a sea of skin and bones. Only thing is that I wonder how much of that is due to her being on the show. The show's producers want to accurately recreate that era and that includes how women looked, which ties back to what we were taking about of how femininity was more appreciated back in that era. She is encouraged to have the body that she has for the show. But when the show ends, I hope that doesn't mean she will then become another victim of the fashion industry's influence.
This is really homophobic language you're using. Calling the fashion designers 'the homosexuals' (as if they were some other group of people removed from general society), and pretending that their choices in models is a way of promoting some broader anti-feminist agenda is just strange and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Pages