''My point is simply that, on average, Nordics tend to have the most attractive features.''
Your point was confirmed.The fact that was pointed out was that an indicator of beauty is that beauty moves a soul.
''Regarding your photos of Kalash girls, I disagree that they are more attractive than Nordics. Also, note that I did not say skin colour is a requirement for beauty, only that many people tend to prefer lighter skin.''
I did state in brackets ''in my opinion''. I didnt disagree for a preference for lighter skin I merely pointed out that facial features have more weight than eye/hair/skin tone and pointed out the ethnic features of the kalash dont appear'european'.
''However, the idea that they do not find 'blond' attractive is clearly false since they have expressed a definite interest in blond women since the 7th century. Moreover, some Muslims, esp. Persian and Lebanese have blond hair and they are usually very proud of their blond hair.''
''There may be some that do not find blond hair the most appealing, but this is a minority.''
Expressing an interest in ''blonde women'' and expressing an interest in ''blonde hair'' are two different things. I stick by the point I made earlier. History shows there have been more than enough european tribes that migrated to south asia enough to have made a lasting impact on the physical appearance of the inhibitants so why havnt they? Where is this prized blonde hair in south asia except on afew if it is so desired why was it not worth fighting for? The reality is there for you to see.
''He was Semitic and would likely have had 'swarthy' features...like most Semitic peoples.''
The word''semites'' is used liberally for anyone who goes around calling themselves a''jew''. The fact is the purety of ancient semetic/Israelite race has died out so no one really know what the physical appearance of the ancient semites/Israelites looked like.
''I find it interesting that you are confident that caucasians were not the most desired 200,000 years ago''
Since the topic has shifted to a religious flavour just to point out the famous story of Prophet Joseph, Joseph like Jesus was of the israelite race and His beauty was considered heavenly. He was more handsome than all of the handsomest men put together. Would be very interesting to know what this race of people looked like.
Regarding the existence of Jesus, what 'archeological evidence' would you require? There is written documentation - not simply biblical (Josephus for one). Documented evidence is quite compelling and few experts doubt that Jesus existed. As to his appearance, he likely would not be considered 'mixed or black'. He was Semitic and would likely have had 'swarthy' features...like most Semitic peoples.
In terms of my 'Aryan supremacy'...I never stated this. I believe I am generally familiar with human migratory patterns but if I am lacking please indicate where and how this invalidates my position.
I find it interesting that you are confident that caucasians were not the most desired 200,000 years ago. What evidence do you have given that recorded history is less than 5,000 years old? If you dismiss evidence of Jesus' existence I question what level of evidence you can provide that will support your position that caucasians were not the most desired prior to recorded history.
"Afterall, you are not Nordic, therefore ugly. Your own words, not mine."
I never said that. That is your misinterpretation. I stated that Nordics tend to be, on the average, the most attractive. I also stated I am not Scandanavian. I was born in Belfast actually. I also clearly stated that there are many attractive people in other ethnic groups. So, your inference is false.
Anon125,
Some good points. Not everyone will be 'bowled over' by Nordic features. I never disputed this. I myself tend to find Mediterranean features very appealing. My point is simply that, on average, Nordics tend to have the most attractive features.
Regarding your photos of Kalash girls, I disagree that they are more attractive than Nordics. Also, note that I did not say skin colour is a requirement for beauty, only that many people tend to prefer lighter skin.
I also never stated 'Muslim' is a 'race'. Please see my earlier post regarding 'race'. Islam is a religion that spans 50+ countries but originated in the Middle East (Arabs represent 13% of the total Muslim population). However, the idea that they do not find 'blond' attractive is clearly false since they have expressed a definite interest in blond women since the 7th century. Moreover, some Muslims, esp. Persian and Lebanese have blond hair and they are usually very proud of their blond hair.
There may be some that do not find blond hair the most appealing, but this is a minority.
Ignorant racist with half a brain is merely proving my point. He posts the ugliest white women he can find and then contrasts them with an Asian girl that has a smaller nose and rounder eyes than the average and with a Bollywood star that is as far removed from the average Indian women as day is to night.
look at this chart and all of you nordic supremacists can deny no more that you are't mixed with the asiatic ppl.
Look at the world DNA map. It seems CLEAR to me that the Asianid ( yellow ) part and its two descendants, the?
Eurasid ( dark blue ) part and Hindid ( dark orange ) part are DOMINATING like crazy! I'm from China and I'm O-M175 ( in the yellow part ). http://thegeneticatlas.com/
''those that are considered attractive by their own ethnic group, happen to approximate a more European look''
The fact is not withstanding light hair/eye/skin (which could well be contributions of non-european but european-like in apperance tribes) the majority of light skinned people as far as south asia goes do not have european facial features by any stretch of the imagination and these looks are admired/desired despite there there lack of fine facial features. Yes they approximate a ''white'' look but they do not look ''European''. Facial features have more weight than just skin tone/ligh hair and eye coulour. The Kalash tribe is an example. Beautifull people (more so im my opinion than the nordics) but there ethnic features are not European. There would be no difficulty whatsoever from differentiating a Kalash:
''During the Middle Ages, European slaves, particularly blondes (often Celtic) were hightly prized by the Muslims...who considered themselves vastly superior to the Europeans. The Vikings found a ready market in the Islamic world for their blond slaves''
Muslims is not a ''race''. There may be plenty of european blood in the islamic world but the fact is most ''muslims'' are perplexed as to why Europeans find ''blonde'' hair appealing/ desirable they cant get there head round it.
link | Submitted by Apollyon on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:48.
Although I did mention that 'looking whiter' appears to be one of the characteristics of beauty among different ethnic groups I did mention that skin-tone is not in itself a proper measure of beauty. Hence the social convention of tanning (or not depending upon the time period). It is more about facial features (and body structure)- of which the 'most appealing' are observed more often in Nordics than elsewhere. Finer noses are considered more attractive across the board, on average.
''Looking whiter''and ''looking white'' are not the same. A ''shift towards'' something is not the same as a ''shit to'' something. Fine facial features may be ''considered'' attractive across the board on average but the ''fact'' is not everyone is ''enamoured'' or ''bowled over'' by them. ''Nordic looks'' come across as non-threatening, earthly and not dangerous, a very safe looking type of beauty though beauty nonetheless which perhaps explains why thoose that desire it do so. The sad reality but reality nonetheless for thoose enamoured by ''nordic looks'' in there desire to comprehend why some (and there are many) are not ''swept away'' by thoose looks is very simply because there looks ''nordic beauty'' does not move the soul and beauty moves a soul. It really always has been and always will be as simple as that.
There is no archelogical evidence that Jesus ever existed and the Bible is no evidence at all either. The fact is that we cannot trace anything to Jesus Christ and the fact is also that by today standards he would be considered black or mixed. Your Ayrian supremacy to attribute Nordic (blondes) to be the most beautiful is your lack of understanding of our evolutionary pattern. I am betting you are of a religious background so you would probably won’t understand. Going back to our history our 200,000 years of human existance caucasians have not always been considered the most beautiful. I would be more than glad to discuss how is that possible, but perhaps it wouldn’t be nice of me to burst your Nordic wanna be bubble. Afterall, you are not Nordic, therefore ugly. Your own words, not mine.
I agree that the Scandanavian countries are rich. But, we are debating in English afterall, and not in Swedish, Danish or Norwegian. My point being that it is the Anglos who dominate, starting with the British Empire.
As for your point about the Muslims viewing Europeans as 'good for a bang' but not for mixing: untrue. They produced children (which were considered Muslim). There is plenty of European blood in the Islamic world.
Although I did mention that 'looking whiter' appears to be one of the characteristics of beauty among different ethnic groups I did mention that skin-tone is not in itself a proper measure of beauty. Hence the social convention of tanning (or not depending upon the time period). It is more about facial features (and body structure)- of which the 'most appealing' are observed more often in Nordics than elsewhere. Finer noses are considered more attractive across the board, on average.
I would say hair fusions etc has more to do with a fashion standard (just as huge wigs were the standard among the upper classes in Europe in the 18th century). This does not invalidate my point about facial features.
Fuller lips...this may be influenced by wanting a more 'sexy' look, but i don't think white women want 'black lips'. Also, I think it is heavily media-driven as most of the women who get lip injections simply look weird.
Fuller buttocks are likely driven by women who have naturally flatter buttocks (i.e. less than ideal or 'masculanized'). I don't think they necessarily want a 'Latin' booty. Living in Toronto, I am exposed to numerous ethnic groups and I think the 'Latin' butt is over-emphasized (i.e. it's not half as great as they claim - they are often simply fat). Many Anglo girls have nice butts. I doubt those with nice butts want a 'lift'.
Regardless, the desire for these cosmetic changes has more to do with reaching an ideal than a desire to emulate different ethnic groups. This ideal is easily found in Europe.
I agree with you about the lack of 'purity' in 'races' (ethnicities). There has been a lot of mixing but the further north you go, the less apparent it is.
I also agree that many 'mixed races' produce good looking women and there are good looking women in any ethnic group. My point is that, on average, the Nordics have the edge.
Regarding Jews, 80% are 'Ashkenazi' which is European and the remainder are Mediterranean. Apparently the Ashkenazi are able to trace their ancestry back to a half dozen women in Jesus' time in about 40% of the cases (can't locate the references right now - going by memory). Point is they are relatively 'pure' in that intermarriage has been limited.
It is probable Jesus was light brown-skinned, with dark hair and eyes. He was likely tanned and relatively rugged, due to being a carpenter. There is compelling evidence that he existed. This is rarely disputed anymore. I should note he was described as not having 'beauty or majesty' and was indistinguishable from Peter and John, both ordinary fisherman (read: average looking). Not sure if this is relevant or not...
Actually, all the Scandinavian countries are among the wealthiest and have the highest standard of living in the world, check the HDI if you would like to know which countries are in that list. It is interesting that you say Scandinavian countries produce the highest number of beautiful people since they are not the ones who rule the fashion industry nor have the highest number of top models. I am glad thou to see that you do know that race is a social construct and not a biological one. Muslims considered Europeans good for a bang but would never mix their race with white as they still considered themselves superior, whether they are or not is a different story.
Actually the fact that you mention that people of different races who are beautiful only are because they look whiter is not entirely true. Although they may well be mixed, is the mixture that gives them the edge. Most entirely “pure” white women are not considered the most beautiful either. Their too pale skin, the too straight hair, the lack of luscious lips, and curves where needed are not a desirable trait. Is the ones that are able to take the best traits from all races the ones that are considered beautiful. The narrow nose of the Anglos, the luscious lips of Blacks, the wavy thick hair of the Indians, smaller body structure of the Asians, etc, etc.
Why it is that it is that it is the white women getting the expensive fusion hair extensions, which by the way are really popular and cheap in Sweden, to have a thicker more voluminous hair?
Why is it the white women getting lip injections to emulate the thicker lips of the blacks?
Why is it the white women doing buttocks implants and lifts to have the nicely rounded buttocks of the black women?
Why is it the white women that is at the tanning salon trying to emulate the tan look of Latinas?
I could go on and on, the list is endless, just as black women would straighten their hair and use skin lighteners to look a little whiter and white women are doing the exact opposite. Why? Because everyone is searching for that happy medium which is a mix of all the best traits from all the races. Because not a single person of a single race has all the desirable features it is in the mix that is the key to perfection.
The truth is that in this darn age, there is nobody who is entirely of a pure race. Even if no mix is evident, there is still some, most likely couple of hundred years ago. Jews being a perfect example of that. Many Jews are considered white; however this was not so 2,000 years ago. Actually a group of scientists recreated what would have been an accurate historical picture of how Jesus would have looked like (whether he existed or not that is a different story) and the result was extremely far from him being white.
I know tons of people from different races who will fit Stephen’s mask of the “perfect” face, whether they are considered beautiful or not is a different story.
I expected that response. If I'd indicated I considered Asians to be the most beautiful, I doubt I would have been called a racist.
I merely noted my own opinions...but they are supported by evidence. Not all will agree and I have clearly stated there are attractive women who are not white...but that those that are considered attractive by their own ethnic group, happen to approximate a more European look.
The claim that it is those in power that determine beauty is a standard response but not necessarily correct. During the Middle Ages, European slaves, particularly blondes (often Celtic) were hightly prized by the Muslims...who considered themselves vastly superior to the Europeans. The Vikings found a ready market in the Islamic world for their blond slaves.
Skin-tone is not necessarily representative of beauty. However, fine features are. Romans noted the beauty of the Celts, esp their women. They certainly did not consider them 'advanced' in any way. Japanese and Koreans often consider themselves as 'smarter' than whites, more sophisticated, etc (whether this is correct is another matter). Yet they wish to emulate white looks.
I do not think that the desire to have a smaller, Nordic nose has much to do with 'who is in power'. It is clearly a aesthetic ideal that is desired among many ethnic groups.
Calling me racist because I make these observations is unwarranted.
Incidentally, the word 'race', which is often used here, is incorrectly applied. Genetically there is really only one race. Humans are too close genetically to be broken into races (a 19th century concept that simply won't die). The differences really are 'skin-deep'. But, considering this is the point of this site, I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss these differences.
While my background is 'European', I am not Scandanavian. Nevertheless, it is well-known that this region of the world produces, on average, the most beautiful people. Scandanavians don't rule the world - the Anglos do.
you both complain about mentaly ill people when, in my opinion, you both are crazy and need to stop nagging on each other and being so technical...
Heatherette is an Avant Garde Fashion design company stationed in new york. Run by Richie Rich and Traver Rains they have had designers in their crazy fashion shows including paris hilton and Pamela Anerson and others as well
Traver Rains (March 4, 1977 Fort Collins, Colorado)
I am glad to see that you two, Apollyon and Emily are promoting racism and discrimination. It is very interesting to see unenlightened minds pretending that they have anything relevant to contribute. If you look at historical icons throughout the world you would notice that the perception that we have of beauty has dramatically changed. Not only regarding facial structure but also body types and even height. Caucasian features has not always been the desireable ones. Beauty is defined by those who hold the power. If all of the Asian or African countries would be the wealthiest, the most technologically advanced and had the highest standard of living than most European countries have, everyone would love to be Asian or African and have their features. Asian, Latin Americans and African countries are trying to mix and imitate European countries not because the European traits are more beautiful per se but because those traits represent high standard of living, wealth and power. Whomever is on the top is the most beautiful so you too better hope that none of the other countries ever reach that standard and make you feel unwanted and wish you were from a different race. As for me, as a French caucasian women I know better.
India is a vast country and the Southern Indians are very different from the Northern Indians. I am surprised that in Sweden you did not study about it?! That is called lack of general knowledge.
The Swedish nose and the Dravidian type have the fleshiness in common. Most possibly, it happened in the Mongoloid melting pot. It is just a fact and you should not overreact about it, especially when you are the one pointing at other people. You should be prepared to listen what others see about you too.
Yeah, I was mad. Throughout debates on this site I've gone off the handle at times. In more recent discourses with Emily and the like, I've reamined more composed. You, however, are just stupid. Just seriously, flat out stupid. Not because you're not "well read" in anthropology or history or whatever (as Barbarella accused me of before, but retracted, which I thank her for) but because you act just flat out unintelligent. I'll be more composed from now on, but my god, I don't think actual debate is for you.
"We obviously don't have the same taste because all of the pictures you post of ugly/average/dull looking people saying "so attractive" "pleasant to the eye" and comparing them to pretty people or people with pretty features are not beautiful. And if you had read more carefully what I said, I said that certain traits disappear when mixing races, such as having natural white hair which is uncommon in the world enough as it is. I posted pictures of random people with white hair. I didn't try to find the most swedish-looking or good-looking people, I just wanted to show you how beautiful white hair is and how mixed races can never get these bright types of hair and bright looks."
That's an absolute load of garbage. Go to central asian countries like Kazakhstan, which is primarily composed of white-central asian mixes and notice the high frequencies of light hair. I've seen loads of dark skinned indians and american blacks with light eyes, too. Just because those traits require both parents to carry the alleles doesn't mean those of mixed race can never get those looks.
While it seems true that many of the light hair types seen among whites are easily diluted by even moderately dark skin (IE the trait becoming invisible at a certain point), that's not to say there's other light hair alleles that show the opposite:
Australo-melanesians are an oceanian and pacific islander group. In terms of facial featues they generally resemble black africans, but are most closely related to southeast asians. They are, in fact, the least related people to africans on earth.
And many of them show extraordinarily high frequencies of light hair. Blonde hair and all of it's varying shades, brown hair and all of it's varying shades, and everything in between. Some of them even show red hair, albeit this is quite rare. (and obviously very different from the kind seen among whites and the like, in terms of its genetic basis)
The fact these traits show up so easily in a dark skinned population shows their light hair phenotypes aren't diluted in the least by skin color.
Notice how many of the kids have platinum blonde hair, which, yes, can even show up into adulthood.
And no, I don't often see females in Hollywood dye their hair platinum blonde, even less so with typical american whites. I can actually speak for this because I'm american.
Callmewhateveryouwant:
"The only person who needs to be educated about indian is you.
The reality looks more like this:"
Ah, another generalization of over 1 billion by people by 2 pictures. This is even more insane to do than with east asians due to their profound physical diversity.
On the topic of east asians typically fitting their mold, which Emily went on about, I won't deny they've frequently fit certain ethnic traits. I just find it hilarious to generalize such a huge population based on a few hundred unattractive individuals you find online, some of whom fit certain extreme ethnic traits, others fit unattractive traits that are race dependent.
Of course, people like Emily want to believe virtually all asians are wide faced, have pancake flat noses and faces, incredibly wide noses, and buck teeth, though.
I've seen many typical indians vastly better than the people in Bollywood, by the way. Even Aishwarya Rai, who is insanely overrated. I'm not sure what attracts so many people to her. Maybe it's because alot of indians have a white fetish or she fits some vague mold of some middle eastern type beauty ideal. I mean, her nose is nice, but that's about it.
And I ask again what your racial background is. But at this point, I guess it's pretty futile.
Whatever the asian admixture in Sweden, it's obviously quite low, and the majority of asiatic traits in swedes comes from finns.
''My point is simply that, on average, Nordics tend to have the most attractive features.''
Your point was confirmed.The fact that was pointed out was that an indicator of beauty is that beauty moves a soul.
''Regarding your photos of Kalash girls, I disagree that they are more attractive than Nordics. Also, note that I did not say skin colour is a requirement for beauty, only that many people tend to prefer lighter skin.''
I did state in brackets ''in my opinion''. I didnt disagree for a preference for lighter skin I merely pointed out that facial features have more weight than eye/hair/skin tone and pointed out the ethnic features of the kalash dont appear'european'.
''However, the idea that they do not find 'blond' attractive is clearly false since they have expressed a definite interest in blond women since the 7th century. Moreover, some Muslims, esp. Persian and Lebanese have blond hair and they are usually very proud of their blond hair.''
''There may be some that do not find blond hair the most appealing, but this is a minority.''
Expressing an interest in ''blonde women'' and expressing an interest in ''blonde hair'' are two different things. I stick by the point I made earlier. History shows there have been more than enough european tribes that migrated to south asia enough to have made a lasting impact on the physical appearance of the inhibitants so why havnt they? Where is this prized blonde hair in south asia except on afew if it is so desired why was it not worth fighting for? The reality is there for you to see.
''He was Semitic and would likely have had 'swarthy' features...like most Semitic peoples.''
The word''semites'' is used liberally for anyone who goes around calling themselves a''jew''. The fact is the purety of ancient semetic/Israelite race has died out so no one really know what the physical appearance of the ancient semites/Israelites looked like.
''I find it interesting that you are confident that caucasians were not the most desired 200,000 years ago''
Since the topic has shifted to a religious flavour just to point out the famous story of Prophet Joseph, Joseph like Jesus was of the israelite race and His beauty was considered heavenly. He was more handsome than all of the handsomest men put together. Would be very interesting to know what this race of people looked like.
Elle,
Regarding the existence of Jesus, what 'archeological evidence' would you require? There is written documentation - not simply biblical (Josephus for one). Documented evidence is quite compelling and few experts doubt that Jesus existed. As to his appearance, he likely would not be considered 'mixed or black'. He was Semitic and would likely have had 'swarthy' features...like most Semitic peoples.
In terms of my 'Aryan supremacy'...I never stated this. I believe I am generally familiar with human migratory patterns but if I am lacking please indicate where and how this invalidates my position.
I find it interesting that you are confident that caucasians were not the most desired 200,000 years ago. What evidence do you have given that recorded history is less than 5,000 years old? If you dismiss evidence of Jesus' existence I question what level of evidence you can provide that will support your position that caucasians were not the most desired prior to recorded history.
"Afterall, you are not Nordic, therefore ugly. Your own words, not mine."
I never said that. That is your misinterpretation. I stated that Nordics tend to be, on the average, the most attractive. I also stated I am not Scandanavian. I was born in Belfast actually. I also clearly stated that there are many attractive people in other ethnic groups. So, your inference is false.
Anon125,
Some good points. Not everyone will be 'bowled over' by Nordic features. I never disputed this. I myself tend to find Mediterranean features very appealing. My point is simply that, on average, Nordics tend to have the most attractive features.
Regarding your photos of Kalash girls, I disagree that they are more attractive than Nordics. Also, note that I did not say skin colour is a requirement for beauty, only that many people tend to prefer lighter skin.
I also never stated 'Muslim' is a 'race'. Please see my earlier post regarding 'race'. Islam is a religion that spans 50+ countries but originated in the Middle East (Arabs represent 13% of the total Muslim population). However, the idea that they do not find 'blond' attractive is clearly false since they have expressed a definite interest in blond women since the 7th century. Moreover, some Muslims, esp. Persian and Lebanese have blond hair and they are usually very proud of their blond hair.
There may be some that do not find blond hair the most appealing, but this is a minority.
Ignorant racist with half a brain is merely proving my point. He posts the ugliest white women he can find and then contrasts them with an Asian girl that has a smaller nose and rounder eyes than the average and with a Bollywood star that is as far removed from the average Indian women as day is to night.
European women are ugly, and I am European man.
look at this chart and all of you nordic supremacists can deny no more that you are't mixed with the asiatic ppl.
Look at the world DNA map. It seems CLEAR to me that the Asianid ( yellow ) part and its two descendants, the?
Eurasid ( dark blue ) part and Hindid ( dark orange ) part are DOMINATING like crazy! I'm from China and I'm O-M175 ( in the yellow part ).
http://thegeneticatlas.com/
http://thegeneticatlas.com/Y-DNA_map.jpg
Asian women are ugly and I'm an Asian man
I absolutely agree with Apollyon, Just look at these European beauties!
Why are other races not as beautiful as Europeans?
Ugly Korean Go Ara (pure blood korean)
Ugly Indian Aishwarya Rai
11/04/2009 - 13:15
by Apollyon link
''those that are considered attractive by their own ethnic group, happen to approximate a more European look''
The fact is not withstanding light hair/eye/skin (which could well be contributions of non-european but european-like in apperance tribes) the majority of light skinned people as far as south asia goes do not have european facial features by any stretch of the imagination and these looks are admired/desired despite there there lack of fine facial features. Yes they approximate a ''white'' look but they do not look ''European''. Facial features have more weight than just skin tone/ligh hair and eye coulour. The Kalash tribe is an example. Beautifull people (more so im my opinion than the nordics) but there ethnic features are not European. There would be no difficulty whatsoever from differentiating a Kalash:
http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kalash-girl_.jpg
from a European:
http://www.beautifulhairstyles.com/short/pictures/shorthairstyles19.jpg
''During the Middle Ages, European slaves, particularly blondes (often Celtic) were hightly prized by the Muslims...who considered themselves vastly superior to the Europeans. The Vikings found a ready market in the Islamic world for their blond slaves''
Muslims is not a ''race''. There may be plenty of european blood in the islamic world but the fact is most ''muslims'' are perplexed as to why Europeans find ''blonde'' hair appealing/ desirable they cant get there head round it.
link | Submitted by Apollyon on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:48.
Although I did mention that 'looking whiter' appears to be one of the characteristics of beauty among different ethnic groups I did mention that skin-tone is not in itself a proper measure of beauty. Hence the social convention of tanning (or not depending upon the time period). It is more about facial features (and body structure)- of which the 'most appealing' are observed more often in Nordics than elsewhere. Finer noses are considered more attractive across the board, on average.
''Looking whiter''and ''looking white'' are not the same. A ''shift towards'' something is not the same as a ''shit to'' something. Fine facial features may be ''considered'' attractive across the board on average but the ''fact'' is not everyone is ''enamoured'' or ''bowled over'' by them. ''Nordic looks'' come across as non-threatening, earthly and not dangerous, a very safe looking type of beauty though beauty nonetheless which perhaps explains why thoose that desire it do so. The sad reality but reality nonetheless for thoose enamoured by ''nordic looks'' in there desire to comprehend why some (and there are many) are not ''swept away'' by thoose looks is very simply because there looks ''nordic beauty'' does not move the soul and beauty moves a soul. It really always has been and always will be as simple as that.
Apollyon,
There is no archelogical evidence that Jesus ever existed and the Bible is no evidence at all either. The fact is that we cannot trace anything to Jesus Christ and the fact is also that by today standards he would be considered black or mixed. Your Ayrian supremacy to attribute Nordic (blondes) to be the most beautiful is your lack of understanding of our evolutionary pattern. I am betting you are of a religious background so you would probably won’t understand. Going back to our history our 200,000 years of human existance caucasians have not always been considered the most beautiful. I would be more than glad to discuss how is that possible, but perhaps it wouldn’t be nice of me to burst your Nordic wanna be bubble. Afterall, you are not Nordic, therefore ugly. Your own words, not mine.
I agree that the Scandanavian countries are rich. But, we are debating in English afterall, and not in Swedish, Danish or Norwegian. My point being that it is the Anglos who dominate, starting with the British Empire.
As for your point about the Muslims viewing Europeans as 'good for a bang' but not for mixing: untrue. They produced children (which were considered Muslim). There is plenty of European blood in the Islamic world.
Although I did mention that 'looking whiter' appears to be one of the characteristics of beauty among different ethnic groups I did mention that skin-tone is not in itself a proper measure of beauty. Hence the social convention of tanning (or not depending upon the time period). It is more about facial features (and body structure)- of which the 'most appealing' are observed more often in Nordics than elsewhere. Finer noses are considered more attractive across the board, on average.
I would say hair fusions etc has more to do with a fashion standard (just as huge wigs were the standard among the upper classes in Europe in the 18th century). This does not invalidate my point about facial features.
Fuller lips...this may be influenced by wanting a more 'sexy' look, but i don't think white women want 'black lips'. Also, I think it is heavily media-driven as most of the women who get lip injections simply look weird.
Fuller buttocks are likely driven by women who have naturally flatter buttocks (i.e. less than ideal or 'masculanized'). I don't think they necessarily want a 'Latin' booty. Living in Toronto, I am exposed to numerous ethnic groups and I think the 'Latin' butt is over-emphasized (i.e. it's not half as great as they claim - they are often simply fat). Many Anglo girls have nice butts. I doubt those with nice butts want a 'lift'.
Regardless, the desire for these cosmetic changes has more to do with reaching an ideal than a desire to emulate different ethnic groups. This ideal is easily found in Europe.
I agree with you about the lack of 'purity' in 'races' (ethnicities). There has been a lot of mixing but the further north you go, the less apparent it is.
I also agree that many 'mixed races' produce good looking women and there are good looking women in any ethnic group. My point is that, on average, the Nordics have the edge.
Regarding Jews, 80% are 'Ashkenazi' which is European and the remainder are Mediterranean. Apparently the Ashkenazi are able to trace their ancestry back to a half dozen women in Jesus' time in about 40% of the cases (can't locate the references right now - going by memory). Point is they are relatively 'pure' in that intermarriage has been limited.
It is probable Jesus was light brown-skinned, with dark hair and eyes. He was likely tanned and relatively rugged, due to being a carpenter. There is compelling evidence that he existed. This is rarely disputed anymore. I should note he was described as not having 'beauty or majesty' and was indistinguishable from Peter and John, both ordinary fisherman (read: average looking). Not sure if this is relevant or not...
Apollyon,
Actually, all the Scandinavian countries are among the wealthiest and have the highest standard of living in the world, check the HDI if you would like to know which countries are in that list. It is interesting that you say Scandinavian countries produce the highest number of beautiful people since they are not the ones who rule the fashion industry nor have the highest number of top models. I am glad thou to see that you do know that race is a social construct and not a biological one. Muslims considered Europeans good for a bang but would never mix their race with white as they still considered themselves superior, whether they are or not is a different story.
Actually the fact that you mention that people of different races who are beautiful only are because they look whiter is not entirely true. Although they may well be mixed, is the mixture that gives them the edge. Most entirely “pure” white women are not considered the most beautiful either. Their too pale skin, the too straight hair, the lack of luscious lips, and curves where needed are not a desirable trait. Is the ones that are able to take the best traits from all races the ones that are considered beautiful. The narrow nose of the Anglos, the luscious lips of Blacks, the wavy thick hair of the Indians, smaller body structure of the Asians, etc, etc.
Why it is that it is that it is the white women getting the expensive fusion hair extensions, which by the way are really popular and cheap in Sweden, to have a thicker more voluminous hair?
Why is it the white women getting lip injections to emulate the thicker lips of the blacks?
Why is it the white women doing buttocks implants and lifts to have the nicely rounded buttocks of the black women?
Why is it the white women that is at the tanning salon trying to emulate the tan look of Latinas?
I could go on and on, the list is endless, just as black women would straighten their hair and use skin lighteners to look a little whiter and white women are doing the exact opposite. Why? Because everyone is searching for that happy medium which is a mix of all the best traits from all the races. Because not a single person of a single race has all the desirable features it is in the mix that is the key to perfection.
The truth is that in this darn age, there is nobody who is entirely of a pure race. Even if no mix is evident, there is still some, most likely couple of hundred years ago. Jews being a perfect example of that. Many Jews are considered white; however this was not so 2,000 years ago. Actually a group of scientists recreated what would have been an accurate historical picture of how Jesus would have looked like (whether he existed or not that is a different story) and the result was extremely far from him being white.
I know tons of people from different races who will fit Stephen’s mask of the “perfect” face, whether they are considered beautiful or not is a different story.
I expected that response. If I'd indicated I considered Asians to be the most beautiful, I doubt I would have been called a racist.
I merely noted my own opinions...but they are supported by evidence. Not all will agree and I have clearly stated there are attractive women who are not white...but that those that are considered attractive by their own ethnic group, happen to approximate a more European look.
The claim that it is those in power that determine beauty is a standard response but not necessarily correct. During the Middle Ages, European slaves, particularly blondes (often Celtic) were hightly prized by the Muslims...who considered themselves vastly superior to the Europeans. The Vikings found a ready market in the Islamic world for their blond slaves.
Skin-tone is not necessarily representative of beauty. However, fine features are. Romans noted the beauty of the Celts, esp their women. They certainly did not consider them 'advanced' in any way. Japanese and Koreans often consider themselves as 'smarter' than whites, more sophisticated, etc (whether this is correct is another matter). Yet they wish to emulate white looks.
I do not think that the desire to have a smaller, Nordic nose has much to do with 'who is in power'. It is clearly a aesthetic ideal that is desired among many ethnic groups.
Calling me racist because I make these observations is unwarranted.
Incidentally, the word 'race', which is often used here, is incorrectly applied. Genetically there is really only one race. Humans are too close genetically to be broken into races (a 19th century concept that simply won't die). The differences really are 'skin-deep'. But, considering this is the point of this site, I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss these differences.
While my background is 'European', I am not Scandanavian. Nevertheless, it is well-known that this region of the world produces, on average, the most beautiful people. Scandanavians don't rule the world - the Anglos do.
- Apollyon
They are not the only ones on here promoting racism. However, Emily has said some pretty **cked up stuff.
you both complain about mentaly ill people when, in my opinion, you both are crazy and need to stop nagging on each other and being so technical...
Heatherette is an Avant Garde Fashion design company stationed in new york. Run by Richie Rich and Traver Rains they have had designers in their crazy fashion shows including paris hilton and Pamela Anerson and others as well
Traver Rains (March 4, 1977 Fort Collins, Colorado)
Richie Rich (Califronia USA)
I am glad to see that you two, Apollyon and Emily are promoting racism and discrimination. It is very interesting to see unenlightened minds pretending that they have anything relevant to contribute. If you look at historical icons throughout the world you would notice that the perception that we have of beauty has dramatically changed. Not only regarding facial structure but also body types and even height. Caucasian features has not always been the desireable ones. Beauty is defined by those who hold the power. If all of the Asian or African countries would be the wealthiest, the most technologically advanced and had the highest standard of living than most European countries have, everyone would love to be Asian or African and have their features. Asian, Latin Americans and African countries are trying to mix and imitate European countries not because the European traits are more beautiful per se but because those traits represent high standard of living, wealth and power. Whomever is on the top is the most beautiful so you too better hope that none of the other countries ever reach that standard and make you feel unwanted and wish you were from a different race. As for me, as a French caucasian women I know better.
Beautyyyyyyfoool swede
More beautiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiful swede!
Ugly asian actress Go Ara
So ugly asian
I think shes attractive...
Now compare to these cute Asian females!
I'm sorry Cesilia, but so far you failed to convince me that Swedish are more attractive/evolved/feminine etc.. To me even you models look average.
India is a vast country and the Southern Indians are very different from the Northern Indians. I am surprised that in Sweden you did not study about it?! That is called lack of general knowledge.
The Swedish nose and the Dravidian type have the fleshiness in common. Most possibly, it happened in the Mongoloid melting pot. It is just a fact and you should not overreact about it, especially when you are the one pointing at other people. You should be prepared to listen what others see about you too.
Cecilia:
"Btw how pissed of were you? O_O.
Woow"
Yeah, I was mad. Throughout debates on this site I've gone off the handle at times. In more recent discourses with Emily and the like, I've reamined more composed. You, however, are just stupid. Just seriously, flat out stupid. Not because you're not "well read" in anthropology or history or whatever (as Barbarella accused me of before, but retracted, which I thank her for) but because you act just flat out unintelligent. I'll be more composed from now on, but my god, I don't think actual debate is for you.
"We obviously don't have the same taste because all of the pictures you post of ugly/average/dull looking people saying "so attractive" "pleasant to the eye" and comparing them to pretty people or people with pretty features are not beautiful. And if you had read more carefully what I said, I said that certain traits disappear when mixing races, such as having natural white hair which is uncommon in the world enough as it is. I posted pictures of random people with white hair. I didn't try to find the most swedish-looking or good-looking people, I just wanted to show you how beautiful white hair is and how mixed races can never get these bright types of hair and bright looks."
That's an absolute load of garbage. Go to central asian countries like Kazakhstan, which is primarily composed of white-central asian mixes and notice the high frequencies of light hair. I've seen loads of dark skinned indians and american blacks with light eyes, too. Just because those traits require both parents to carry the alleles doesn't mean those of mixed race can never get those looks.
While it seems true that many of the light hair types seen among whites are easily diluted by even moderately dark skin (IE the trait becoming invisible at a certain point), that's not to say there's other light hair alleles that show the opposite:
http://thestudyofracialism.org/about1096.html
Australo-melanesians are an oceanian and pacific islander group. In terms of facial featues they generally resemble black africans, but are most closely related to southeast asians. They are, in fact, the least related people to africans on earth.
And many of them show extraordinarily high frequencies of light hair. Blonde hair and all of it's varying shades, brown hair and all of it's varying shades, and everything in between. Some of them even show red hair, albeit this is quite rare. (and obviously very different from the kind seen among whites and the like, in terms of its genetic basis)
The fact these traits show up so easily in a dark skinned population shows their light hair phenotypes aren't diluted in the least by skin color.
Notice how many of the kids have platinum blonde hair, which, yes, can even show up into adulthood.
And no, I don't often see females in Hollywood dye their hair platinum blonde, even less so with typical american whites. I can actually speak for this because I'm american.
Callmewhateveryouwant:
"The only person who needs to be educated about indian is you.
The reality looks more like this:"
Ah, another generalization of over 1 billion by people by 2 pictures. This is even more insane to do than with east asians due to their profound physical diversity.
On the topic of east asians typically fitting their mold, which Emily went on about, I won't deny they've frequently fit certain ethnic traits. I just find it hilarious to generalize such a huge population based on a few hundred unattractive individuals you find online, some of whom fit certain extreme ethnic traits, others fit unattractive traits that are race dependent.
Of course, people like Emily want to believe virtually all asians are wide faced, have pancake flat noses and faces, incredibly wide noses, and buck teeth, though.
I've seen many typical indians vastly better than the people in Bollywood, by the way. Even Aishwarya Rai, who is insanely overrated. I'm not sure what attracts so many people to her. Maybe it's because alot of indians have a white fetish or she fits some vague mold of some middle eastern type beauty ideal. I mean, her nose is nice, but that's about it.
And I ask again what your racial background is. But at this point, I guess it's pretty futile.
Visitor wrote:
OMG, you really are very ignorant about the racian diversity in India. Let me enlighten you!
Ordinary Kashmiri faces on Google. BTW, Kasmir is in India.(lol)
Lol the typical national geographic kind of photography.
I'm not ignorant about the India's racial diversity. Unlike you, I know how the majority is. By the way, leave the children alone.
Most indians are dark and short
This man's nose is closer to your Nordic ideal for noses. Wide, fleshy nasal tip.
Now you are saying that indians are dark mongoloids.
This man's nose is closer to your Nordic ideal for noses. Wide, fleshy nasal tip.
VioletCorpus and Visitor,
Thanks for the kind words! :D
Cecilia,
Since you love posting profile pictures and making comments like these
"You can see her evolved cheek, thick lips and Nordic nose clearly."
What do you think of my thick lips, "evolved" cheek and Nordic nose profile???
Isn't it suspicious that Emily seems to have disappeared and Cecilia replaced her? hmmmm
Callmewhateveryouwant
I think being a real Indian i can talk about the looks of Indians. *cough* *cough*
The girl looks fine to me.
Pages