I'm really not in the mood to go into much detail at the moment, or possibly even again. You've passed by in these discussions before and sucked up to Emily and waved off any critiques of her as doing little more than calling her a nordic fetishist, but the rest are staring you right in your face. That kind of ignorance and lack of time to comb through these discussions, but to praise her is pretty amazing.
I find David's Hitler comparisons to be too emotive, but the rest of his post is spot on. The use of "Godwin's Law" doesn't mean somebody lost an argument, by the way.
Your critiques are remarkably similar to Emily's as well- people who attack or critique her are "jealous" and can "only use insults". Although she didn't sign her last comment, Emily's most recent post here said I call anybody who prefers nordics a fetishist. Uhhh, no, I've never said anything of the sort.
Emily is a compulsive liar, profoundly emotionally driven, a propagandist, and essentially a nordic supremacist. The vitrol shes shown to eastern european women, and to southern european women on this page are proof enough of that. I'm dead sick of people defending her because she's sick of racism against whites or speaking for whites or whatever. Someone who does that wouldn't trash the vast majority of whites to the exclusion of their own tiny, tiny little subdivision. (specifically northern europeans- more specifically, nordics, and even more specifically, scandinavians, and most specifically, swedes.)
The problem with people like Erik and Emily is that they marshall incredibly limited and poor psychological and cultural context evidence to buttress their arguments, and where they try to fill these gaps up, do it from a very, very narrow context. But Emily is unbelievably worse than Erik. Emily's arguments pretty much stem down to this:
1. Pop in and proclaim how swedish women are the epitomy of female beauty.
2. Act like her ultra-narrow preferences and opinions extend to all of humanity.
3. Buttress this by spamming the same several dozen photographs of swedish women from night clubs and the like, who might not even be that attractive, but are posted because they somewhat meagerly fit her ultra-narrow preferences, as evidence of this. Along with loads of inane anecdotes.
4. Contrast these nordics by spamming several dozen photographs of ethnicities and countries far, far larger than Sweden.
5. Basically ignore anything to the contrary- whether it be actual scientific, anthropological, academic etc. studies, detailed historical accounts, etc. etc. etc. and brand almost any detractor as being jealous or hating whites.
6. Wave off objections to trashing on non-nordic whites, or non-whites in general- such as calling asians fetal, undeveloped dwarves with downs syndrome that look like genetic experiments gone bad or saying blacks are the least evolved of all human races- as being little more than "crying racist".
I've genuinely seen enough of Emily to make judgements like this. She's psychotic. But the greatest, and I mean THE greatest fallacy of all in this kind of debate is to act as if the european, specifically nordic phenotype, can't produce extreme ethnic cranio-facial traits- which seem to be poorly expressed compared to most other groups, atleast in the nasal area. I think it's quite clear to say that an overtly long, narrow, tall face is an ethnic extremity for them, and other groups with similar phenotypes. This face is known as the "horse-face" look.
But still another great fallacy in this kind of debate, which you fall into, is this:
If nordic women are so feminine, why aren't nordic men as well?
This is the best defense Erik can muster:
"Just because a population has more feminine women does not mean that its men will also be more feminine. Have you ever entertained the notion of population variation in the extent of differentiation in secondary sexual characteristics? There are propulations where the women look more feminine and the men more masculine compared to others. In populations with more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, you will find the women to be more feminine looking on average, the men to be more masculine looking on average, disproportionately find the most masculine-looking men, disproportionately find the most feminine-looking women and disproportionately find the most masculine-looking women also (because of sexually antagonistic selection)."
This bespeaks PURELY of VARIANCE among averages. It's certainly possible for a population to have skewed proportion of highly masculine men and highly feminine women, but once again by basic laws of inheritance, it would also have skewed proportions of highly masculine women and highly feminine women. You simply CANNOT have highly feminine women and at the same time having highly masculine men in a population, and expect it to stay this way. Now, I don't know of the exact dynamics of how and why women prefer men with the whole "pretty boy" look, which is rather feminine. But that seems to be a case of flucuating, proportional combinations of masculinity and femininity and not full-blown femininity. Regardless, that kind of look can't be produced by overtly feminine women in even a proper manner.
All of this seems to sadly suggest nordic women aren't as feminine as you want them to be.
Jesus. You apparently took the time to read Emily's comments, but nobody elses? If you'd actually read other discourses on the recent comments, you'll see Emily certainly hasn't won anything. I'm rather insulted by your ignorance.
Your comment has little of anything new, but I just had to address this:
"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?"
Nordics on the most feminine women on earth- and by proxy, nordic men must be too.
Everybody is arguing haha okay.
Here is my analysis.
Her body is fine. I think Danielle finds muscle tone attractive in women because she is a woman and therefore is attracted to masculine features such as muscle tone. However some muscle tone shouldn't necessarily be unattractive as women have to be strong to raise their offspring(from an pro-evolution viewpoint). However for that some muscle tone to show she would have to have an above average leanness to her which would be more masculine. So the some muscle that would be necessary wouldn't necessarily be visible.
HOWEVER
I do not think she is ultra feminine because her face is some what childish. This is the reason some consider her cute. Yet just because she is ultra developed with estrogen does not mean she is a bit masculine at all. She IS feminine. I also advocate that there is a margin at which one can be too feminine or too masculine to the point of looking non-prototypical and outlandish. Anything excessive is usually dangerous right?
SO FAR AS FIGURE GOES.. i think she has way more hourglass than runway models. I think she is average.
Now what is wrong with average?
So what if average is very close to ideal?
Do you have to be ultra-strange to be beautiful?
If you took the best looking girl who is feminine and made her perfect body perfect face and cloned her a billion times does this make her not beautiful simply because she is one of many?
But this is just my take. Everybody is so hell bent on there being only one person who can be truly beautiful.
Point is if most any man met this girl, he would find her cute, pretty and SEXY. If she was fun and sweet then they would keep her and probably never have the desire to cheat. Does beauty matter beyond that? Why isn't good enough not good enough?
"There was a guy in Germany who was doing the same and actually, at the time, quite many people in his home country believed him. He ended badly in 1945."
Seems to me the con argument is based upon personal anger/jealousy rather than any legitimate substance. Saying Nordics are 'big boned' and have 'large heads' is proof.
Kim Kardashian has the face of a man and a massive body. Not remotely feminine.
Living In Toronto, Canada one of the most multicultural cities on earth, I can say that while there are good looking women from all ethnicities, the observations by Emily are 100% correct. Arabic women tend to have large noses and coarser features, Latin girls are thicker with less feminine features and Asian girls are shorter with less curves, larger heads and flatter buttocks. There are many 'bottle-blondes'...which is best passed off by women of northern European ancestry. They wouldn't colour their hair blonde if it wasn't a desired feature. 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.
I think it can also be best illustrated by how all of these ethnic plastic surgeries- though mainly rhinoplasty- when it comes to men, converge on a nordic mean far, far less significantly than it does for women. But again and again, this acts as if the european/nordic phenotype can't produce unattractive ethnic extremities as well. That's the prime fallacy in this kind of debate. The horse-face look is pretty clear-cut, but nose structure is abit more debatable. Once again, you'd have to look into what kind of nose types can be produced on certain ethnic nose continuums.
I believe overtly long, narrow, projecting, etc. nose types are a universal trait for caucasoid populations, and it seems like overtly concave noses, the "scoop nose" look, are a european/nordic extremity- alot of whites have lightly concaved noses, but few have overtly concave noses, though I've seen a number of them with it. It could just be that certain evolutionary processes caused this trait to not propogate that much.
Also, Godis, it actually is true that men age better than women, I'm not sure where you got that. Men's higher testosterone levels prevent their skin from wrinkling as much. Plus, their slightly darker skin overall contributes to this. (even correcting for all other factors affecting the aging process, darker skin will age better than lighter skin no matter what- higher melanin levels produce more collagen. but to argue that on such an objective basis would leave the darkest people the best looking.)
I think the greater ambivalence about the looks of men can be well illustrated by people's preferences on certain ethnic looks for men. Few ethnic groups care much for the looks of, say, white men, outside of indians and a number of asian women. (but that's pretty much due to overall facial masculinity and little else) In my experiences, black women don't have much of a preference for white men.
I know of the difference between women being more accepting of ugly men and the like, but that's not that related to the idea of male beauty being more relativistic. I'm just saying that people in general are more ambivalent about certain facial features on men than on women- like nose structure, for example.
I agree male beauty is not more relativistic. It's just that women are more accepting of ugly men than men are of ugly women. That is just the truth. In all honesty I see very few males that live up to any standard. The majority of males are just average at best. I can count thrice as many attractive women at my school than I can count attractive men. That is sad taking in consideration that the hourglass is so rare and that feminine beauty in general is so rare. Yet, despite this women on average will always be more attractive for women, than men are for men. Period. I'd also like to add that it is not true that men age better than women. It is true that both male and female become more masculine with age, however men produce less testosterone and they start looking well not so great themselves. Male beauty is NOT more relativistic that is bull shit. Women are just more accepting. I think with the way the majority of men look these days, they really should be more accepting of ugly women. Sorry, just the truth.
And BTW, I don't care about looks when it comes to a guy. Instead he has to be intelligent and funny. But looks help out haha
"Women like Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai are considered gorgeous by most people ALL over the world. Why? Because of their multiethnic/multi-European beauty. They have fair skin/eyes, dark hair AND somewhat exotic features."
It's not really the fair skin/eyes and dark hair combination that makes them appealing, but rather the high eybrows, sensual lips, well-defined jaw line, balanced and proportionate facial features. Take for example Monica Bellucci and Yamila Diaz, both are stunning tanned brunette women. Feminine beauty has always been subconsciously associated with the beauty standards of the Middle East, big boobs/sensual lips/perfectly small waist/big sparkling eyes/tanned complexion/clear skin and a healthy weight. Milions of women undergo various plastic surgeries to achieve that look.
Wow, there are some really weird and narrow minded people on this page. Seriously, I'm flabbergasted.
First and foremost - I really disagree with those of you who say that male beauty is more relativistic than female beauty. I don't see that being the case. Women are much more gorgeous than men anyway, mainly because of their femininity/feminine features. Doesn't that mean that female beauty is MORE relativistic? I mean, people rarely become mesmerized by a man's looks, do they?! And when they do, the man usually has quite androgynous features. The important factors are symmetry and health. People with symmetric faces will ALWAYS look better - no matter what kind of nose they have. Personally, I'm of Slavic descent, and I live in Scandinavia - and I have to say that many Scandinavian men are stunning. Especially some of the blonde ones. And yes, I admit that I do like smaller, cute, more feminine noses. However, some people here need to stop thinking that Swedes (and Scandinavians in general) are the ideal. Women like Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai are considered gorgeous by most people ALL over the world. Why? Because of their multiethnic/multi-European beauty. They have fair skin/eyes, dark hair AND somewhat exotic features. Megan Fox and Jolie both have a European (non Scandinavian) and Native American background. Jolie is also part Czech (Slavic). A "pure", blonde Scandinavian man/woman will NEVER have such a wide appeal. And that's a fact. If the Scandinavian look becomes extinct, then I guess it wasn't meant to be. Tough luck. Maybe too many blonde Scandinavians find other Europeans (other subraces) more attractive? Did some of you Nordic fetishists ever think of that?!
Also, like I said, I'm slavic, and I don't have a big nose AT ALL. I would say my nose is quite... normal. Or average. However, I don't necessarily find larger, pointy or fleshy noses unattractive. I also DO NOT think men can pull off an ugly nose better than a woman can. Personally, I have brown hair, light eyes (greenish-blue) and fair skin, and I could easily fit in anywhere in Europe. Basically, it's laughable to think that most Slavs have huge noses or a certain look, when in fact you can find larger noses anywhere. When it comes to bodytype, Slavic women are neither bigger nor smaller than other European women. The diversity is too great. "Slavic" is more of a linguistic term anyway. Genetically speaking, Eastern Europe is too vast and too mixed (due to all the diverse looking tribes that settled all over that part of the continent). BTW, Nordics are not necessarily always known for their height and slenderness. Plenty of shorter, big boned people here. Trust me. And I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. :)
Beauty is overrated anyway. As long as beauty is in the eye of the beholder - no one will ever "win" or be the best. People shouldn't feel guilty about the way they look or the way nature made them. BTW, most of the "gorgeous" people that you folks have been posting pics of on here, are not really known/famous anyway. At least not outside their homecountry. So basically, WHO cares which ethnicity or nose looks better?! Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
...: white race IS the most beautiful, and all the rest who try to say differently are either deadly jealous or try to pass black as white. That's useless, and you know it. Take care, blackies. :)
For those of you that actually think Adriana Lima is even remotely "masculine" looking, you're a bunch of crack heads and your jealousy of her is pathetic. Not only is she naturally gorgeous but there's no comparing her to those moon-faced, witch-nosed, crooked toothed whores who wish they had a shot in the real world but instead have chosen to be spread-eagle trollops banking off of the sick internet sex-obsessed sexual predators such as yourselves. Fin.
Oh, and for those of you that dislike my commentary I suggest you take your ugly little bottomfeeder-of-society asses to the nearest mirror or reflective piece of glass/pool of water and accept that you were cursed with poor genetics and move the hell on.
Have you seen Peter Alexander's models used for the Christmas Catalogue 2009... It is clear that his taste is on the Masculine side, in fact, from the models he uses, it is clear that he has absolutely no liking for a normal female body, and instead uses these women.
As a feminine woman, with a female body shape, hips and boobs, I find it uncomfortable to see all the homosexuals design clothing that is marketed to me, because a lot of it is designed to drown out or smother the female body shape, and what results is an ugly sack shaped clothing, or something that hangs out at the shoulders and is designed to make me look more masculine, because I know the homosexuals have ABSOLUTELY NO liking for the female body at all. In fact, they would think my female shape, although normal in most people's eyes, is grotesquely fat and unnattractive. That is why I prefer to buy clothing designed by females. But the fashion industry and clothes as a whole leave a lot to be desired.
It is hard to know how the clothes would be different if they were all designed by heterosexual men and women, but my gut feeling is that it would be a hell of a lot easier to find clothes that look good on my body shape.
"That photo of the twins remind me of delusional Indians who post photos of Aishwarya Rai all the time, dreaming that Indians usually look like her, and denying the fact that she is a rare exception."
And likewise Emily, the Swedish models you post are not typical of white women either.
A woman that is a "perfect 10" and looks like either Aishwari Rei, or *insert Swedish model* might be 1 in 200, or maybe even as high as 1 in 500 women.
If you get to post these exception of caucasian women up, and present them as the Swedish standard of Nordic beauty.... than guess what, Asian can post Ashwari Rei as their gold standard. And mixed race people can post Halle Berry as their beauty ideal also.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I just read some of Emily's posts above, and she has got to be a troll.
How can she even be still posting that "The Nordic race has been admired for ages. It's not just a modern thing. Mongoloid-, Indian- and black traits don't compare" after all the countless photos that we have been posted of very attractive people from all over the world?
These people are in the top percentile of looks, and it is unlikely that most of the people even posting in this thread, Emily included can even begin to touch that level of attractiveness. Emily, if an Asian woman is more beautiful than you yourself are... does that mean that she is superior to you?
Emily not AGAIN!!! Posting the same ole pics, night after night, no matter how many pictures people show you to the contrary!
I personally think yes, females of different races can compete/ be compared and give each other a good run for their money.
Beautiful women with beautiful women: compare swedish models with for example Iman, the famous Somalian model, or Ziyi Zhang from China
and women from men's magazine (baby face, very curvy) with similar women from asia and africa:
Can compete in feminine men magazine catogory!! ^_~
Cover your eyes!!!!
But yeah, I don't agree with races not being able to compete at all. I wonder which individuals people are even looking at when they make comments like this.
Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille
get rid of the s. and turn v on it's side:
Alessandra Ambrosio > Camille
Camille looks kinda funny(especially in the first pic), while Aless is cute.
I'm really not in the mood to go into much detail at the moment, or possibly even again. You've passed by in these discussions before and sucked up to Emily and waved off any critiques of her as doing little more than calling her a nordic fetishist, but the rest are staring you right in your face. That kind of ignorance and lack of time to comb through these discussions, but to praise her is pretty amazing.
I find David's Hitler comparisons to be too emotive, but the rest of his post is spot on. The use of "Godwin's Law" doesn't mean somebody lost an argument, by the way.
Your critiques are remarkably similar to Emily's as well- people who attack or critique her are "jealous" and can "only use insults". Although she didn't sign her last comment, Emily's most recent post here said I call anybody who prefers nordics a fetishist. Uhhh, no, I've never said anything of the sort.
Emily is a compulsive liar, profoundly emotionally driven, a propagandist, and essentially a nordic supremacist. The vitrol shes shown to eastern european women, and to southern european women on this page are proof enough of that. I'm dead sick of people defending her because she's sick of racism against whites or speaking for whites or whatever. Someone who does that wouldn't trash the vast majority of whites to the exclusion of their own tiny, tiny little subdivision. (specifically northern europeans- more specifically, nordics, and even more specifically, scandinavians, and most specifically, swedes.)
The problem with people like Erik and Emily is that they marshall incredibly limited and poor psychological and cultural context evidence to buttress their arguments, and where they try to fill these gaps up, do it from a very, very narrow context. But Emily is unbelievably worse than Erik. Emily's arguments pretty much stem down to this:
1. Pop in and proclaim how swedish women are the epitomy of female beauty.
2. Act like her ultra-narrow preferences and opinions extend to all of humanity.
3. Buttress this by spamming the same several dozen photographs of swedish women from night clubs and the like, who might not even be that attractive, but are posted because they somewhat meagerly fit her ultra-narrow preferences, as evidence of this. Along with loads of inane anecdotes.
4. Contrast these nordics by spamming several dozen photographs of ethnicities and countries far, far larger than Sweden.
5. Basically ignore anything to the contrary- whether it be actual scientific, anthropological, academic etc. studies, detailed historical accounts, etc. etc. etc. and brand almost any detractor as being jealous or hating whites.
6. Wave off objections to trashing on non-nordic whites, or non-whites in general- such as calling asians fetal, undeveloped dwarves with downs syndrome that look like genetic experiments gone bad or saying blacks are the least evolved of all human races- as being little more than "crying racist".
I've genuinely seen enough of Emily to make judgements like this. She's psychotic. But the greatest, and I mean THE greatest fallacy of all in this kind of debate is to act as if the european, specifically nordic phenotype, can't produce extreme ethnic cranio-facial traits- which seem to be poorly expressed compared to most other groups, atleast in the nasal area. I think it's quite clear to say that an overtly long, narrow, tall face is an ethnic extremity for them, and other groups with similar phenotypes. This face is known as the "horse-face" look.
But still another great fallacy in this kind of debate, which you fall into, is this:
If nordic women are so feminine, why aren't nordic men as well?
This is the best defense Erik can muster:
"Just because a population has more feminine women does not mean that its men will also be more feminine. Have you ever entertained the notion of population variation in the extent of differentiation in secondary sexual characteristics? There are propulations where the women look more feminine and the men more masculine compared to others. In populations with more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, you will find the women to be more feminine looking on average, the men to be more masculine looking on average, disproportionately find the most masculine-looking men, disproportionately find the most feminine-looking women and disproportionately find the most masculine-looking women also (because of sexually antagonistic selection)."
This bespeaks PURELY of VARIANCE among averages. It's certainly possible for a population to have skewed proportion of highly masculine men and highly feminine women, but once again by basic laws of inheritance, it would also have skewed proportions of highly masculine women and highly feminine women. You simply CANNOT have highly feminine women and at the same time having highly masculine men in a population, and expect it to stay this way. Now, I don't know of the exact dynamics of how and why women prefer men with the whole "pretty boy" look, which is rather feminine. But that seems to be a case of flucuating, proportional combinations of masculinity and femininity and not full-blown femininity. Regardless, that kind of look can't be produced by overtly feminine women in even a proper manner.
All of this seems to sadly suggest nordic women aren't as feminine as you want them to be.
Oh- judging by the comments, those stats are highly inaccurate.
I was rather skeptical considering how Iran wasn't even on there.
Appolyon:
Jesus. You apparently took the time to read Emily's comments, but nobody elses? If you'd actually read other discourses on the recent comments, you'll see Emily certainly hasn't won anything. I'm rather insulted by your ignorance.
Your comment has little of anything new, but I just had to address this:
"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?"
Nordics on the most feminine women on earth- and by proxy, nordic men must be too.
Wait, nordic men aren't that feminine at all.
Erik,
Where are you? I miss you. It was fun talking to you. I was so scared when this website expired. Please come back...
Everybody is arguing haha okay.
Here is my analysis.
Her body is fine. I think Danielle finds muscle tone attractive in women because she is a woman and therefore is attracted to masculine features such as muscle tone. However some muscle tone shouldn't necessarily be unattractive as women have to be strong to raise their offspring(from an pro-evolution viewpoint). However for that some muscle tone to show she would have to have an above average leanness to her which would be more masculine. So the some muscle that would be necessary wouldn't necessarily be visible.
HOWEVER
I do not think she is ultra feminine because her face is some what childish. This is the reason some consider her cute. Yet just because she is ultra developed with estrogen does not mean she is a bit masculine at all. She IS feminine. I also advocate that there is a margin at which one can be too feminine or too masculine to the point of looking non-prototypical and outlandish. Anything excessive is usually dangerous right?
SO FAR AS FIGURE GOES.. i think she has way more hourglass than runway models. I think she is average.
Now what is wrong with average?
So what if average is very close to ideal?
Do you have to be ultra-strange to be beautiful?
If you took the best looking girl who is feminine and made her perfect body perfect face and cloned her a billion times does this make her not beautiful simply because she is one of many?
But this is just my take. Everybody is so hell bent on there being only one person who can be truly beautiful.
Point is if most any man met this girl, he would find her cute, pretty and SEXY. If she was fun and sweet then they would keep her and probably never have the desire to cheat. Does beauty matter beyond that? Why isn't good enough not good enough?
"There was a guy in Germany who was doing the same and actually, at the time, quite many people in his home country believed him. He ended badly in 1945."
David, every hear of Godwin's Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Emily has officially won the debate.
Seems to me the con argument is based upon personal anger/jealousy rather than any legitimate substance. Saying Nordics are 'big boned' and have 'large heads' is proof.
Kim Kardashian has the face of a man and a massive body. Not remotely feminine.
Living In Toronto, Canada one of the most multicultural cities on earth, I can say that while there are good looking women from all ethnicities, the observations by Emily are 100% correct. Arabic women tend to have large noses and coarser features, Latin girls are thicker with less feminine features and Asian girls are shorter with less curves, larger heads and flatter buttocks. There are many 'bottle-blondes'...which is best passed off by women of northern European ancestry. They wouldn't colour their hair blonde if it wasn't a desired feature. 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.
I also thought this might be of interest: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_pla_sur_pro_percap-plastic-surgery-procedures-per-capita
Emily never responded to David on here. Hmm... I wonder why
I think it can also be best illustrated by how all of these ethnic plastic surgeries- though mainly rhinoplasty- when it comes to men, converge on a nordic mean far, far less significantly than it does for women. But again and again, this acts as if the european/nordic phenotype can't produce unattractive ethnic extremities as well. That's the prime fallacy in this kind of debate. The horse-face look is pretty clear-cut, but nose structure is abit more debatable. Once again, you'd have to look into what kind of nose types can be produced on certain ethnic nose continuums.
I believe overtly long, narrow, projecting, etc. nose types are a universal trait for caucasoid populations, and it seems like overtly concave noses, the "scoop nose" look, are a european/nordic extremity- alot of whites have lightly concaved noses, but few have overtly concave noses, though I've seen a number of them with it. It could just be that certain evolutionary processes caused this trait to not propogate that much.
Also, Godis, it actually is true that men age better than women, I'm not sure where you got that. Men's higher testosterone levels prevent their skin from wrinkling as much. Plus, their slightly darker skin overall contributes to this. (even correcting for all other factors affecting the aging process, darker skin will age better than lighter skin no matter what- higher melanin levels produce more collagen. but to argue that on such an objective basis would leave the darkest people the best looking.)
I think the greater ambivalence about the looks of men can be well illustrated by people's preferences on certain ethnic looks for men. Few ethnic groups care much for the looks of, say, white men, outside of indians and a number of asian women. (but that's pretty much due to overall facial masculinity and little else) In my experiences, black women don't have much of a preference for white men.
I know of the difference between women being more accepting of ugly men and the like, but that's not that related to the idea of male beauty being more relativistic. I'm just saying that people in general are more ambivalent about certain facial features on men than on women- like nose structure, for example.
Oh, Godis wrote above
I agree male beauty is not more relativistic. It's just that women are more accepting of ugly men than men are of ugly women. That is just the truth. In all honesty I see very few males that live up to any standard. The majority of males are just average at best. I can count thrice as many attractive women at my school than I can count attractive men. That is sad taking in consideration that the hourglass is so rare and that feminine beauty in general is so rare. Yet, despite this women on average will always be more attractive for women, than men are for men. Period. I'd also like to add that it is not true that men age better than women. It is true that both male and female become more masculine with age, however men produce less testosterone and they start looking well not so great themselves. Male beauty is NOT more relativistic that is bull shit. Women are just more accepting. I think with the way the majority of men look these days, they really should be more accepting of ugly women. Sorry, just the truth.
And BTW, I don't care about looks when it comes to a guy. Instead he has to be intelligent and funny. But looks help out haha
"Women like Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai are considered gorgeous by most people ALL over the world. Why? Because of their multiethnic/multi-European beauty. They have fair skin/eyes, dark hair AND somewhat exotic features."
It's not really the fair skin/eyes and dark hair combination that makes them appealing, but rather the high eybrows, sensual lips, well-defined jaw line, balanced and proportionate facial features. Take for example Monica Bellucci and Yamila Diaz, both are stunning tanned brunette women. Feminine beauty has always been subconsciously associated with the beauty standards of the Middle East, big boobs/sensual lips/perfectly small waist/big sparkling eyes/tanned complexion/clear skin and a healthy weight. Milions of women undergo various plastic surgeries to achieve that look.
now that's cool! :)
website design
I LOVE DARLING
I LIKE YOU
YOUR BREAST IS VERY SMOOTH & TESTY
Wow, looking at Monica's body actually makes me feel better about myself. I look way more like that than I do like Elle.
Wow, there are some really weird and narrow minded people on this page. Seriously, I'm flabbergasted.
First and foremost - I really disagree with those of you who say that male beauty is more relativistic than female beauty. I don't see that being the case. Women are much more gorgeous than men anyway, mainly because of their femininity/feminine features. Doesn't that mean that female beauty is MORE relativistic? I mean, people rarely become mesmerized by a man's looks, do they?! And when they do, the man usually has quite androgynous features. The important factors are symmetry and health. People with symmetric faces will ALWAYS look better - no matter what kind of nose they have. Personally, I'm of Slavic descent, and I live in Scandinavia - and I have to say that many Scandinavian men are stunning. Especially some of the blonde ones. And yes, I admit that I do like smaller, cute, more feminine noses. However, some people here need to stop thinking that Swedes (and Scandinavians in general) are the ideal. Women like Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie and Aishwarya Rai are considered gorgeous by most people ALL over the world. Why? Because of their multiethnic/multi-European beauty. They have fair skin/eyes, dark hair AND somewhat exotic features. Megan Fox and Jolie both have a European (non Scandinavian) and Native American background. Jolie is also part Czech (Slavic). A "pure", blonde Scandinavian man/woman will NEVER have such a wide appeal. And that's a fact. If the Scandinavian look becomes extinct, then I guess it wasn't meant to be. Tough luck. Maybe too many blonde Scandinavians find other Europeans (other subraces) more attractive? Did some of you Nordic fetishists ever think of that?!
Also, like I said, I'm slavic, and I don't have a big nose AT ALL. I would say my nose is quite... normal. Or average. However, I don't necessarily find larger, pointy or fleshy noses unattractive. I also DO NOT think men can pull off an ugly nose better than a woman can. Personally, I have brown hair, light eyes (greenish-blue) and fair skin, and I could easily fit in anywhere in Europe. Basically, it's laughable to think that most Slavs have huge noses or a certain look, when in fact you can find larger noses anywhere. When it comes to bodytype, Slavic women are neither bigger nor smaller than other European women. The diversity is too great. "Slavic" is more of a linguistic term anyway. Genetically speaking, Eastern Europe is too vast and too mixed (due to all the diverse looking tribes that settled all over that part of the continent). BTW, Nordics are not necessarily always known for their height and slenderness. Plenty of shorter, big boned people here. Trust me. And I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. :)
Beauty is overrated anyway. As long as beauty is in the eye of the beholder - no one will ever "win" or be the best. People shouldn't feel guilty about the way they look or the way nature made them. BTW, most of the "gorgeous" people that you folks have been posting pics of on here, are not really known/famous anyway. At least not outside their homecountry. So basically, WHO cares which ethnicity or nose looks better?! Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
...: white race IS the most beautiful, and all the rest who try to say differently are either deadly jealous or try to pass black as white. That's useless, and you know it. Take care, blackies. :)
For those of you that actually think Adriana Lima is even remotely "masculine" looking, you're a bunch of crack heads and your jealousy of her is pathetic. Not only is she naturally gorgeous but there's no comparing her to those moon-faced, witch-nosed, crooked toothed whores who wish they had a shot in the real world but instead have chosen to be spread-eagle trollops banking off of the sick internet sex-obsessed sexual predators such as yourselves. Fin.
Oh, and for those of you that dislike my commentary I suggest you take your ugly little bottomfeeder-of-society asses to the nearest mirror or reflective piece of glass/pool of water and accept that you were cursed with poor genetics and move the hell on.
Fin. <3
Have you seen Peter Alexander's models used for the Christmas Catalogue 2009... It is clear that his taste is on the Masculine side, in fact, from the models he uses, it is clear that he has absolutely no liking for a normal female body, and instead uses these women.
As a feminine woman, with a female body shape, hips and boobs, I find it uncomfortable to see all the homosexuals design clothing that is marketed to me, because a lot of it is designed to drown out or smother the female body shape, and what results is an ugly sack shaped clothing, or something that hangs out at the shoulders and is designed to make me look more masculine, because I know the homosexuals have ABSOLUTELY NO liking for the female body at all. In fact, they would think my female shape, although normal in most people's eyes, is grotesquely fat and unnattractive. That is why I prefer to buy clothing designed by females. But the fashion industry and clothes as a whole leave a lot to be desired.
It is hard to know how the clothes would be different if they were all designed by heterosexual men and women, but my gut feeling is that it would be a hell of a lot easier to find clothes that look good on my body shape.
"That photo of the twins remind me of delusional Indians who post photos of Aishwarya Rai all the time, dreaming that Indians usually look like her, and denying the fact that she is a rare exception."
And likewise Emily, the Swedish models you post are not typical of white women either.
A woman that is a "perfect 10" and looks like either Aishwari Rei, or *insert Swedish model* might be 1 in 200, or maybe even as high as 1 in 500 women.
If you get to post these exception of caucasian women up, and present them as the Swedish standard of Nordic beauty.... than guess what, Asian can post Ashwari Rei as their gold standard. And mixed race people can post Halle Berry as their beauty ideal also.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I just read some of Emily's posts above, and she has got to be a troll.
How can she even be still posting that "The Nordic race has been admired for ages. It's not just a modern thing. Mongoloid-, Indian- and black traits don't compare" after all the countless photos that we have been posted of very attractive people from all over the world?
These people are in the top percentile of looks, and it is unlikely that most of the people even posting in this thread, Emily included can even begin to touch that level of attractiveness. Emily, if an Asian woman is more beautiful than you yourself are... does that mean that she is superior to you?
Emily not AGAIN!!! Posting the same ole pics, night after night, no matter how many pictures people show you to the contrary!
I personally think yes, females of different races can compete/ be compared and give each other a good run for their money.
Beautiful women with beautiful women: compare swedish models with for example Iman, the famous Somalian model, or Ziyi Zhang from China
and women from men's magazine (baby face, very curvy) with similar women from asia and africa:
Can compete in feminine men magazine catogory!! ^_~
Cover your eyes!!!!
But yeah, I don't agree with races not being able to compete at all. I wonder which individuals people are even looking at when they make comments like this.
Pages