I think the whole thing about homosexuals running the fashion industry is just ridiculous! Here's the thing. Men on average find slender women more attractive. However, as in other cases, these attributes tend to often be exaggerated. , fake eye lashes, women get ridiculously large boobs(though boob jobs) in a bid to be more attractive, shave any body hair to look less masculine, corsets in the old days to make the waist smaller(now there are skirts and dresses which give the same effect), eye make up to make eyes look bigger, I could go on. So the skinny frames exaggerate attractive slenderness, make legs look longer(which is also viewed as attractive) and makes them look fit. So, why am I going on about this exaggeration of features? Well, the answer is simple. Men tend to like things out of the ordinary, fetishes if you wish, just look at the number of men who like giant boobs(especially on tiny women), underage looking women, petite women e.t.c. There is a catch though, you should only over-emphasize the features perceived attractive in women like a well-defined jaw(an undefined one makes the lady look chubby), thin legs and the things I mentioned above.
Elise is a good looking girl except for her broad looking shoulders which are also over-emphasized by her clothing, Ginger has a perfect body but her facial features are dull and weak thus making her look chubby and she has an inconsistent skin tone, Eunice, I like her but it's the skin again. The point I'm trying to make is there is no perfect woman, there just isn't! The above women are all very beautiful, but like the rest of us, they have flaws. I'd actually be happy to date any one of them, I find them all attractive, like most men I like women of various shapes and sizes.
I mean that with age men do not become less desirable as quickly as women. This is because younger women will still be interested in older men, however most young men will not be interested in older women. Men always go for younger. Women can go for young or old.
So I am saying that with age, a woman will become less desirable more quickly than a man will. A man will remain desirable for a much longer period than a woman will.
But even so, they can't always compete with the younger men. Except in terms of providing security and such, which is the reason most younger women go for them in the first place. However, with women becoming more independent and securing their own futures, less and less women will depend on men for that.
I understand what you are saying. Some of the women in Erik's attractive women section aren't that great looking. There are two reasons for this:
1) There are actually some women with some masculine features in this section. Mostly in the face. I don't why Erik would post some of these women. I noticed that Erik is sometimes attracted to women that are actually kind of masculine. Now Erik's excuse is that every woman on the planet, no matter how feminine, will display at least one or two slightly masculine or pseudo masculine etc. trait. However, women like Megan Fox or Keeley Hazel, all women he really finds attractive, are not feminine overall. They aren't even close. So I don't know whats going on.
2)Some girls are pretty much feminine overall in his section. HOWEVER, they truly are average everyday girls. They generally have very bland faces. I have to say though that average everyday women don't necessarily have the bodies of the women in his attractive women section. I think that if you or any other guy were walking down the street or if you met one of these girls you would think, "Oh, she's kinda cute". I do think you would be attracted to her, but it wouldn't be like a very strong carnal attraction. It would be a more casual attraction. I can't necessarily explain it. But either way, Erik should post photos up of better looking women. He should post photos of women that could TRULY replace fashion models in the industry. These women should:
1) Be in shape (although all the women in Erik's section are pretty much in shape)
2) Have nice teeth (nobody has perfect paper white teeth, but jesus if youre going to be in a magazine you should)
3) Have no butt zits (I don't know about the attractive women section, but I've noticed that some of Erik's "attractive" women have butt zits! It's like Jesus how do you even get those? How the hell does enough bacteria spread around your ass area so that you have zits covering it? Might just be an STD or something...
4)Be a certain height (I still think there should be a height requirement. I still think certain proportions are more ideal for modeling clothes and this includes height, so that already eliminates some of the "most feminine" women.
4)Have a decent hairstyle (Don't even make me comment)
5)No cheesy makeup
6)Better posing (obviously, fashion is not about looking like a cheap porn star wannabe and smiling while doing it)
I can't think of anymore now.
But although many of Erik's women would impress a man walking down the street, they would not turn heads on a billboard or in a magazine.
Besides, how can I even trust Erik's judgement? With age a man naturally becomes less selective when it comes to women. It's obvious why men are hardwired this way also, because with age, everyone becomes less desirable. Men probably less than women. However, men are hardwired to become less picky, because anyways the younger men are going to be taking the REALLY attractive women so there. Erik is like 30 something now, which isn't old or anything. But shouldn't I be listening to the 20 yr. olds over him?
I mean, are they more feminine than the fashion models? Yes, especially in terms of body structure. But the face and such? And that much more attractive overall? Sure...
I believe the overall intent of the "attractive women" section is to serve as a contrast to the masculine women in the fashion industry, but to call them all "attractive" is a total joke. Erik has pretty poor taste in women IMO, and I myself find most of these women to be pretty average.
He also seems very biased against showing women with even moderately sized jaws and cheekbones, going in line with his idea that those are correlates of masculinity and femininity.
The author of this web site REALLY needs to get laid.
Most of us hetero guys out here like very wide hips and a narrow waist. And no gay guy really understands how these proportions make us feel. Thus the fashion industry is full of women that just don't do it for us.
But a whole website about this? Full of porno chicks? Someone who has access to a real female would be way to busy to build this website.
Also you seem to want to have the aura of science, but scientists take measurements and make predictive, testable ideas. Where is the science here? Without it you are just a guy telling people you like chicks with big hips and gentle chins.
Yah, her face clearly is masculinized. However there are women in Erik's attractive women section that have more masculine and boyish faces than her, and these women are not even in the "slightly masculinized" section. I can copy and paste them for you to see if you would like.
Clearly this girl has a really flat but, she also has wide shoulders and really lanky arms. However, as I have said before she has hips, and her face although slightly masculine is not really ALL that bad in comparison to the other VC models.
I know you aren't answering anything for whatever reason. However, I am hoping you can tell me your personal opinion about this Victoria's Secret model:
Candice Swanepeol:
The girl is masculine yes. She has large shoulders, a weird belly button, she has no breasts, and a less than ideal ribcage. However, the girl has HIPS! And last time I checked little adolescent boys don't have hips, at least not like that.
I understand she is the exception, considering almost all the rest of the Victoria's Secret models really do look like boys. However, why is she the exception? It just doesn't fit your speculation really.
"This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people.
This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people
is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed"
"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter."
"Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people"
I would love to do a study where testosterone/oestrogen levels of populations are measured, and the percentages of individuals with either low/medium/high levels of these hormones, and also if these low/medium/high levels of hormones produces the same changes to asian and black men/women's bone structure, hip waist ratio, and delicacy of the skeleton that is observed in caucasian whites.
I would put all my money on the black and asian women with high oestrogen having the exact same doe eyes, the same small waist, same extra fat deposits on their thighs and butts, and the men with the exact same huge brow-bone and exaggerated masculine looks. :P
I bet it will be in the same proportions of people too.
QUOTE:
"by Apollyonlink
'If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''
There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.
Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine."
I would like to know which study shows that white caucasians have more attractive people per capita as compared to other races.
It must either point to higher frequency of people who develop symmetrically, or that a higher frequency of men and women with the high enough testosterone or oestrogen levels to develop those handsome/pretty looks we all know so well and humans seek out. I have never heard of such a study for either.
Erik does argue much of this, such as in regards to native americans having the highest, roundest foreheads and black africans having the most derived, feminine regions around the eyes, such as having some of the smallest browridges of any human ethnic group.
My qualms with Erik, however, is that he implicates, or atleast, tries to indicate implications, of many cranio-facial characteristics that fall on a scale of derivation to femininity and general attractiveness, such as his belief that jaw and cheekbone size are correlates of femininity, when they are wholly unrelated, and things like body size and nose size are sizable components of their beauty, in terms of facial symmetry. He draws upon very little historical and non-western sources for many of his arguments, in terms of universal considerations of beauty. He uses quite weak cross-cultural and historical evidence as well. He also, like many people in this debate, act as if the european phenotype can't produce ethnic extremities like many others. He also implicates certain physical traits, like nose structure, into scales of derivation on outright poor or scanty evidence and reasoning.
In regards to nose structure, his arguments are especially poor. Plastic surgery is telling, but again, we have the cultural and psychological influences to consider, along with the pre-modern historical evidence- which is sorely lacking from many of his arguments. I can't get enough of how, in late 07, on one of his widely discussed entries on ethnic plastic surgery, he floundered when it was mentioned how east asians had no preference for less prominent eyelids prior to pre-modern times.
He also argues for some very meager sexual selection hypothesis' in favor of the looks of northern europeans and the like. This is the gist of it, though. Erik has some good ideas, but is deeply flawed in many regards, and is highly biased as well.
Plus, while I don't think Erik has necesarrily argued that european women are the most feminine, he indicates they're highly feminine, probably even moreso than east asian women. While this might hold true for below the neck traits, for above the neck ones, this is just foolish.
I don't know if testosterone differences are the end all for general facial femininity either. There could be other environmental influences that influence facial femininity, and another factor might be how much the bone structure of the face and the like responds to testosterone. IE, people might vary on an individual, and racial basis in the sensitivity of their bone structure to tesosterone, and thus masculinization. I honestly don't know if this holds true for even below the neck bone structure. It's certainly true for things like muscle structure, for example. Blacks, atleast in America, experience considerably greater muscle development, on average, in part due to the fact their muscles are more sensitive to the effects of testosterone.
And at the end of it all, the high femininity of nordic women would simply require nordic men to be highly feminine as well- but they're not! And people like Erik and Emily do little to debate this.
Emily is a complete extremist, and much different from Erik, but Erik has been sickeningly silent towards her.
"My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'..."
Erik does imply that the feminine appearance is more than skin deep, however he also adresses pseudo-feminine and pseudo-masculine features. There are people out there, although very few, that may appear very feminine or very masculine simply because of their genes and not their hormones. For example, perhaps it is just in a woman's genes to have an hourglass figure, large breasts, full lips, large eyes, etc. These are all feminine features by the way haha (no I don't think you are a retard, but just mentioning). But, maybe her estrogen levels are average or even low, and she may not be feminine at all! Generally however there are extremely few people like this. Usually people only display a few pseudo qualities, and their true femininity or masculinity can be observed if one studies them carefully and is not distracted by the pseudo qualities that seem to indicate otherwise.
Also, from what I understand Erik DOES NOT imply that Northern European women are more feminine LOOKING on average, but truly are more feminine on average, meaning that they have higher estrogen levels compared to their androgen levels and this gives them their feminine appearance. However, he also notes that certain genetic factors contribute as well. For example, he mentions that fine features, although not feminine within themselves(
However, one thing that gets me is how Erik tries to convince people that Northern European men with fine features do not appear feminine or more feminine compared to those without fine features who are equally as mascuoline. Its bullocks! Those fine features will always add a degree of femininity to even the most masculine man. Just like robust features will add a degree of masculinity to the most feminine woman. This however does not mean that Northern European men with fine features cannot be attractive or cannot appear masculine overall. Actually,I have to say that women actually find certain feminine qualities attractive on men and prefer them to masculine ones. However, overall the male probably should be on the masculine side to be considered "optimally" attractive.
Anyways,this is why in the end it comes down to the individual. We can compare populations all we want but in the end you choose to pass down your genes to one or ahrrm.. a few people. Whatever floats your boat. So, if you want to find the most ATTRACTIVE people than you can't base where to look on populations that are on average more attractive, because as it was mentioned before, these people are not always the MOST attractive or the best. Yes, the chances that you will find someone really attractive or even the MOST attractive person is higher if you look there. But... you might be missing out on something better as well.
Anyways, my opinion is that Northern European women are on average more feminine and more attractive. On the other hand, I think that hormones are transient. Meaning, they depend on outside factors like for example diet, at times. This may be a dumb theory, and I realize I am fairly uneducated, however I believe that one reason Northern European women are more feminine is not simply because they were selected that way or whatever.I think it is the diet they were exposed to for generations and generations. Northern Europeans rely on meat and milk more than any other population of people on the planet. Common sense really considering they go through long harsh winters where food just doesn't grow. There are hormones in meat,and hormones in milk. Duh.
Also, appearing and being more feminine doesn't necessarily make someone more successful in passing on their genes and it also doesn't mean that feminine woman even has good genes to begin with. Germans are brining middle easterners or whatever to increase their population for example, so that they can support their economy, because Germans themselves are not producing enough offspring to support the economy. Now, realize I didn't say the Germans were mixing with the Middle Easterners. Therefore, although German women are more feminine than middle eastern women, they are not passing on their genes as successfully, and not because they can't, but because they choose not to for a variety of reasons.
High fashion models are supposed have the physique of a ten year old boy because they are unattractive. People like Marilyn Monroe were high fashion models before designers realized that people were looking at the model and not the clothes. If the model does not catch your interest, you look at the clothes. I'm in the business from the design end and we are taught to elongate the figure, a sketch having 9 heads instead of the normal 7. High fashion models are the closest we can come to in reality BECAUSE they are disproportional. Don't dog the industry if you don't know from where the rational is coming. Models aren't paid to be pretty, they are paid to model designs.
"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking ."
Yes, that is a good point. As I stated, there are good-looking women in all ethnic groups and it is certainly possible that the best are not Nordic.
My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'...
VioletCorpus, as to me being arrogant...I've been called worse
by Apollyonlink
'' If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''
There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.
Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine.
The very last girl, to me, symbolizes perfection. A fantasy I will hold dear for quite a long time. Thank you for this article, and for helping me understand why I consider certain women to be especially beautiful.
I think those who think that some or even all of these women are not feminine are just plain crazy. There is a propensity these days to take the traditional meaning of a word and redefine it but it's just plain crap. Every women I have seen on this page is very beautiful each in their own right, and very feminine. Stop judging people with your faulty human standards and see the beauty in Creation. Nuff said!
Thank you for this reply. I'm sorry if I acted somewhat forceful last time, but you gave an air of arrogance that simply wasn't justified for what lays before you. There is *alot* to read on these discussions, but for you to agree so much with Emily, indicating you read a good deal of her posts, and to greet her detractors with such characterizations of her arguments- its just crude.
I could detail more if you want, but to sum it up, the problem with Erik's arguments, like I said, is that he uses very poor preferential, and in some cases, anthropoligical evidence, to back himself up. This is most notably seen in how he treats large jaws and cheekbones are inherently masculine features (when in reality they're not), and his dismissal of much in the way of historical and pre-modern preferences in beauty, particularly in the case of non-western societies. I've posted a good deal of this before, particularly in regards to excerpts from Charles Darwin's writings on sexual selection in humans, but the way Erik deals with them is quite poor. I can't find his primary entry on it at the moment, though.
Erik's response to the idea of nordic women being so highly feminine entailing nordic men being feminine was purely on the basis of population variance- but then, that would also leave alot of ugly, masculine looking women in a population as well. No true consistency in beauty.
My simple point is that nordics, particularly swedes, aren't as feminine as many promoters of this idea simply on the basis of the way their men look. Your link is interesting, but it seems to be primarily about behaviors and manners of dress. It's not like testosterone differences in a population can change alot in a generation, though.
Swedish men have become more metrosexual and less masculine in recent times, according to a new survey polling both sexes on their opinion of the Swedish male.
51 percent of respondents said Swedish men were more masculine in previous times, with men in particular (58 percent) agreeing with the statement. Only 13 percent of men and women felt today's men were more masculine than their predecessors.
Asked whether Swedish men were more masculine than their counterparts in other countries only 9 percent of Swedish women felt this to be the case. 19 percent said Swedish chaps were less masculine, though the overwhelming majority (65 percent) said they were neither more nor less masculine than foreign fellows.
Swedish women also like their mates to stand up straight and be counted. Asked to choose between five alternatives, 33 percent of women found slouched shoulders and poor posture to be the least attractive physical qualities in a potential partner.
28 percent said overweight partners were a no-no, while 18 percent ruled out partners with feminine features, 8 percent disliked scrawniness and 0 percent found masculine features to be a turn-off. The 'None of the above' and 'don't know' options made up the numbers.
For men (36 percent), the weight issue topped the list of least attractive physical features, followed by posture (18 percent), masculine features (18 percent), scrawniness (10 percent) and feminine features (3 percent).
Moving away from the physical side of things, both men (44 percent) and women (43 percent) listed 'a good sense of humour' as by far the most attractive quality in a partner.
Very few respondents considered job success to be the top draw in a partner: 2 percent of women and 1 percent of men.
Both women and men were also asked which type of man they found most attractive. A lot of men chose to skip this question but on the whole those who did answer agreed with the replies of their female compatriots, who responded as follows:
- The normal "boy next door type, like TV show host Fredrik Wikingsson": 26 percent.
- The James Bond type in a tailored suit: 18 percent.
- The metrosexual type, "like football player Fredrik Ljungberg": 13 percent.
- The slightly chilled out type, "like actor Rolf Lassgård": 6 percent.
- The tough muscle mountain, "like Sylvester Stallone in the Rambo movies": 3 percent.
-The lanky, musician type, "like musician Andreas Kleerup": 3 percent.
7 percent of respondents had somebody else entirely in mind, while a further 7 percent couldn't make up their minds.
The internet-based study was carried out by YouGov on behalf of MBT Shoes. The polling agency received responses from 1,003 people aged 15-64 and spread across the country.
(Apollyon)...I don't know if this invalidates Erik's position or not since it seems to be about perception, but I'm curious to hear Erik's response.
No need to be insulted. I wasn't specifically referring to your posts.
In terms of how Godwin's Law is applied:
"Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate."
VioletCorpus, if Erik is wrong in his assessments, presumably there is good scientific data to pull that would indicate this? He has made his challenge clear. Whatever his (and Emily's) motivation, it doesn't invalidate their claims.
I don't agree with everything they state either. However, I was indicating that in this particular instance I concur with Emily's position. It's unfortunate that the posts, pro and con, can't be made with less hostility and without ad hominem attacks, but that is the nature of public, anonymous, forums, esp. one that generates such emotional reactions.
I do find your point regarding masculinity and feminity in a given population interesting. I'm curious to hear Erik's response.
As to my preferences...I have stated that Southern Europeans are quite appealing (maybe it's due to my Northern Irish heritage, I don't know). However, that does not mean that I therefore think they must be the most feminine or even the most beautiful necessarily. There are beautiful women from all ethnic backgrounds...
Anyway, no offense was intended. I was being slightly facetious with the Godwin's Law point...just to let David know that it can ruin one's position, however valid (or not as the case may be).
I have a cup breasts please stop griping, there's nothing worse than a b cup girl coming onto sites like this and raising hell. Your breasts are not small. Go away.
I agree with Violet Corpus that although Nordics have some of the most feminine women, they have some of the most masculine women as well.
Now, I will restate that where I live we have a large "Nordic" population, mainly because these Germans settled here and are pretty exclusive to anyone outside of their little tribe, even today. I mean these people are really conservative and they can tell who came from where and who is who. I know conservatives get stereotyped as being stupid, but these Germans are actually extremely intelligent on average.
Either way,
I have observed they have very feminine women on average. Alot of the girls here are really feminine. Now most of them don't have the perfect hourglass figure. I have a more extreme hourglass figure than most of them and as you can see I have far from the "perfect" figure. But... they have other feminine features and their figures generally come close to the hourglass even though it may not qualify in the end. Either way, in contrast to this there are some extremely masculine German women here. In addition, some of the most masculine women I have ever EVER seen are Nordic and go to my school. However, there are fewer masculine women at my school on average than there are feminine women. Therefore, I guess it depends on the makeup of the original settlers. They were probably somewhat feminine on average.
I don't find very masculine German men here, or no offense but masculine men in general. The most masculine guys tend to be Irish, and I have to say I have my suspicions that they are the mythical "Black Irish". Although I don't think the Black Irish are mythical at all and are legit. There are a few Indians here,they are exchange students, but the men are not masculine they are very small boned and small in general. Although some are tall.
The German men here are generally just average. Not very masculine but not feminine either.
I know this is just one population, but its the best example I have.
However, I see a trend of "feminine" men especially in Scandinavia. Never have I seen so many men with styled dyed hair and colorful scarfs around their necks. But I haven't traveled to Scandinavia although we do have connections in Finland. My ideas of Scandinavian men are based on Swedish social networking sites I've browsed through.
I think the whole thing about homosexuals running the fashion industry is just ridiculous! Here's the thing. Men on average find slender women more attractive. However, as in other cases, these attributes tend to often be exaggerated. , fake eye lashes, women get ridiculously large boobs(though boob jobs) in a bid to be more attractive, shave any body hair to look less masculine, corsets in the old days to make the waist smaller(now there are skirts and dresses which give the same effect), eye make up to make eyes look bigger, I could go on. So the skinny frames exaggerate attractive slenderness, make legs look longer(which is also viewed as attractive) and makes them look fit. So, why am I going on about this exaggeration of features? Well, the answer is simple. Men tend to like things out of the ordinary, fetishes if you wish, just look at the number of men who like giant boobs(especially on tiny women), underage looking women, petite women e.t.c. There is a catch though, you should only over-emphasize the features perceived attractive in women like a well-defined jaw(an undefined one makes the lady look chubby), thin legs and the things I mentioned above.
Elise is a good looking girl except for her broad looking shoulders which are also over-emphasized by her clothing, Ginger has a perfect body but her facial features are dull and weak thus making her look chubby and she has an inconsistent skin tone, Eunice, I like her but it's the skin again. The point I'm trying to make is there is no perfect woman, there just isn't! The above women are all very beautiful, but like the rest of us, they have flaws. I'd actually be happy to date any one of them, I find them all attractive, like most men I like women of various shapes and sizes.
Oh, in the above:
I mean that with age men do not become less desirable as quickly as women. This is because younger women will still be interested in older men, however most young men will not be interested in older women. Men always go for younger. Women can go for young or old.
So I am saying that with age, a woman will become less desirable more quickly than a man will. A man will remain desirable for a much longer period than a woman will.
But even so, they can't always compete with the younger men. Except in terms of providing security and such, which is the reason most younger women go for them in the first place. However, with women becoming more independent and securing their own futures, less and less women will depend on men for that.
Violet Corpus,
I understand what you are saying. Some of the women in Erik's attractive women section aren't that great looking. There are two reasons for this:
1) There are actually some women with some masculine features in this section. Mostly in the face. I don't why Erik would post some of these women. I noticed that Erik is sometimes attracted to women that are actually kind of masculine. Now Erik's excuse is that every woman on the planet, no matter how feminine, will display at least one or two slightly masculine or pseudo masculine etc. trait. However, women like Megan Fox or Keeley Hazel, all women he really finds attractive, are not feminine overall. They aren't even close. So I don't know whats going on.
2)Some girls are pretty much feminine overall in his section. HOWEVER, they truly are average everyday girls. They generally have very bland faces. I have to say though that average everyday women don't necessarily have the bodies of the women in his attractive women section. I think that if you or any other guy were walking down the street or if you met one of these girls you would think, "Oh, she's kinda cute". I do think you would be attracted to her, but it wouldn't be like a very strong carnal attraction. It would be a more casual attraction. I can't necessarily explain it. But either way, Erik should post photos up of better looking women. He should post photos of women that could TRULY replace fashion models in the industry. These women should:
1) Be in shape (although all the women in Erik's section are pretty much in shape)
2) Have nice teeth (nobody has perfect paper white teeth, but jesus if youre going to be in a magazine you should)
3) Have no butt zits (I don't know about the attractive women section, but I've noticed that some of Erik's "attractive" women have butt zits! It's like Jesus how do you even get those? How the hell does enough bacteria spread around your ass area so that you have zits covering it? Might just be an STD or something...
4)Be a certain height (I still think there should be a height requirement. I still think certain proportions are more ideal for modeling clothes and this includes height, so that already eliminates some of the "most feminine" women.
4)Have a decent hairstyle (Don't even make me comment)
5)No cheesy makeup
6)Better posing (obviously, fashion is not about looking like a cheap porn star wannabe and smiling while doing it)
I can't think of anymore now.
But although many of Erik's women would impress a man walking down the street, they would not turn heads on a billboard or in a magazine.
Besides, how can I even trust Erik's judgement? With age a man naturally becomes less selective when it comes to women. It's obvious why men are hardwired this way also, because with age, everyone becomes less desirable. Men probably less than women. However, men are hardwired to become less picky, because anyways the younger men are going to be taking the REALLY attractive women so there. Erik is like 30 something now, which isn't old or anything. But shouldn't I be listening to the 20 yr. olds over him?
I mean, are they more feminine than the fashion models? Yes, especially in terms of body structure. But the face and such? And that much more attractive overall? Sure...
I believe the overall intent of the "attractive women" section is to serve as a contrast to the masculine women in the fashion industry, but to call them all "attractive" is a total joke. Erik has pretty poor taste in women IMO, and I myself find most of these women to be pretty average.
He also seems very biased against showing women with even moderately sized jaws and cheekbones, going in line with his idea that those are correlates of masculinity and femininity.
The author of this web site REALLY needs to get laid.
Most of us hetero guys out here like very wide hips and a narrow waist. And no gay guy really understands how these proportions make us feel. Thus the fashion industry is full of women that just don't do it for us.
But a whole website about this? Full of porno chicks? Someone who has access to a real female would be way to busy to build this website.
Also you seem to want to have the aura of science, but scientists take measurements and make predictive, testable ideas. Where is the science here? Without it you are just a guy telling people you like chicks with big hips and gentle chins.
Apollyon,
Yah, her face clearly is masculinized. However there are women in Erik's attractive women section that have more masculine and boyish faces than her, and these women are not even in the "slightly masculinized" section. I can copy and paste them for you to see if you would like.
Clearly this girl has a really flat but, she also has wide shoulders and really lanky arms. However, as I have said before she has hips, and her face although slightly masculine is not really ALL that bad in comparison to the other VC models.
She does appear to have hips (esp. the first photo).
However, she has a 'boyish' face (not necessarily unattractive). Flat chested. I noticed in the last photo she has flat butt. She also has long arms.
Of course she may be the exception to the rule. Still not overly curvy though.
Erik,
I know you aren't answering anything for whatever reason. However, I am hoping you can tell me your personal opinion about this Victoria's Secret model:
Candice Swanepeol:
The girl is masculine yes. She has large shoulders, a weird belly button, she has no breasts, and a less than ideal ribcage. However, the girl has HIPS! And last time I checked little adolescent boys don't have hips, at least not like that.
I understand she is the exception, considering almost all the rest of the Victoria's Secret models really do look like boys. However, why is she the exception? It just doesn't fit your speculation really.
"This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people.
This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people
is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed"
"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter."
"Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people"
I would love to do a study where testosterone/oestrogen levels of populations are measured, and the percentages of individuals with either low/medium/high levels of these hormones, and also if these low/medium/high levels of hormones produces the same changes to asian and black men/women's bone structure, hip waist ratio, and delicacy of the skeleton that is observed in caucasian whites.
I would put all my money on the black and asian women with high oestrogen having the exact same doe eyes, the same small waist, same extra fat deposits on their thighs and butts, and the men with the exact same huge brow-bone and exaggerated masculine looks. :P
I bet it will be in the same proportions of people too.
[img]http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/sugarleaf82/s1848526387_8156.jpg][/img]
Ad infinitum!
QUOTE:
"by Apollyonlink
'If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''
There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.
Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine."
I would like to know which study shows that white caucasians have more attractive people per capita as compared to other races.
It must either point to higher frequency of people who develop symmetrically, or that a higher frequency of men and women with the high enough testosterone or oestrogen levels to develop those handsome/pretty looks we all know so well and humans seek out. I have never heard of such a study for either.
Godis and Anon125:
Erik does argue much of this, such as in regards to native americans having the highest, roundest foreheads and black africans having the most derived, feminine regions around the eyes, such as having some of the smallest browridges of any human ethnic group.
My qualms with Erik, however, is that he implicates, or atleast, tries to indicate implications, of many cranio-facial characteristics that fall on a scale of derivation to femininity and general attractiveness, such as his belief that jaw and cheekbone size are correlates of femininity, when they are wholly unrelated, and things like body size and nose size are sizable components of their beauty, in terms of facial symmetry. He draws upon very little historical and non-western sources for many of his arguments, in terms of universal considerations of beauty. He uses quite weak cross-cultural and historical evidence as well. He also, like many people in this debate, act as if the european phenotype can't produce ethnic extremities like many others. He also implicates certain physical traits, like nose structure, into scales of derivation on outright poor or scanty evidence and reasoning.
In regards to nose structure, his arguments are especially poor. Plastic surgery is telling, but again, we have the cultural and psychological influences to consider, along with the pre-modern historical evidence- which is sorely lacking from many of his arguments. I can't get enough of how, in late 07, on one of his widely discussed entries on ethnic plastic surgery, he floundered when it was mentioned how east asians had no preference for less prominent eyelids prior to pre-modern times.
He also argues for some very meager sexual selection hypothesis' in favor of the looks of northern europeans and the like. This is the gist of it, though. Erik has some good ideas, but is deeply flawed in many regards, and is highly biased as well.
Plus, while I don't think Erik has necesarrily argued that european women are the most feminine, he indicates they're highly feminine, probably even moreso than east asian women. While this might hold true for below the neck traits, for above the neck ones, this is just foolish.
I don't know if testosterone differences are the end all for general facial femininity either. There could be other environmental influences that influence facial femininity, and another factor might be how much the bone structure of the face and the like responds to testosterone. IE, people might vary on an individual, and racial basis in the sensitivity of their bone structure to tesosterone, and thus masculinization. I honestly don't know if this holds true for even below the neck bone structure. It's certainly true for things like muscle structure, for example. Blacks, atleast in America, experience considerably greater muscle development, on average, in part due to the fact their muscles are more sensitive to the effects of testosterone.
And at the end of it all, the high femininity of nordic women would simply require nordic men to be highly feminine as well- but they're not! And people like Erik and Emily do little to debate this.
Emily is a complete extremist, and much different from Erik, but Erik has been sickeningly silent towards her.
Apollyon,
"My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'..."
Erik does imply that the feminine appearance is more than skin deep, however he also adresses pseudo-feminine and pseudo-masculine features. There are people out there, although very few, that may appear very feminine or very masculine simply because of their genes and not their hormones. For example, perhaps it is just in a woman's genes to have an hourglass figure, large breasts, full lips, large eyes, etc. These are all feminine features by the way haha (no I don't think you are a retard, but just mentioning). But, maybe her estrogen levels are average or even low, and she may not be feminine at all! Generally however there are extremely few people like this. Usually people only display a few pseudo qualities, and their true femininity or masculinity can be observed if one studies them carefully and is not distracted by the pseudo qualities that seem to indicate otherwise.
Also, from what I understand Erik DOES NOT imply that Northern European women are more feminine LOOKING on average, but truly are more feminine on average, meaning that they have higher estrogen levels compared to their androgen levels and this gives them their feminine appearance. However, he also notes that certain genetic factors contribute as well. For example, he mentions that fine features, although not feminine within themselves(
However, one thing that gets me is how Erik tries to convince people that Northern European men with fine features do not appear feminine or more feminine compared to those without fine features who are equally as mascuoline. Its bullocks! Those fine features will always add a degree of femininity to even the most masculine man. Just like robust features will add a degree of masculinity to the most feminine woman. This however does not mean that Northern European men with fine features cannot be attractive or cannot appear masculine overall. Actually,I have to say that women actually find certain feminine qualities attractive on men and prefer them to masculine ones. However, overall the male probably should be on the masculine side to be considered "optimally" attractive.
Anyways,this is why in the end it comes down to the individual. We can compare populations all we want but in the end you choose to pass down your genes to one or ahrrm.. a few people. Whatever floats your boat. So, if you want to find the most ATTRACTIVE people than you can't base where to look on populations that are on average more attractive, because as it was mentioned before, these people are not always the MOST attractive or the best. Yes, the chances that you will find someone really attractive or even the MOST attractive person is higher if you look there. But... you might be missing out on something better as well.
Anyways, my opinion is that Northern European women are on average more feminine and more attractive. On the other hand, I think that hormones are transient. Meaning, they depend on outside factors like for example diet, at times. This may be a dumb theory, and I realize I am fairly uneducated, however I believe that one reason Northern European women are more feminine is not simply because they were selected that way or whatever.I think it is the diet they were exposed to for generations and generations. Northern Europeans rely on meat and milk more than any other population of people on the planet. Common sense really considering they go through long harsh winters where food just doesn't grow. There are hormones in meat,and hormones in milk. Duh.
Also, appearing and being more feminine doesn't necessarily make someone more successful in passing on their genes and it also doesn't mean that feminine woman even has good genes to begin with. Germans are brining middle easterners or whatever to increase their population for example, so that they can support their economy, because Germans themselves are not producing enough offspring to support the economy. Now, realize I didn't say the Germans were mixing with the Middle Easterners. Therefore, although German women are more feminine than middle eastern women, they are not passing on their genes as successfully, and not because they can't, but because they choose not to for a variety of reasons.
High fashion models are supposed have the physique of a ten year old boy because they are unattractive. People like Marilyn Monroe were high fashion models before designers realized that people were looking at the model and not the clothes. If the model does not catch your interest, you look at the clothes. I'm in the business from the design end and we are taught to elongate the figure, a sketch having 9 heads instead of the normal 7. High fashion models are the closest we can come to in reality BECAUSE they are disproportional. Don't dog the industry if you don't know from where the rational is coming. Models aren't paid to be pretty, they are paid to model designs.
anon125,
"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking ."
Yes, that is a good point. As I stated, there are good-looking women in all ethnic groups and it is certainly possible that the best are not Nordic.
My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'...
VioletCorpus, as to me being arrogant...I've been called worse
by Apollyonlink
'' If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''
There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.
Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine.
I'm sorry, I meant the one on the horse.
The very last girl, to me, symbolizes perfection. A fantasy I will hold dear for quite a long time. Thank you for this article, and for helping me understand why I consider certain women to be especially beautiful.
A lot of you are a bunch of racist, stuck-up assholes.
Quit acting like children.
I think those who think that some or even all of these women are not feminine are just plain crazy. There is a propensity these days to take the traditional meaning of a word and redefine it but it's just plain crap. Every women I have seen on this page is very beautiful each in their own right, and very feminine. Stop judging people with your faulty human standards and see the beauty in Creation. Nuff said!
Appollyon:
Thank you for this reply. I'm sorry if I acted somewhat forceful last time, but you gave an air of arrogance that simply wasn't justified for what lays before you. There is *alot* to read on these discussions, but for you to agree so much with Emily, indicating you read a good deal of her posts, and to greet her detractors with such characterizations of her arguments- its just crude.
I could detail more if you want, but to sum it up, the problem with Erik's arguments, like I said, is that he uses very poor preferential, and in some cases, anthropoligical evidence, to back himself up. This is most notably seen in how he treats large jaws and cheekbones are inherently masculine features (when in reality they're not), and his dismissal of much in the way of historical and pre-modern preferences in beauty, particularly in the case of non-western societies. I've posted a good deal of this before, particularly in regards to excerpts from Charles Darwin's writings on sexual selection in humans, but the way Erik deals with them is quite poor. I can't find his primary entry on it at the moment, though.
Erik's response to the idea of nordic women being so highly feminine entailing nordic men being feminine was purely on the basis of population variance- but then, that would also leave alot of ugly, masculine looking women in a population as well. No true consistency in beauty.
My simple point is that nordics, particularly swedes, aren't as feminine as many promoters of this idea simply on the basis of the way their men look. Your link is interesting, but it seems to be primarily about behaviors and manners of dress. It's not like testosterone differences in a population can change alot in a generation, though.
For VioletCorpus and Visitor:
Here is an interesting study that suggests 'Swedish Men are not as masculine as before'...
http://www.thelocal.se/19144/20090429/
Here is the body of the report:
Swedish men 'not as masculine as they used to be': study
Published: 29 Apr 09 11:01 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/19144/20090429/
Swedish men have become more metrosexual and less masculine in recent times, according to a new survey polling both sexes on their opinion of the Swedish male.
51 percent of respondents said Swedish men were more masculine in previous times, with men in particular (58 percent) agreeing with the statement. Only 13 percent of men and women felt today's men were more masculine than their predecessors.
Asked whether Swedish men were more masculine than their counterparts in other countries only 9 percent of Swedish women felt this to be the case. 19 percent said Swedish chaps were less masculine, though the overwhelming majority (65 percent) said they were neither more nor less masculine than foreign fellows.
Swedish women also like their mates to stand up straight and be counted. Asked to choose between five alternatives, 33 percent of women found slouched shoulders and poor posture to be the least attractive physical qualities in a potential partner.
28 percent said overweight partners were a no-no, while 18 percent ruled out partners with feminine features, 8 percent disliked scrawniness and 0 percent found masculine features to be a turn-off. The 'None of the above' and 'don't know' options made up the numbers.
For men (36 percent), the weight issue topped the list of least attractive physical features, followed by posture (18 percent), masculine features (18 percent), scrawniness (10 percent) and feminine features (3 percent).
Moving away from the physical side of things, both men (44 percent) and women (43 percent) listed 'a good sense of humour' as by far the most attractive quality in a partner.
Very few respondents considered job success to be the top draw in a partner: 2 percent of women and 1 percent of men.
Both women and men were also asked which type of man they found most attractive. A lot of men chose to skip this question but on the whole those who did answer agreed with the replies of their female compatriots, who responded as follows:
- The normal "boy next door type, like TV show host Fredrik Wikingsson": 26 percent.
- The James Bond type in a tailored suit: 18 percent.
- The metrosexual type, "like football player Fredrik Ljungberg": 13 percent.
- The slightly chilled out type, "like actor Rolf Lassgård": 6 percent.
- The tough muscle mountain, "like Sylvester Stallone in the Rambo movies": 3 percent.
-The lanky, musician type, "like musician Andreas Kleerup": 3 percent.
7 percent of respondents had somebody else entirely in mind, while a further 7 percent couldn't make up their minds.
The internet-based study was carried out by YouGov on behalf of MBT Shoes. The polling agency received responses from 1,003 people aged 15-64 and spread across the country.
(Apollyon)...I don't know if this invalidates Erik's position or not since it seems to be about perception, but I'm curious to hear Erik's response.
VioletCorpus,
No need to be insulted. I wasn't specifically referring to your posts.
In terms of how Godwin's Law is applied:
"Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate."
From here:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Godwin's_Law
VioletCorpus, if Erik is wrong in his assessments, presumably there is good scientific data to pull that would indicate this? He has made his challenge clear. Whatever his (and Emily's) motivation, it doesn't invalidate their claims.
I don't agree with everything they state either. However, I was indicating that in this particular instance I concur with Emily's position. It's unfortunate that the posts, pro and con, can't be made with less hostility and without ad hominem attacks, but that is the nature of public, anonymous, forums, esp. one that generates such emotional reactions.
I do find your point regarding masculinity and feminity in a given population interesting. I'm curious to hear Erik's response.
As to my preferences...I have stated that Southern Europeans are quite appealing (maybe it's due to my Northern Irish heritage, I don't know). However, that does not mean that I therefore think they must be the most feminine or even the most beautiful necessarily. There are beautiful women from all ethnic backgrounds...
Anyway, no offense was intended. I was being slightly facetious with the Godwin's Law point...just to let David know that it can ruin one's position, however valid (or not as the case may be).
- Apollyon
I have a cup breasts please stop griping, there's nothing worse than a b cup girl coming onto sites like this and raising hell. Your breasts are not small. Go away.
I agree with Violet Corpus that although Nordics have some of the most feminine women, they have some of the most masculine women as well.
Now, I will restate that where I live we have a large "Nordic" population, mainly because these Germans settled here and are pretty exclusive to anyone outside of their little tribe, even today. I mean these people are really conservative and they can tell who came from where and who is who. I know conservatives get stereotyped as being stupid, but these Germans are actually extremely intelligent on average.
Either way,
I have observed they have very feminine women on average. Alot of the girls here are really feminine. Now most of them don't have the perfect hourglass figure. I have a more extreme hourglass figure than most of them and as you can see I have far from the "perfect" figure. But... they have other feminine features and their figures generally come close to the hourglass even though it may not qualify in the end. Either way, in contrast to this there are some extremely masculine German women here. In addition, some of the most masculine women I have ever EVER seen are Nordic and go to my school. However, there are fewer masculine women at my school on average than there are feminine women. Therefore, I guess it depends on the makeup of the original settlers. They were probably somewhat feminine on average.
I don't find very masculine German men here, or no offense but masculine men in general. The most masculine guys tend to be Irish, and I have to say I have my suspicions that they are the mythical "Black Irish". Although I don't think the Black Irish are mythical at all and are legit. There are a few Indians here,they are exchange students, but the men are not masculine they are very small boned and small in general. Although some are tall.
The German men here are generally just average. Not very masculine but not feminine either.
I know this is just one population, but its the best example I have.
However, I see a trend of "feminine" men especially in Scandinavia. Never have I seen so many men with styled dyed hair and colorful scarfs around their necks. But I haven't traveled to Scandinavia although we do have connections in Finland. My ideas of Scandinavian men are based on Swedish social networking sites I've browsed through.
Pages