For anyone who reckons 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' then explain this: David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, both fit world-class athetes, yet all women are agreeing that David Beckham is good-looking yet at the same all agreeing that Wayne Rooney is not particularly good-looking. This shows they are all agreeing on the same thing which contradicts the idea that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
David Beckham is hopelessly boring and unattractive but that Wayne...wooo he looks good for conjugal activities =o
Call me Wayne! And no I didn't say it just to prove you wrong, even if you are wrong. A silly poll on David Beckham doesn't prove anything. Furthermore anyone who would have sex with that orange, stick thing called Victoria Beckham is bad sexy time material.
VC:
Godis, do you have an email I can converse with? I have my own reservations about posting personal information, and if you do, just set up an alternate one. I could set one up myself
Sure, I'll set one up. But I try to be safe online so I don't know how I would go about posting my email without other people knowing what it is. How would I go about doing that? I'm not very computer savvy.
Barberella:
Stop posing Emily as a victim. She is not. People do not lash out at you and Emily simply because you believe whites to be more attractive or superior in certain ways. People lash out at Emily and yourself because of the way Emily degrades other people and whole populations and because of the way you stand behind that.
Emily:
Thanks for calling me a hyppocrite. I believe I mentioned that WE ARE ALL HYPPOCRITES at times. I just realized I was even being a hyppocrite when I once again attacked your character by claiming you are a hyppocrite. Old habits die hard. I am remorseful. I personally don't like you and I find your persectives on things shocking,troubling,etc. However, I am disapointed with myself because as I have read my posts I realize that they are a poor representation of the person I usually am. I guess that being online brings about a different darker side of me. I am usually a very nice person in my everyday life outside of this site. Even when I don't like people I generally don't say mean things to them,and I am usually not sarcastic and insulting. Even when they mess with my nerves. I have to say I have never met anyone as outrageous as you however. Either way I probably will be nasty at times. But I just want to improve and try not to attack your character. That is the worst thing I believe. I won't call you a horrible person anymore.
I don't know who you really are and what is really going on deep in your brain and your heart. It is not my place to judge other souls like that, although I believe you do need a wake up call and you will be judged by others. It is only human nature for people to judge.
"Gigi from Domai would not be ideal for lingerie modeling. Her body is too matronly, it would be a turn off for most men because they would feel they were looking at their mothers.
Her body is feminine, but it is not "young", it is on the saggy side in all the places. She is a tad bit overweight, she would have to lose some weight and gain a tiny bit of muscle mass to appeal to the average heterosexual male."
You must have some kind of eating disorder to think GiGi is fat. Also, GiGi's breasts are not "saggy" those are what natural breasts look like child. I don't doubt you are a bit...ignorant concerning what the human body actually does look like. Most of the commenters seem to be rather ignorant of the fact that there is a very wide diversification of the human body in our population. Now, that being said if you would like to see what REAL breasts look like (in a non-porn setting) please go to http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php
Also check out this gallery of bellies, http://thebellyproject.wordpress.com/ because yea not everyone's belly is the same. As for GiGi not being attractive to the average heterosexual male-LAMFOROFL you are one crazy woman. I know hundreds of men who would line up to sleep with GiGi in a hot second.
I garner most of you are stricken with narcissism and obsessive compulsive disorders. it's shockingly widespread in western culture during this time period. Is it the fluoride in the water or the fact you never had to suffer through anything serious in your life time? Who knows? Frankly, I don't care. I expect western civilization will breed itself out of existence anyway since most of you are too concerned about yourselves to muster the thought of having children OR you'll end up blowing this whole rock to kingdom come. the iran talk is getting rather scary and i wish you "civilized", "western", "eurocenteric" folks would just blow us up sooner rather than later because the suspense is not even amusing anymore.
I've just come across this article and find its to be annoying. I believe in the theory of feminine women of this site but I want to admit that you can't tell which women verify masculine just by using a few pictures which photoshoped them, in order to fit the sporty model cristeria. on the pictures they look so masculine but in reality probably different?.....take a look at this fantasy movie where miss silanka (Jaqueline Fernandes) get a role in her first film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm56IEZ7clo
Hm..not very persuasive damage control, VC. You live in a fantasyland.
For example, Koreans;
Japanese;
..and almost all the other ones I have posted.
Actually, almost all my photos are of East Asians (Koreans and Japanese) so the lack of gracility you see is the lack of gracility in E. Asians - not in the S. E. Asians. Sorry.
The profile of the asian with the low sloping forehead is Korean. There are many that look like that.
Good photo, Callmewhatyouwant. The asians have much heavier and coarse facial features than the white girls. Just as I have noticed myself when I looked for photos.
Oh and one more thing before I shut this down for good. Just because your studies and text say that this or that is the most beautiful, does it make it true? Seriously, think about that. Ahve you yourself went out into the world, all over the world, to different places in all countries to rpove someone elses opinion to be true? These studies can be biased if a person so chooses them to be. I am speaking from a person who lives in a very multicultural city, where whites are a minority almost, and that I am not seeing all of these ugly asians and such. Probably because these asians I live around are in a north american country, where we all get the same healthcare. I dont see any more beautiful white people here than I see black people, and so on. Youa re picking on a country of people who are less fortunate. They dont always get the advantages that we take for granted.
VC, thank you for answering my questions and explaining what you did. I appreciate that you took the time. Hopefully you'll come back from time to time.
It has become apparent that my defense of Emily, which largely began during a conversation where it was Nordics being largely insulted, and where I came to the defense of Emily while she was expressing her approval of the looks of Northern Europeans, which I concurred. I do not hate races of people, or individual people based on their race. I'm sorry that it appears that I do, it simply isn't the truth. I think that if the evidence was to look at the photos I've posted, they've all been of people I have found attractive, not of those I don't, with a few exceptions which was largely due to my utter frustration with other posters Yes, I've gotten impatient and frustrated with some people here, that happens during debate.
I happen to prefer the looks of Northern Europeans as far as men (and women) go. That does not mean that I, personally, think everyone else is ugly, because I don't. I don't have as critical a view of other races as others' here. It's not just some token "I really do think other races are attractive" statement. I do, but less often than I like the looks of what I've already stated I prefered. Someone said "It's ok to say that you don't think certain people are attractive, and just leave it at that". I believe for the most part I've largely done that. Judge me on the merits of my comments, please? Not on those comments of another poster. I've not chosen to align with hate, and for those that think Emily's hateful, that is your issue with her, not me.
You always bring up the neoteny argument to stand for your point of view.
Let's be logical here. What's feminine: to look like a child or to look youthful?
That's the point. The neoteny represented by east asians looks retarded. As they haven't developed completely. They possess the same traits of born babies: disproportional head, sunken nose bridge, epicanthic fold, wide set eyes.
Also you keep insisting on asians having more refined traits. Girl, we have posted many pictures of nordic girls standing side by side with east asians girls proving that your argumentation holds no truth. Anyone can see that east asians have oversized traits in relation to nordics or any european group.
If you prefer asian beauty, it's your taste. However, say the truth or open your eyes at least.
Why don't you say that you prefer east asians because they have broader noses or bigger heads? Even coarser hair or flatter faces? Instead of that, you come here with your well written texts and try to convince people that asians are curvy, have long legs, proportional head and no prognathism.
a picture is worth a thousand words
beauty isn't the point here. just to enlighten how asians are in fact coarser. just look at the girls and see how the two white girls have finer traits. pay attention to their nose. the two whites have it thiner and pointy while the two asians have it flat, wider with rounded nostrils. Even more noticeable is the jaw size.
I am not Godis. Like I said, I come from Canada, grew up as a teenager in Toronto, a multicultural city. I don't follow the rants that go on here, I am a mother, I breifly go over things being discussewd, and look for the truth myself when it becomes available. I simply don't have the time to go over everything being said. And I have been viewing this site for over a year, I just decided to post on something that doesn't seem to be entirely true, as what I saw on a childrens show that was filmed in Sweden. I neverr said blonde hair isn't beautiful, even I am attracted to it, but to say that it ranks higher than another haircolour is absurd. I find beauty in all things. And from what I have seen growing up in a mulricultural city, its not that men prefer one hair colour to the next, it is that the media pushes it down our throat until we all believe it to be true. Such as men are being pushed to believe that supermodels are beautiful. Men are attracted to a certain body type and certain facial features, one that resenates with their need to create healthy offspring. And trust me, I have watched men closely, men do look at blonde hair more but how often do we see them stare at these girls? I dont see them stare at these girls anymore than I see them stare at a brunette or a redhead. It has been brainwashed into them that blonde equates to fakeness, and I am sorry to say but a whore. I know that sounds wrong as well. But this came from my own husbands mouth. Blonde hair they seem to think of it as a girl who is more fun and more easy to get into bed. Not necessarily a life partner or anything other than something to use sexually. And I have seen pictures even on here, which has been seletively picked for you to view by the way, with what looks to be light brown hair roots, on these so called naturally blonde swedes. Once again not saying that it isn't possible, but swedes are human just like the rest of us, and unless you are born with dark hair, it seems to darken as we age. I can think of so many people with blonde facial hair, blonde hair on their body, yet they have to dye the hair on their head to match the colour of their youth. Bothy my brothers were blonde, with now a lighter shade of brown. My children have blonde hair and red hair, yet I highly doubt it will stay this vibrant light colour as they age because that isn't what happens on average. My own fiery red headed child gets so much attention because of how rare it is to see his hair colour these days, nobody even pays attention to my blonde haired child in comparison. So whats all the hype about blonde women? It seems because we are brainwashed to belive it to be perfection.
And so once again I want to say that I am speaking about what I saw on a television show filmed in Sweden. And the average was light brown, however there were a few blondes and this is speaking about both genders.
I think that white people are jealous of olive complexions adn darker skin tones. Tans aren't a natural tone for our skin to have. So why do we do that? Another thing that is being pushed on us by the media through Hollywood, movies and the like. Tanning our skin is essentially burning our skin cells, obviously how people get skin cancer. So why do something that is harmful to your body unless you want to conform to some sterotype being pushed at us? I don't know very men who like pasty white skin. This all comes down to this archetype of ideal beauty, which from the looks of it, hasn't escaped northern euopeans and swedes... why else burn your skin? have you been told that it is the most attractive?
I see beauty in all races. Yes, asians dont have perfect teeth, but they hair gorgeous hair. Yes, black people dont have these "european" facial features but they have an ASS and a tanned complexion. White people have beautiful facial features but they have a pasty bland skin tone. I could go on and on. I am not here to bash anyone, or offend anyone, I am just trying to say what I see as a person in a multicultural city. There is some sterotype that is being pushed on all of us whether we want to realize it or not, and we should spend less time bashing one another and spreading hatred and jealousy, and embrace our difference and see that each race has beauty within it. No one ranks higher than anyone else unless you yourself believe it to be true, and let me say, that most of the world is filled with ignorant people who like to sell their propaganda to create an evil and unhappy environment in the world.
I wont respond either due to lack of time. I just wanted to write on something that I saw, unbiased on television. I would much rather leave this on a positive note than to come back and hear anything negative be thrown at me or anyone else for that matter. Frankly it is quite gross. Ignorance doesnt make it the truth.
I was hoping this painful discussion thread had finally died, but I guess not.
I'm pretty much done with this site for awhile, for now. In regards to "the other" Emily, thank you.
Barbarella:
"VC, if you come back, I do have a question or two. First of all, I want to reiterate that I don't refute scientific data, I was merely asking you to show pictures of examples of the browridges you spoke of. By a less prominant browridge, I'm interpreting that as a neotonous trait (?)."
Yes, it is, and it's also a "primitive" trait.
"I understand that neotony is a correlate of femininity, but can it really stand alone when assessing the face overall? I understand that you claimed that Nordics had a more prominant browridge,"
I didn't mean nordics in particular- I meant caucasoids as a whole. I'm not sure as to how much variance these populations exhbiti- from nordics to north africans to arabs to irananians to indians- but it seems generally rather homogenous.
" but it is my understanding that the other, more refined traits of the Nordic face is more feminine overall."
In comparison to a group like black africans, certainly. That's what I said, and that's what Erik said. Testosterone and certain other aspects of facial gracility can also make even the area of a small or non-protruding browridge appear more rugged.
"I was interested in seeing an example of this. That is why I asked for photos, not to replace your data, but to support it."
Well, I've shown some photos and videos, albeit not a whole lot to show such a thing. It's not that easy to come across such specific comparisons, but I can understand now.
"Yes, I read your response to me, and I think if the foul language and name-calling wasn't present in your previous posts, I might read them in their entirety. Not that I don't swear! It's just that it was so excessive and to be totally honest without being insulting, I took you and your comments less seriously because of it."
I understand this, but as I've said, in certain debates, I disregard certain aspects of etiquitte in what I see is largely irrelevant to addressing extremism. Is that really a good approach? No, I need to work on it. But it shouldn't be too understandable.
"I do still have my preferences in terms of what I find beautiful. I'll read your articles but I'm not sure I'd change my mind. I know what is inherently attractive to ME."
This is a little independent anthropology study that merged the photos of a bunch of modern white models and a bunch of older white ones, and the more recent ones are more frequently preferred.
Am I saying you prefer more masculine women? No, there's a certain range of femininity and masculinity that seem to be considered universally attractive, even with the women at the upper ranges of that masculinity being more preffered. Maybe that's how most modern white american males feel.
Maybe alot of these nordic women Emily spams are quite feminine, but maybe I just have a greater preference for equivalently "feminine" east asian women. Have I been trying to convince you, all along, to prefer something else? No. I'm simply pointing out that nordic women simply aren't as gracile and feminine as alot of people have made them out to be. That's all. And I can also admit that east asians have certain flaws, and highly feminine women would also lead to highly feminine men. Do I believe general facial femininity correlates with all around beauty? Of course not.
Then again, alot of these nordic women Emily posts, I sincerely don't believe many people can find them highly attractive. Good looking or pretty or average maybe, but highly attractive?
"About my narrow perception of beauty: if you and I shared the same opinion of what is beautiful, and what's not, would it still be narrow to you? Is it only narrow because it's a perception that's not in agreement with yours? I think there are attractive Asians, Blacks, Southern and Eastern Europeans as well. It's just that of those groups, I find FEWER, not NONE, in terms of where I find the most frequently attractive people. That does not make me a bad person in the slightest. I'd read that you prefer the looks of East Asians, and that is your preference. I have not personally said a thing about what you, or anyone else deems attractive. I've stood beside Emily when people began bashing Northern Europeans. On one or two occasions, I stated my opinions of certain individuals that I felt were unattractive. I disagree that that's a narrow perception of beauty."
I guess you're largely right, but I don't feel like addressing this in detail. I'm sorry if I've knocked on you, but I'm still revolted at how you've defended Emily and tried to twist what she says. Sorry.
Before I'll probably leave for quite some time, I'll address a few fun new claims Emily has brought to the table:
When someone bespeaks of facial femininity, gracility, refinement, whatever, they obviously bespeak of averages. There are highly feminine black women, but they are less frequent in respect to their population averages. The same holds true for a whole host of other ethnic groups.
East asians may be more feminine on average, but it obviously isn't particularly hard to find masculine asian women- just as one can find masculine white women. But, in your words:
"Gracile and refined? Hardly. Those are the exceptions..after surgery."
So gracile and refined asian women are exceptions, and only after surgery? That's a massive, disgusting exageration.
In regards to you waving around that study of korean women who undertook surgery, that was just... 810 in Seoul. Do you know how many people are in Seoul?
East asians and europeans have about the same level of forehead development. In fact, they're in the middle ground of human physiological expression, with native americans have the roundest, highest ones.
You seem to have a nasty habit of picking little features you see in some photos of other races, or read up on, and just running with it as much as humanly possible.
Then again, finding some east asians with relatively flattened foreheads isn't too hard when it's such a heavily variable physical trait.
Another highly variable physical trait that also falls on a scale of derivation is head breadth, measured under the cephalic index. Look it up. Dolichocephalic refers to a long head, mesocephlic refers to a middle-ground head, and brachycephalic refers to a round head. There's also classifications like hyper-dolichocephalic and hyper-brachycephalic. It falls on a scale of derivation because, well, when you look at our evolution, we became much rounder headed.
It's been a common observation that africans are typically dolichocephalic, europeans are mesocehpalic, and east asians are brachycephalic.
And this trait varies substantially amongst racial groups, perhaps the most variable trait- so much so it's been shown to have small environmental components in twin studies.
Although this is a very old chart, the data in it is stil probably very reliable since the cephalic index measurement has been around for ages, and is just so simple. Notice how strongly europeans vary.
It even varies heavily within a small place like Sardinia, which ranks as relatively dolichocephalic on this map:
And horrors of horrors, you can see that Scandinavians are the most dolichocephalic europeans, and thus, have the most "primitive" head shapes.
However, I've never seen a single study, or even opinion, to rank head breadth on a scale of attractiveness. It's overwhelmingly likely all relative.
But back to foreheads, I'm also uncertain as to how that can be ranked on a scale of objective attractiveness. While it's certainly on a scale of derivation, and a broad neotenic trait, there was a study on this site showing how examinees generally preferred highly rounded or middle ground foreheads- yet a certain age group did greatly prefer sloping foreheads.
Plus, you have to consider how loads of pre-modern cultures practiced head binding, to alter the shape and structure of the head and forehead, often- wait for it- BEAUTY. Look it up yourself. Many groups, like native americans, the Minoans, the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans etc. etc. deformed the forehead to extreme shapes, greatly outside of what humans are normally capable of expressing.
So I find the verdict rather out on that one.
Also, a number of the asian women Emily has posted are southeast asians, which are quite obviously not as gracile as east asians, largely due to their hardier lifestyles and the like.
And finally, this comment:
"The mongoloid race has uncanny similarities to Down syndrome patients. I actually believe there is some kind of common gene that accounts for the mongoloid look in asians and in Down syndrome patients.
They are just too similar not to be related physically. I don't mean to sound mean, but what other explanation for the similarities can there be? They both have arrested development so it seems logical, I think."
If you throw out the transient below-the-neck physical features (which you never will), then all you have left in terms of such a similarity is flatter faces and epicanthic folds.
Why do people with downs syndrome and other genetic disabilities have these traits? I don't know. You seem to love the idea of there being some master "Downs snydrome gene" that also accounts for a few physical similarities with asians, though.
Again, that's alot like hilariously archaic and simple minded early racial science. But you don't have any objections to it.
I've often heard infants have relatively flattened faces, but I'm not sure of this, or the anatomical correlate of it. Some of the facial flatness seen among east asians and the like is due to their heavy midfacial flatness and fronto-orbital flatness, but that's heavily reduced in other mongoloid populations, in spite of having similar general facial flatness.
Since they're both broad neotenic traits, unrelated to derivation, my guess is that some kind of genetic defect related to expression of all these causes them to be retained beyond infancy. Remember, a GENETIC DEFECT. The basic definition of neoteny is a RETENTION of infantile traits in an adult organism. They aren't really connected, but Emily has no problems worshipping the broad neotenic traits of light skin and hair in nordics, but thinking epicanthic folds or flat faces or relatively flattened nasal bridges are an innately disgusting trait.
But you don't seem to sound mean?
Could someone just search Emily's name on this site and compile all of the garbage she's said?
"What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe."
This is what I want to leave on. But I'll say again that Erik doesn't seem to believe cranio-facial traits shifted heavily towards european norms are universally more attractive- just somewhat.
I've detailed my positions on this heavily, and while I agree with alot of what Erik's saying, I disagree strongly with alot of it, and for good reason, and see some inconsistencies with Erik's ideas, including biases and some other ideological ideas he seems kind of reluctant to openly express.
Regardless, this site has taught me a staggering amount about human beauty, physical anthropology, and evolution in general, and it's something to build upon. In alot of my future studies, I plan to make this debate apart of it as well. I strongly believe I'll be able to present something more level-headed than what Erik presents- this site is supposed to be mainly about beauty pageants, but it seems an atrocious avenue to be comparing things like the presence of derived traits among humans and the general question of race and beauty and the like.
Barbella, I don't think you're or a horrible person. Like I said in my previous post, I can see where you are coming from. I just think it is a poor judgment call on your part to support her as voraciously as you do. That is all I am saying. It seems like with every nasty thing she says, you have some way to kind of clean it up for her, and I don't think that is right.
I do resent some of the comments you posted about what others have said. I think it is wrong to describe people in such dehumanizing terms (that's what it is mind you). I didn't like how Godis said nordic have "pig pink" skin. I likewise don't like it when people say africans look like gorillas (Emily, that must sound familiar), and I don't like it when people say that asians have skin like a snake. To quote billy bush, its gross. I have been reading this site for a while, and I remember seeing early posts from Emily, and yes she was just as inflammatory then as every. And I was offended by it then just as I am now. I gotta give it to the girl, at least she is consistent.
Even if those things were being said (and I recognize they were), does that make it right for Emily to do likewise? Are their wrongs canceled out by her doing the same thing to them? What benefit is there in taking on the positions of such negative people? Can anyone learn and grow from such an experience? I think not! All you get is a circle of negativity that never ends. All you get are the same things hurled back and forth, a never ending cycle. Maybe it is time that we rise above this cycle and really talk, really understand each other without hateful, mean words being exchanged. Emily is a perpetual ball of negativity, seeking to uplift her own beauty by stepping on others. Dammit, that is not right, and I'll be damned if I don't call her on it. I feel like Emily is such a negative person, and spends so much time tearing people down, its draining. Can you imagine how it feels to have someone say that your people look diseased? As I am writing this it is hard for me to even fathom that those words were typed on her keyboard. I understand that when you see someone like Emily being "ganged up on" when you share a similar position is annoying and hard, but you have to exercise wisdom in who you take up for. Remember, just because someone is ganged upon and in a position of disfavor, does not mean that they are innocent or right. I mean no disrespect, because I do feel that you do have valuable things to say and add to the conversation, and I think you waste your time taking up for Emily.
Also, you shouldn't feel the need to say that Emily has a right to her opinion because everyone recognizes that. Just because we revile her opinion, doesn't mean that we strip her of her right to have one.
Emily: You're arguments are lame. You citing the fact that people call it mongolidism or whatever does not mean that asians look like they have down syndrome, all it means is that, unfortunately, there are people out there like you who actually classify these disease in such a racist way (undoubtedly the same people who idotically say they all look alike).
Callmewhateveryouwant:
Yes, I do love white people. I don't see the point of your post. I love asians, blacks, indians, native-americans, etc. I love them all, I love people. I truly don't see why you find asians so unattractive. I think they are a very attractive people, but not everybody likes everything I do, and I realize that.
Fascinating you should say that. But I am not Godis. Perhaps there is some similarity. If I continue to post on this debate you'd eventually know that I am not Godis or anyone else who is experimenting. I have visited this site last night for the first time and found the debate fascinating.
I am not white. I am Asian (Mango is our national fruit). I am a man. I am 37 years old. I love my country and people but I think white races are far more evolved than the other races. And I beleive that they are generally more attractive than the rest. For long I have been interested in this kind of a debate, but where I come from this kind of debate degenerates quickly into a fight. Most people do not hold the argument on a topic of this sensitivity and instead start to 'play the player and not the ball'. But I found many views here truly fascinating and though some posters say they come from non-scientific background I am enjoying the level of intellect they display. I like a good debate - and dont mind losing and being proven wrong.
I think there is a lot to debate yet and I intend to stay on the thread.
Kant is not my favorite philosopher, though he is probably the greatest of the Western Philosophers. Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher - for he is greater than Kant.
It's kinda funny how Nicky/Mango remind me so much of Godis...now I don't want to be paranoid, but all of the things they've said (to eachother, how strange) are things that Godis' said at various times, so I don't know. She's done this before, invented other posters to conduct "experiments", and that compliment, out of nowhere, how odd.
If I'm wrong, sorry! There's just some uncanny similarities, like the reference to Kant, Godis' favorite philosopher...
Mango, thanks for the compliment. I wasn't expecting it and was suprised and pleased. It's been a while since I've been viewed as an individual instead of some sort of minion of another poster. Once again, I appreciate the compliment. I've been called names, accused of saying things another poster has said, simply because I said she had a right to say them, or because I admitted that I shared some opinions, namely on the fact that Nordic women are often very beautiful, as well as stating that I agreed with some other, but not ALL of this person's viewpoints. The reason I wrote last night that I was going to leave the site for a while, in addition to the reasons of being busy in the coming weeks, is because the conversation has digressed to the point of EVERYONE on here, myself included is hurling insults at one another instead of sticking to the topics. It was my wish that I could engage in conversations with others about the many topics pertaining to beauty. Hopefully when I return I'll be able to continue that.
In the spirit of debate, I believe everyone has a right to share their peice. I don't believe anyone should ever be censored.
Emily, other one, you know that I've not come even close to using the language that Emily's used to describe individuals that belong to races I don't find attractive. That is the merit I should be judged on, although I don't think you have the right to judge me or anyone else for that matter. Is it the fact that I said Emily has a right to her opinions the same as those who wrote that Nordics have light eye colors that look dead, the women are horse toothed and unfemininly built like line-backers' or that my straight, small upturned nose is snobbish, or piggish. Not to mention the pig-skin!! Oh, and we're inbread too. We have hair colors like cartoon birds. I saw things like these, and then saw her saying things she was, but told she was this terrible person. I disagreed with it. I shared an appreciation for Nordic beauty with her. If associating myself based on those reasons means that I'm lumped in with her, that the merit of my comments, that have absolutely nothin to do with hers means you deem me as some terrible person, than that is TRULY YOUR PROBLEM. If you are as smart as you portray yourself, you'd understand the difference.
"What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe."
Very true, and eloquently put. Most people believe this and agree with Erik's conclusions about the link between physical evolvment and universal appeal, but due to the furious and irrational reactions from those not belonging to this group of people, therefore feeling excluded, it is a truth that is not easily told.
It becomes even harder if you actually compare the races in order to argue your point. People will not readily accept a reality that is not to their own benefit, it seems. This of course doesn't mean they don't see the truth. Admitting it is another thing, though.
One refers to the mongoloid race, being one of three great races, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. The other one refers to people who have Down syndrome. Why is that, do you think? Is it because there is no physical connection at all?
"Mongoloid:
1. resembling the Mongols.
2. Anthropol.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by yellowish complexion, prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds about the eyes, and straight black hair, and including the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetans, and, to some extent, the Eskimos and the American Indians: no longer in technical use.
3. (often l.c.) Pathol.(no longer in technical use) of, affected with, or characteristic of Down syndrome.
—n.
1. Anthropol.a member of the peoples traditionally classified as the Mongoloid race: no longer in technical use.
2. (usually l.c.) Pathol.(no longer in technical use) a person affected with Down syndrome."
I looked at several pictures of downs syndrome patients, and I do not see the resemblance. I honestly don't. I cannot understand how Emily can compare the two groups because to me, they look completely different.
For a number of reasons, one is that I have a head cold and excused myself from class, and two is that I'm not leaving for Hawaii for a few more days, I couldn't help myself and checked the site again this morning/afternoon. First of all to Nicky: It is obvious that you have an innate preference for brunettes and this is why you say the things you do. It was a fairly biased couple of entries. What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe. It frustrates me when people say that the reason that there are so few natural blondes is because they are not viable to the species that is continuing to evolve. I disagree with this. While it's true that most of the world's population is comprised of darker people, that is not one and the same as saying that the comparatively fewer natural blondes are somehow becoming extinct, and then saying that this is because their genes, and subsequently the features thereof, are not conducive to the perpetuation of the species. These traits are prevelent amongst Northern Europeans, still, because there is obvious viability and innate need for the traits to carry on. Furthermore, one reason for the decrease of lighter eyes and hair is due to extensive admixture of darker traits with those of the Northern Europeans. Yes, the traits are reciessive, and I'm aware there's a good chance that when I decide to have children, if my mate has darker features and eyes, my offspring most likely will as well. I don't believe that recessive means "weak", I believe it means that it's more rare, however still viable. If VC sees this, I've read (on-line) a number of articles that support this. It may contradict what you've learned, and if so, please respectfully respond to these claims.
As far as the opposite sex and their attraction (or lack of according to Nicky) to blonde hair, I'd say that blondes still get quite a bit of attention, and being a hairdresser for the time being, know it is the most asked for salon service. Blonde hair does a couple of things: It draws light to the face, and then softens the features of the face. Those with the highest frequency of natural blonde hair usually have the "softest" features, according to my information, which is partially related to my profession, as well as a color theory seminar I took that was instructed by several scientists in differing fields. Some of my information is practical, and applied, since at this time, hairdressing is my livlihood. We subconciously equate blonde hair with youth, femininity (more blonde male children end up with brunette hair than blonde female children) as well as overall attraction to this shade because light colors capture the eye first, that's a fact I've read from many different sources, it's basic color theory as well, although I expect VC to disagree:)
Next, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on this, but again, based on what I've learned, persons with darker hair and eye colors also have more robustity of their features on average. Now VC's articles, videos and posted info gave me a lot to ponder. While the brow ridge for example, may be more "delicate" amonst East Asians, adding femininity (or neotony), the darker colors of the hair and eyes are not as soft. I'm not saying that, as my opinion, this is the absolute truth, but in my professional experience, when an Asian woman comes in for hair color, namely highlights, for example, I usually suggest going only a few shades lighter (very fair blonde colors look very unnatural on darker complected people or on Asians even with lightest skin tones), and apply the color just around the face to "soften" her features, and this usually yields beautiful results. The lighter color draws light, and then diffuses sharp or prominant features or balances assymetry, if this is a concern.
For me, I'd say that on average the darker complected the woman (this includes dark eyes and dark hair),then the coarser the features, (of course I see exceptions to this on a regular basis). I've noticed that to be the case, and for those of you who feel my citing my current occupation as something of a joke to base scientific hypotheses on, I'll remind you that I apply the laws of color and linear shape on a daily basis. Take a moment to realize also that my training entailed extensive study of human anatomy and pysiology of the face and head, particularly, and that training showed me how to interpret facial shape, as well as symmetry of features, and additionally, the ability to ascertain "problem areas". More "ethnic" women, if you will, seem to ask for styles and colors of hair, make-up etc. to help "recede" prominant features, while women of more Northern European background ask for the opposite: styles to help to bring features "out". This is one of the reasons I've come to the conclusions that I have. I don't, however, believe that robustity of features is unattractive as long as there's symmetry. Women of darker ethnic origin can be quite striking, but they almost ALWAYS ask for lightening of the hair, even if it's very suble lightening, in order to achieve the desired softness and femininity to their look.
Finally, as I realize this may be the longest entry I've written in the history of my visiting this site, I'd like to address Nicky once more, allegating that the only reason that men glance at blondes is to briefly assess the "fakeness" of blonde hair, and then dismiss it. Not always true. Once again, certain laws of human attraction allow us to gravitate to things that catch our eye first, and often the attraction is instantaneous, on a basic level. Concious desires and preferences will dictate our innate tastes and our deliberate attraction to a "chosen" person with features that make up "our type". The term "Gentleman prefer Blondes" still rings true, even if that preference is fleeting, however at times it isn't fleeting! I've heard many men say that they love brunettes, redheads, girls with glossy, jet black hair, and everything in between, and all these colors can be gorgeous if they're on a person whom they're suited. I've also heard those same men say that they still love blondes even if they haven't deliberately chosen a blonde mate in years. Go figure.
Such a long rant and not even one argument on the issue.
I can see why non-whites can find this entry upsetting, especially if they already have self-esteem problems or inferiority complexes. Maybe it is best not to read it if you can't be detached and argue the issues instead of the poster.
For anyone who reckons 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' then explain this: David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, both fit world-class athetes, yet all women are agreeing that David Beckham is good-looking yet at the same all agreeing that Wayne Rooney is not particularly good-looking. This shows they are all agreeing on the same thing which contradicts the idea that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
David Beckham is hopelessly boring and unattractive but that Wayne...wooo he looks good for conjugal activities =o
Call me Wayne! And no I didn't say it just to prove you wrong, even if you are wrong. A silly poll on David Beckham doesn't prove anything. Furthermore anyone who would have sex with that orange, stick thing called Victoria Beckham is bad sexy time material.
VC:
Godis, do you have an email I can converse with? I have my own reservations about posting personal information, and if you do, just set up an alternate one. I could set one up myself
Sure, I'll set one up. But I try to be safe online so I don't know how I would go about posting my email without other people knowing what it is. How would I go about doing that? I'm not very computer savvy.
Barberella:
Stop posing Emily as a victim. She is not. People do not lash out at you and Emily simply because you believe whites to be more attractive or superior in certain ways. People lash out at Emily and yourself because of the way Emily degrades other people and whole populations and because of the way you stand behind that.
Emily:
Thanks for calling me a hyppocrite. I believe I mentioned that WE ARE ALL HYPPOCRITES at times. I just realized I was even being a hyppocrite when I once again attacked your character by claiming you are a hyppocrite. Old habits die hard. I am remorseful. I personally don't like you and I find your persectives on things shocking,troubling,etc. However, I am disapointed with myself because as I have read my posts I realize that they are a poor representation of the person I usually am. I guess that being online brings about a different darker side of me. I am usually a very nice person in my everyday life outside of this site. Even when I don't like people I generally don't say mean things to them,and I am usually not sarcastic and insulting. Even when they mess with my nerves. I have to say I have never met anyone as outrageous as you however. Either way I probably will be nasty at times. But I just want to improve and try not to attack your character. That is the worst thing I believe. I won't call you a horrible person anymore.
I don't know who you really are and what is really going on deep in your brain and your heart. It is not my place to judge other souls like that, although I believe you do need a wake up call and you will be judged by others. It is only human nature for people to judge.
Godis, you are truly mental.
"Gigi from Domai would not be ideal for lingerie modeling. Her body is too matronly, it would be a turn off for most men because they would feel they were looking at their mothers.
Her body is feminine, but it is not "young", it is on the saggy side in all the places. She is a tad bit overweight, she would have to lose some weight and gain a tiny bit of muscle mass to appeal to the average heterosexual male."
Say what? That's a fat chick? Are you out of your mind or do you happen to have your monitor on a bad setting? Would you like to see some fat women?
![]()
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fw7iF68JR8k/R6UWsxWWT9I/AAAAAAAAKgE/kraO50xcjC..."
You must have some kind of eating disorder to think GiGi is fat. Also, GiGi's breasts are not "saggy" those are what natural breasts look like child. I don't doubt you are a bit...ignorant concerning what the human body actually does look like. Most of the commenters seem to be rather ignorant of the fact that there is a very wide diversification of the human body in our population. Now, that being said if you would like to see what REAL breasts look like (in a non-porn setting) please go to http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php
Also check out this gallery of bellies, http://thebellyproject.wordpress.com/ because yea not everyone's belly is the same. As for GiGi not being attractive to the average heterosexual male-LAMFOROFL you are one crazy woman. I know hundreds of men who would line up to sleep with GiGi in a hot second.
I garner most of you are stricken with narcissism and obsessive compulsive disorders. it's shockingly widespread in western culture during this time period. Is it the fluoride in the water or the fact you never had to suffer through anything serious in your life time? Who knows? Frankly, I don't care. I expect western civilization will breed itself out of existence anyway since most of you are too concerned about yourselves to muster the thought of having children OR you'll end up blowing this whole rock to kingdom come. the iran talk is getting rather scary and i wish you "civilized", "western", "eurocenteric" folks would just blow us up sooner rather than later because the suspense is not even amusing anymore.
I've just come across this article and find its to be annoying. I believe in the theory of feminine women of this site but I want to admit that you can't tell which women verify masculine just by using a few pictures which photoshoped them, in order to fit the sporty model cristeria. on the pictures they look so masculine but in reality probably different?.....take a look at this fantasy movie where miss silanka (Jaqueline Fernandes) get a role in her first film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm56IEZ7clo
Hm..not very persuasive damage control, VC. You live in a fantasyland.
For example, Koreans;
Japanese;
..and almost all the other ones I have posted.
Actually, almost all my photos are of East Asians (Koreans and Japanese) so the lack of gracility you see is the lack of gracility in E. Asians - not in the S. E. Asians. Sorry.
The profile of the asian with the low sloping forehead is Korean. There are many that look like that.
Good photo, Callmewhatyouwant. The asians have much heavier and coarse facial features than the white girls. Just as I have noticed myself when I looked for photos.
Oh and one more thing before I shut this down for good. Just because your studies and text say that this or that is the most beautiful, does it make it true? Seriously, think about that. Ahve you yourself went out into the world, all over the world, to different places in all countries to rpove someone elses opinion to be true? These studies can be biased if a person so chooses them to be. I am speaking from a person who lives in a very multicultural city, where whites are a minority almost, and that I am not seeing all of these ugly asians and such. Probably because these asians I live around are in a north american country, where we all get the same healthcare. I dont see any more beautiful white people here than I see black people, and so on. Youa re picking on a country of people who are less fortunate. They dont always get the advantages that we take for granted.
VC, thank you for answering my questions and explaining what you did. I appreciate that you took the time. Hopefully you'll come back from time to time.
It has become apparent that my defense of Emily, which largely began during a conversation where it was Nordics being largely insulted, and where I came to the defense of Emily while she was expressing her approval of the looks of Northern Europeans, which I concurred. I do not hate races of people, or individual people based on their race. I'm sorry that it appears that I do, it simply isn't the truth. I think that if the evidence was to look at the photos I've posted, they've all been of people I have found attractive, not of those I don't, with a few exceptions which was largely due to my utter frustration with other posters Yes, I've gotten impatient and frustrated with some people here, that happens during debate.
I happen to prefer the looks of Northern Europeans as far as men (and women) go. That does not mean that I, personally, think everyone else is ugly, because I don't. I don't have as critical a view of other races as others' here. It's not just some token "I really do think other races are attractive" statement. I do, but less often than I like the looks of what I've already stated I prefered. Someone said "It's ok to say that you don't think certain people are attractive, and just leave it at that". I believe for the most part I've largely done that. Judge me on the merits of my comments, please? Not on those comments of another poster. I've not chosen to align with hate, and for those that think Emily's hateful, that is your issue with her, not me.
VioletCorpus,
You always bring up the neoteny argument to stand for your point of view.
Let's be logical here. What's feminine: to look like a child or to look youthful?
That's the point. The neoteny represented by east asians looks retarded. As they haven't developed completely. They possess the same traits of born babies: disproportional head, sunken nose bridge, epicanthic fold, wide set eyes.
Also you keep insisting on asians having more refined traits. Girl, we have posted many pictures of nordic girls standing side by side with east asians girls proving that your argumentation holds no truth. Anyone can see that east asians have oversized traits in relation to nordics or any european group.
If you prefer asian beauty, it's your taste. However, say the truth or open your eyes at least.
Why don't you say that you prefer east asians because they have broader noses or bigger heads? Even coarser hair or flatter faces? Instead of that, you come here with your well written texts and try to convince people that asians are curvy, have long legs, proportional head and no prognathism.
a picture is worth a thousand words
beauty isn't the point here. just to enlighten how asians are in fact coarser. just look at the girls and see how the two white girls have finer traits. pay attention to their nose. the two whites have it thiner and pointy while the two asians have it flat, wider with rounded nostrils. Even more noticeable is the jaw size.
I am not Godis. Like I said, I come from Canada, grew up as a teenager in Toronto, a multicultural city. I don't follow the rants that go on here, I am a mother, I breifly go over things being discussewd, and look for the truth myself when it becomes available. I simply don't have the time to go over everything being said. And I have been viewing this site for over a year, I just decided to post on something that doesn't seem to be entirely true, as what I saw on a childrens show that was filmed in Sweden. I neverr said blonde hair isn't beautiful, even I am attracted to it, but to say that it ranks higher than another haircolour is absurd. I find beauty in all things. And from what I have seen growing up in a mulricultural city, its not that men prefer one hair colour to the next, it is that the media pushes it down our throat until we all believe it to be true. Such as men are being pushed to believe that supermodels are beautiful. Men are attracted to a certain body type and certain facial features, one that resenates with their need to create healthy offspring. And trust me, I have watched men closely, men do look at blonde hair more but how often do we see them stare at these girls? I dont see them stare at these girls anymore than I see them stare at a brunette or a redhead. It has been brainwashed into them that blonde equates to fakeness, and I am sorry to say but a whore. I know that sounds wrong as well. But this came from my own husbands mouth. Blonde hair they seem to think of it as a girl who is more fun and more easy to get into bed. Not necessarily a life partner or anything other than something to use sexually. And I have seen pictures even on here, which has been seletively picked for you to view by the way, with what looks to be light brown hair roots, on these so called naturally blonde swedes. Once again not saying that it isn't possible, but swedes are human just like the rest of us, and unless you are born with dark hair, it seems to darken as we age. I can think of so many people with blonde facial hair, blonde hair on their body, yet they have to dye the hair on their head to match the colour of their youth. Bothy my brothers were blonde, with now a lighter shade of brown. My children have blonde hair and red hair, yet I highly doubt it will stay this vibrant light colour as they age because that isn't what happens on average. My own fiery red headed child gets so much attention because of how rare it is to see his hair colour these days, nobody even pays attention to my blonde haired child in comparison. So whats all the hype about blonde women? It seems because we are brainwashed to belive it to be perfection.
And so once again I want to say that I am speaking about what I saw on a television show filmed in Sweden. And the average was light brown, however there were a few blondes and this is speaking about both genders.
I think that white people are jealous of olive complexions adn darker skin tones. Tans aren't a natural tone for our skin to have. So why do we do that? Another thing that is being pushed on us by the media through Hollywood, movies and the like. Tanning our skin is essentially burning our skin cells, obviously how people get skin cancer. So why do something that is harmful to your body unless you want to conform to some sterotype being pushed at us? I don't know very men who like pasty white skin. This all comes down to this archetype of ideal beauty, which from the looks of it, hasn't escaped northern euopeans and swedes... why else burn your skin? have you been told that it is the most attractive?
I see beauty in all races. Yes, asians dont have perfect teeth, but they hair gorgeous hair. Yes, black people dont have these "european" facial features but they have an ASS and a tanned complexion. White people have beautiful facial features but they have a pasty bland skin tone. I could go on and on. I am not here to bash anyone, or offend anyone, I am just trying to say what I see as a person in a multicultural city. There is some sterotype that is being pushed on all of us whether we want to realize it or not, and we should spend less time bashing one another and spreading hatred and jealousy, and embrace our difference and see that each race has beauty within it. No one ranks higher than anyone else unless you yourself believe it to be true, and let me say, that most of the world is filled with ignorant people who like to sell their propaganda to create an evil and unhappy environment in the world.
I wont respond either due to lack of time. I just wanted to write on something that I saw, unbiased on television. I would much rather leave this on a positive note than to come back and hear anything negative be thrown at me or anyone else for that matter. Frankly it is quite gross. Ignorance doesnt make it the truth.
I was hoping this painful discussion thread had finally died, but I guess not.
I'm pretty much done with this site for awhile, for now. In regards to "the other" Emily, thank you.
Barbarella:
"VC, if you come back, I do have a question or two. First of all, I want to reiterate that I don't refute scientific data, I was merely asking you to show pictures of examples of the browridges you spoke of. By a less prominant browridge, I'm interpreting that as a neotonous trait (?)."
Yes, it is, and it's also a "primitive" trait.
"I understand that neotony is a correlate of femininity, but can it really stand alone when assessing the face overall? I understand that you claimed that Nordics had a more prominant browridge,"
I didn't mean nordics in particular- I meant caucasoids as a whole. I'm not sure as to how much variance these populations exhbiti- from nordics to north africans to arabs to irananians to indians- but it seems generally rather homogenous.
" but it is my understanding that the other, more refined traits of the Nordic face is more feminine overall."
In comparison to a group like black africans, certainly. That's what I said, and that's what Erik said. Testosterone and certain other aspects of facial gracility can also make even the area of a small or non-protruding browridge appear more rugged.
"I was interested in seeing an example of this. That is why I asked for photos, not to replace your data, but to support it."
Well, I've shown some photos and videos, albeit not a whole lot to show such a thing. It's not that easy to come across such specific comparisons, but I can understand now.
"Yes, I read your response to me, and I think if the foul language and name-calling wasn't present in your previous posts, I might read them in their entirety. Not that I don't swear! It's just that it was so excessive and to be totally honest without being insulting, I took you and your comments less seriously because of it."
I understand this, but as I've said, in certain debates, I disregard certain aspects of etiquitte in what I see is largely irrelevant to addressing extremism. Is that really a good approach? No, I need to work on it. But it shouldn't be too understandable.
"I do still have my preferences in terms of what I find beautiful. I'll read your articles but I'm not sure I'd change my mind. I know what is inherently attractive to ME."
That's understandable. Here's an example: http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/the-masculinization-of-the-western-white-female/
This is a little independent anthropology study that merged the photos of a bunch of modern white models and a bunch of older white ones, and the more recent ones are more frequently preferred.
Am I saying you prefer more masculine women? No, there's a certain range of femininity and masculinity that seem to be considered universally attractive, even with the women at the upper ranges of that masculinity being more preffered. Maybe that's how most modern white american males feel.
Maybe alot of these nordic women Emily spams are quite feminine, but maybe I just have a greater preference for equivalently "feminine" east asian women. Have I been trying to convince you, all along, to prefer something else? No. I'm simply pointing out that nordic women simply aren't as gracile and feminine as alot of people have made them out to be. That's all. And I can also admit that east asians have certain flaws, and highly feminine women would also lead to highly feminine men. Do I believe general facial femininity correlates with all around beauty? Of course not.
Then again, alot of these nordic women Emily posts, I sincerely don't believe many people can find them highly attractive. Good looking or pretty or average maybe, but highly attractive?
"About my narrow perception of beauty: if you and I shared the same opinion of what is beautiful, and what's not, would it still be narrow to you? Is it only narrow because it's a perception that's not in agreement with yours? I think there are attractive Asians, Blacks, Southern and Eastern Europeans as well. It's just that of those groups, I find FEWER, not NONE, in terms of where I find the most frequently attractive people. That does not make me a bad person in the slightest. I'd read that you prefer the looks of East Asians, and that is your preference. I have not personally said a thing about what you, or anyone else deems attractive. I've stood beside Emily when people began bashing Northern Europeans. On one or two occasions, I stated my opinions of certain individuals that I felt were unattractive. I disagree that that's a narrow perception of beauty."
I guess you're largely right, but I don't feel like addressing this in detail. I'm sorry if I've knocked on you, but I'm still revolted at how you've defended Emily and tried to twist what she says. Sorry.
Before I'll probably leave for quite some time, I'll address a few fun new claims Emily has brought to the table:
When someone bespeaks of facial femininity, gracility, refinement, whatever, they obviously bespeak of averages. There are highly feminine black women, but they are less frequent in respect to their population averages. The same holds true for a whole host of other ethnic groups.
East asians may be more feminine on average, but it obviously isn't particularly hard to find masculine asian women- just as one can find masculine white women. But, in your words:
"Gracile and refined? Hardly. Those are the exceptions..after surgery."
So gracile and refined asian women are exceptions, and only after surgery? That's a massive, disgusting exageration.
In regards to you waving around that study of korean women who undertook surgery, that was just... 810 in Seoul. Do you know how many people are in Seoul?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul#Demographics
About 10 million. Talk about representative.
East Asians also don't have overtly sloping foreheads. That's a load of BS. To quote more anthropological data from this very site: http://femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/facial-flatness
http://femininebeauty.info/images/hanihara.3.gif
East asians and europeans have about the same level of forehead development. In fact, they're in the middle ground of human physiological expression, with native americans have the roundest, highest ones.
You seem to have a nasty habit of picking little features you see in some photos of other races, or read up on, and just running with it as much as humanly possible.
Then again, finding some east asians with relatively flattened foreheads isn't too hard when it's such a heavily variable physical trait.
Another highly variable physical trait that also falls on a scale of derivation is head breadth, measured under the cephalic index. Look it up. Dolichocephalic refers to a long head, mesocephlic refers to a middle-ground head, and brachycephalic refers to a round head. There's also classifications like hyper-dolichocephalic and hyper-brachycephalic. It falls on a scale of derivation because, well, when you look at our evolution, we became much rounder headed.
It's been a common observation that africans are typically dolichocephalic, europeans are mesocehpalic, and east asians are brachycephalic.
And this trait varies substantially amongst racial groups, perhaps the most variable trait- so much so it's been shown to have small environmental components in twin studies.
Here's just a few examples:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/34/20070722185615!Ripley_map_of_cephalic_index_in_Europe.png
Although this is a very old chart, the data in it is stil probably very reliable since the cephalic index measurement has been around for ages, and is just so simple. Notice how strongly europeans vary.
It even varies heavily within a small place like Sardinia, which ranks as relatively dolichocephalic on this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Sardinia_Cephalic_Index.png
It varies so heavily that there's a few areas where they approach east asian norms.
Here's another example- France: http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4972/57341469.jpg
And horrors of horrors, you can see that Scandinavians are the most dolichocephalic europeans, and thus, have the most "primitive" head shapes.
However, I've never seen a single study, or even opinion, to rank head breadth on a scale of attractiveness. It's overwhelmingly likely all relative.
But back to foreheads, I'm also uncertain as to how that can be ranked on a scale of objective attractiveness. While it's certainly on a scale of derivation, and a broad neotenic trait, there was a study on this site showing how examinees generally preferred highly rounded or middle ground foreheads- yet a certain age group did greatly prefer sloping foreheads.
Plus, you have to consider how loads of pre-modern cultures practiced head binding, to alter the shape and structure of the head and forehead, often- wait for it- BEAUTY. Look it up yourself. Many groups, like native americans, the Minoans, the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans etc. etc. deformed the forehead to extreme shapes, greatly outside of what humans are normally capable of expressing.
So I find the verdict rather out on that one.
Also, a number of the asian women Emily has posted are southeast asians, which are quite obviously not as gracile as east asians, largely due to their hardier lifestyles and the like.
And finally, this comment:
"The mongoloid race has uncanny similarities to Down syndrome patients. I actually believe there is some kind of common gene that accounts for the mongoloid look in asians and in Down syndrome patients.
They are just too similar not to be related physically. I don't mean to sound mean, but what other explanation for the similarities can there be? They both have arrested development so it seems logical, I think."
If you throw out the transient below-the-neck physical features (which you never will), then all you have left in terms of such a similarity is flatter faces and epicanthic folds.
Why do people with downs syndrome and other genetic disabilities have these traits? I don't know. You seem to love the idea of there being some master "Downs snydrome gene" that also accounts for a few physical similarities with asians, though.
Again, that's alot like hilariously archaic and simple minded early racial science. But you don't have any objections to it.
I've often heard infants have relatively flattened faces, but I'm not sure of this, or the anatomical correlate of it. Some of the facial flatness seen among east asians and the like is due to their heavy midfacial flatness and fronto-orbital flatness, but that's heavily reduced in other mongoloid populations, in spite of having similar general facial flatness.
Since they're both broad neotenic traits, unrelated to derivation, my guess is that some kind of genetic defect related to expression of all these causes them to be retained beyond infancy. Remember, a GENETIC DEFECT. The basic definition of neoteny is a RETENTION of infantile traits in an adult organism. They aren't really connected, but Emily has no problems worshipping the broad neotenic traits of light skin and hair in nordics, but thinking epicanthic folds or flat faces or relatively flattened nasal bridges are an innately disgusting trait.
But you don't seem to sound mean?
Could someone just search Emily's name on this site and compile all of the garbage she's said?
"What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe."
This is what I want to leave on. But I'll say again that Erik doesn't seem to believe cranio-facial traits shifted heavily towards european norms are universally more attractive- just somewhat.
I've detailed my positions on this heavily, and while I agree with alot of what Erik's saying, I disagree strongly with alot of it, and for good reason, and see some inconsistencies with Erik's ideas, including biases and some other ideological ideas he seems kind of reluctant to openly express.
Regardless, this site has taught me a staggering amount about human beauty, physical anthropology, and evolution in general, and it's something to build upon. In alot of my future studies, I plan to make this debate apart of it as well. I strongly believe I'll be able to present something more level-headed than what Erik presents- this site is supposed to be mainly about beauty pageants, but it seems an atrocious avenue to be comparing things like the presence of derived traits among humans and the general question of race and beauty and the like.
All I have to say for a long time here, I hope.
Barbella, I don't think you're or a horrible person. Like I said in my previous post, I can see where you are coming from. I just think it is a poor judgment call on your part to support her as voraciously as you do. That is all I am saying. It seems like with every nasty thing she says, you have some way to kind of clean it up for her, and I don't think that is right.
I do resent some of the comments you posted about what others have said. I think it is wrong to describe people in such dehumanizing terms (that's what it is mind you). I didn't like how Godis said nordic have "pig pink" skin. I likewise don't like it when people say africans look like gorillas (Emily, that must sound familiar), and I don't like it when people say that asians have skin like a snake. To quote billy bush, its gross. I have been reading this site for a while, and I remember seeing early posts from Emily, and yes she was just as inflammatory then as every. And I was offended by it then just as I am now. I gotta give it to the girl, at least she is consistent.
Even if those things were being said (and I recognize they were), does that make it right for Emily to do likewise? Are their wrongs canceled out by her doing the same thing to them? What benefit is there in taking on the positions of such negative people? Can anyone learn and grow from such an experience? I think not! All you get is a circle of negativity that never ends. All you get are the same things hurled back and forth, a never ending cycle. Maybe it is time that we rise above this cycle and really talk, really understand each other without hateful, mean words being exchanged. Emily is a perpetual ball of negativity, seeking to uplift her own beauty by stepping on others. Dammit, that is not right, and I'll be damned if I don't call her on it. I feel like Emily is such a negative person, and spends so much time tearing people down, its draining. Can you imagine how it feels to have someone say that your people look diseased? As I am writing this it is hard for me to even fathom that those words were typed on her keyboard. I understand that when you see someone like Emily being "ganged up on" when you share a similar position is annoying and hard, but you have to exercise wisdom in who you take up for. Remember, just because someone is ganged upon and in a position of disfavor, does not mean that they are innocent or right. I mean no disrespect, because I do feel that you do have valuable things to say and add to the conversation, and I think you waste your time taking up for Emily.
Also, you shouldn't feel the need to say that Emily has a right to her opinion because everyone recognizes that. Just because we revile her opinion, doesn't mean that we strip her of her right to have one.
Emily: You're arguments are lame. You citing the fact that people call it mongolidism or whatever does not mean that asians look like they have down syndrome, all it means is that, unfortunately, there are people out there like you who actually classify these disease in such a racist way (undoubtedly the same people who idotically say they all look alike).
Callmewhateveryouwant:
Yes, I do love white people. I don't see the point of your post. I love asians, blacks, indians, native-americans, etc. I love them all, I love people. I truly don't see why you find asians so unattractive. I think they are a very attractive people, but not everybody likes everything I do, and I realize that.
Visitor:
Fascinating you should say that. But I am not Godis. Perhaps there is some similarity. If I continue to post on this debate you'd eventually know that I am not Godis or anyone else who is experimenting. I have visited this site last night for the first time and found the debate fascinating.
I am not white. I am Asian (Mango is our national fruit). I am a man. I am 37 years old. I love my country and people but I think white races are far more evolved than the other races. And I beleive that they are generally more attractive than the rest. For long I have been interested in this kind of a debate, but where I come from this kind of debate degenerates quickly into a fight. Most people do not hold the argument on a topic of this sensitivity and instead start to 'play the player and not the ball'. But I found many views here truly fascinating and though some posters say they come from non-scientific background I am enjoying the level of intellect they display. I like a good debate - and dont mind losing and being proven wrong.
I think there is a lot to debate yet and I intend to stay on the thread.
Kant is not my favorite philosopher, though he is probably the greatest of the Western Philosophers. Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher - for he is greater than Kant.
Callmewhateveryouwant,
This is very true.
It's kinda funny how Nicky/Mango remind me so much of Godis...now I don't want to be paranoid, but all of the things they've said (to eachother, how strange) are things that Godis' said at various times, so I don't know. She's done this before, invented other posters to conduct "experiments", and that compliment, out of nowhere, how odd.
If I'm wrong, sorry! There's just some uncanny similarities, like the reference to Kant, Godis' favorite philosopher...
Emily (the black Emily)
"I love white people, I have no problem with them."
lol
lol classic
Everybody who write on this board is full of stories to tell
They always have a swedish friend (girl of course) which envy their ethnic traits
All of them stand against whites and end up being whites themselves or saying that they love white people
All of them are either blond/blue-eyed or have someone in their family who is
Sorry for the typos in the previous posts:)
Mango, thanks for the compliment. I wasn't expecting it and was suprised and pleased. It's been a while since I've been viewed as an individual instead of some sort of minion of another poster. Once again, I appreciate the compliment. I've been called names, accused of saying things another poster has said, simply because I said she had a right to say them, or because I admitted that I shared some opinions, namely on the fact that Nordic women are often very beautiful, as well as stating that I agreed with some other, but not ALL of this person's viewpoints. The reason I wrote last night that I was going to leave the site for a while, in addition to the reasons of being busy in the coming weeks, is because the conversation has digressed to the point of EVERYONE on here, myself included is hurling insults at one another instead of sticking to the topics. It was my wish that I could engage in conversations with others about the many topics pertaining to beauty. Hopefully when I return I'll be able to continue that.
In the spirit of debate, I believe everyone has a right to share their peice. I don't believe anyone should ever be censored.
Emily, other one, you know that I've not come even close to using the language that Emily's used to describe individuals that belong to races I don't find attractive. That is the merit I should be judged on, although I don't think you have the right to judge me or anyone else for that matter. Is it the fact that I said Emily has a right to her opinions the same as those who wrote that Nordics have light eye colors that look dead, the women are horse toothed and unfemininly built like line-backers' or that my straight, small upturned nose is snobbish, or piggish. Not to mention the pig-skin!! Oh, and we're inbread too. We have hair colors like cartoon birds. I saw things like these, and then saw her saying things she was, but told she was this terrible person. I disagreed with it. I shared an appreciation for Nordic beauty with her. If associating myself based on those reasons means that I'm lumped in with her, that the merit of my comments, that have absolutely nothin to do with hers means you deem me as some terrible person, than that is TRULY YOUR PROBLEM. If you are as smart as you portray yourself, you'd understand the difference.
Barberella;
"What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe."
Very true, and eloquently put. Most people believe this and agree with Erik's conclusions about the link between physical evolvment and universal appeal, but due to the furious and irrational reactions from those not belonging to this group of people, therefore feeling excluded, it is a truth that is not easily told.
It becomes even harder if you actually compare the races in order to argue your point. People will not readily accept a reality that is not to their own benefit, it seems. This of course doesn't mean they don't see the truth. Admitting it is another thing, though.
The word "mongoloid" has two meanings.
One refers to the mongoloid race, being one of three great races, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. The other one refers to people who have Down syndrome. Why is that, do you think? Is it because there is no physical connection at all?
"Mongoloid:
1. resembling the Mongols.
2. Anthropol.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by yellowish complexion, prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds about the eyes, and straight black hair, and including the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetans, and, to some extent, the Eskimos and the American Indians: no longer in technical use.
3. (often l.c.) Pathol.(no longer in technical use) of, affected with, or characteristic of Down syndrome.
—n.
1. Anthropol.a member of the peoples traditionally classified as the Mongoloid race: no longer in technical use.
2. (usually l.c.) Pathol.(no longer in technical use) a person affected with Down syndrome."
I looked at several pictures of downs syndrome patients, and I do not see the resemblance. I honestly don't. I cannot understand how Emily can compare the two groups because to me, they look completely different.
For a number of reasons, one is that I have a head cold and excused myself from class, and two is that I'm not leaving for Hawaii for a few more days, I couldn't help myself and checked the site again this morning/afternoon. First of all to Nicky: It is obvious that you have an innate preference for brunettes and this is why you say the things you do. It was a fairly biased couple of entries. What this site entry describes and entails is how evolution has brought us to this point: we now have a very fair race of humans that are coupled with a very fine and gracile bone structure of the face, as well as feminine proportions body-wise. Is this the height of evolution? In the opinion of the site admin, with the support of empirical scientific data that he's supplied for us to read, this is the conclusion that a great many believe. It frustrates me when people say that the reason that there are so few natural blondes is because they are not viable to the species that is continuing to evolve. I disagree with this. While it's true that most of the world's population is comprised of darker people, that is not one and the same as saying that the comparatively fewer natural blondes are somehow becoming extinct, and then saying that this is because their genes, and subsequently the features thereof, are not conducive to the perpetuation of the species. These traits are prevelent amongst Northern Europeans, still, because there is obvious viability and innate need for the traits to carry on. Furthermore, one reason for the decrease of lighter eyes and hair is due to extensive admixture of darker traits with those of the Northern Europeans. Yes, the traits are reciessive, and I'm aware there's a good chance that when I decide to have children, if my mate has darker features and eyes, my offspring most likely will as well. I don't believe that recessive means "weak", I believe it means that it's more rare, however still viable. If VC sees this, I've read (on-line) a number of articles that support this. It may contradict what you've learned, and if so, please respectfully respond to these claims.
As far as the opposite sex and their attraction (or lack of according to Nicky) to blonde hair, I'd say that blondes still get quite a bit of attention, and being a hairdresser for the time being, know it is the most asked for salon service. Blonde hair does a couple of things: It draws light to the face, and then softens the features of the face. Those with the highest frequency of natural blonde hair usually have the "softest" features, according to my information, which is partially related to my profession, as well as a color theory seminar I took that was instructed by several scientists in differing fields. Some of my information is practical, and applied, since at this time, hairdressing is my livlihood. We subconciously equate blonde hair with youth, femininity (more blonde male children end up with brunette hair than blonde female children) as well as overall attraction to this shade because light colors capture the eye first, that's a fact I've read from many different sources, it's basic color theory as well, although I expect VC to disagree:)
Next, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on this, but again, based on what I've learned, persons with darker hair and eye colors also have more robustity of their features on average. Now VC's articles, videos and posted info gave me a lot to ponder. While the brow ridge for example, may be more "delicate" amonst East Asians, adding femininity (or neotony), the darker colors of the hair and eyes are not as soft. I'm not saying that, as my opinion, this is the absolute truth, but in my professional experience, when an Asian woman comes in for hair color, namely highlights, for example, I usually suggest going only a few shades lighter (very fair blonde colors look very unnatural on darker complected people or on Asians even with lightest skin tones), and apply the color just around the face to "soften" her features, and this usually yields beautiful results. The lighter color draws light, and then diffuses sharp or prominant features or balances assymetry, if this is a concern.
For me, I'd say that on average the darker complected the woman (this includes dark eyes and dark hair),then the coarser the features, (of course I see exceptions to this on a regular basis). I've noticed that to be the case, and for those of you who feel my citing my current occupation as something of a joke to base scientific hypotheses on, I'll remind you that I apply the laws of color and linear shape on a daily basis. Take a moment to realize also that my training entailed extensive study of human anatomy and pysiology of the face and head, particularly, and that training showed me how to interpret facial shape, as well as symmetry of features, and additionally, the ability to ascertain "problem areas". More "ethnic" women, if you will, seem to ask for styles and colors of hair, make-up etc. to help "recede" prominant features, while women of more Northern European background ask for the opposite: styles to help to bring features "out". This is one of the reasons I've come to the conclusions that I have. I don't, however, believe that robustity of features is unattractive as long as there's symmetry. Women of darker ethnic origin can be quite striking, but they almost ALWAYS ask for lightening of the hair, even if it's very suble lightening, in order to achieve the desired softness and femininity to their look.
Finally, as I realize this may be the longest entry I've written in the history of my visiting this site, I'd like to address Nicky once more, allegating that the only reason that men glance at blondes is to briefly assess the "fakeness" of blonde hair, and then dismiss it. Not always true. Once again, certain laws of human attraction allow us to gravitate to things that catch our eye first, and often the attraction is instantaneous, on a basic level. Concious desires and preferences will dictate our innate tastes and our deliberate attraction to a "chosen" person with features that make up "our type". The term "Gentleman prefer Blondes" still rings true, even if that preference is fleeting, however at times it isn't fleeting! I've heard many men say that they love brunettes, redheads, girls with glossy, jet black hair, and everything in between, and all these colors can be gorgeous if they're on a person whom they're suited. I've also heard those same men say that they still love blondes even if they haven't deliberately chosen a blonde mate in years. Go figure.
Black Emily,
let me ask you this...do you deny that there are physical similarities between white people with no asian admixture who have Down syndrome and asians?
Hey emily, calling someone jealous isn't an argument! You cannot prove it. Talk to me when you have more than just bullshit.
Emily (the black Emily),
"I love white people, I have no problem with them."
lol
Such a long rant and not even one argument on the issue.
I can see why non-whites can find this entry upsetting, especially if they already have self-esteem problems or inferiority complexes. Maybe it is best not to read it if you can't be detached and argue the issues instead of the poster.
Oh yeah, this must be your old boyfriend!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wuRjqptkvI&feature=related
Pages