Eriks response to another poster, asking about the femininity of Veronika:
"Tom: Veronika Zemanova has well above average femininity, but note that her breasts are not natural. So I would stop short of describing her as extremely feminine. There is nothing masculine about her."
Well, look again guys. You really can't find anything masculine about Veronika? Facially and body wise? ESPECIALLY in her earlier photos? Hmm...
Veronika's jaw, chin, forehead area do not appear masculine? This really doesn't appear to be due to her ethnicity to me. She to me is not a very feminine woman... She has had too much plastic surgery to be a good example of anything. Why is she even on here?
Look at the photos Erik has of her, particularly the first photo of her lifting her shirt up, next to Adrianna.
Compare THAT Veronika to the earlier photos I posted of her.
Please tell me people, how did her waist shrink naturally? How did her rib cage become extremely small compared to before? Besides, the obvious boob job this woman has had a lot of surgery.
Hey Erik, where did Veronika's waist go? Her small rib cage? Her hips? WTF?
Compare those earlier photos to this later one:
It appears Veronika got a little more than a boob job. From the earlier photos above it appears Veronika got BIGGER implants, as she clearly had implants back then too. Veronika got a few ribs removed, she also appears to have gotten butt implants. I wouldn't be surprised if she got liposuction either, probably in the arms and "problem" areas. She also got lip injections since then and has probably had more done to her face. Maybe a brow lift.
This woman didn't just get a boob job. She got a lot done. How can you even compare her to Adrianna?
I think Adrianna's body in that red dress is manly. I mean it looks like a guys body. However, she doesn't appear to have the extensive surgery Veronika had done, so it is unfair to compare.
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.
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
However, finns, all the baltic people and hungarians are neither nordic nor germanic.
Actually, the pseudo mongoloid traits which a few scandinavians present are due to admixture with lapps which are neither nordic nor germanic as well
Anyway, in regard to mongoloid admixture being more largely present in nordics than in southern europeans, I beg to differ. Southern europeans possess most of the TRUE mongoloid admixture. Most of the mongoloid invasions were concentrated in Central Europe. Frenchs and Italians have more mongoloid admixture than scandinavians.
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
However, finns, all the baltic people and hungarians are neither nordic nor germanic.
Actually, the pseudo mongoloid traits which a few scandinavians present are due to admixture with lapps which are neither nordic nor germanic as well
Anyway, in regard to mongoloid admixture being more largely present in nordics than in southern europeans, I beg to differ. Southern europeans possess most of the TRUE mongoloid admixture. Most of the mongoloid invasions were concentrated in Central Europe. Frenchs and Italians have more mongoloid admixture than scandinavians.
"You even attack the site owner in a most vicious way, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive. "
Wait Emily are you talking about V.C. or yourself? Because last time I checked you were the one that attacked anyone "who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive..."
I mean we are all hippocrites sometimes. It's only human, but seriously you are the most hippocritical person at times.
"I am sick of trolls who think they can insult and gang up on people in order to make them conform. That kind of nasty tactic doesn't work with me."
You have ganged up on people too. Don't act like you haven't. And don't act like you haven't ever personally attacked anyone either. This is the "hooked nose, broad round faced, brown eyed brown haired ugly Romanian girl talking." Remember?
Emily : You can use the civilized language to debate rather than using the ebonic language don't you? I sure most of your arguments iritate many people of the other races. the way you using a harshfull sentences to describe people doesn't sounded mature or superior at all in my opinion. - you can admire what you like...at least not by putting the others down, in order to get yourself high. What iS the point of putting down others? do you have low self-esteem? I don't know what's reason makes you dislike the non-white so much but I'd tone it down if I were you.
VC;
"Emily will STILL act and say incredibly bigoted and misanthropic things even when you lay off her."
It's funny...it's always those who show a blatant lack of tolerance for the taste and opinions of others who accuse others of being bigots. Hilarious.
You are the bigot for not accepting that not everyone shares your taste and perception of beauty (me and Barberella, for example). You are nothing but a name calling troll who pretends to actually have something to say.
You even attack the site owner in a most vicious way, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive.
I am sick of trolls who think they can insult and gang up on people in order to make them conform. That kind of nasty tactic doesn't work with me.
"Emily seems to understand this full well by calling asian men androgynous- which they are, on average- but seems to jump back and forth on whether or not she thinks asian women are feminine."
What a blatant lie. Yes, I call you a liar because no one who has read what I write here - and you clearly have - can be unaware of the fact that I think asian women are unfeminine due to their lack of a developed, curvy and adult feminine body. I have said so repeatedly, many times, and shown photos that explain what I mean.
Asians are generally androgynous, and the men are unmasculine and the women unfeminine. I hope this clears it up in case it was a misunderstanding.
There will be exceptions, as I said, but generally speaking asians are too underdeveloped to be called either masculine or feminine. They are like perpetual adolescents with large heads.
As to my photos of Swedes I can understand why they bug you. They are the very reason for this entry that Erik wrote.
They are part of a race that is the most appealing and most evolved, the Nordic race. Those things go hand in hand. Deformed eyes and undeveloped bodies can never be considered evolved. That is why asians try to look less mongoloid and more white. You will deny it, and still you will know it is the truth, and hate me for stating it, instead of blaming evolution.
You have to be careful though, sometimes when I am shy or intimidated I look away and appear distracted because even though I LIKE the guy, I am intimidated by him. This happens when an extremely intelligent funny attractive guy is around for me. So, its confusing. Either a girl is shy or she doesn't want you around when she acts like that.
Therefore, guys, just because a girl doesn't smile at you or flex her face in any way, doesn't mean she doesn't like you. The problem may be that she DOES like you and is just shy.
Erik also doesn't appreciate Adriana's low set eye brows, but what he doesn't realize is that the majority of the women in his attractive women's section don't have very high or even regularly set eyebrows. Almost none of them have higher eyebrows than Adrianna. Many of them have low set eyebrows actually. The ones that DO have high set eyebrows are posing and flexing their faces. Many times they are smiling as well. This raises the eyebrows. This is the first thing I do when I want to make myself appear more approachable to a guy. Flexing your face and smiling at a guy is saying," Come here, I won't reject you or be mean to you". Adrianna and the majority of the Victoria Secret models are not posed to be "approachable". They have a completely different allure. The allure is carnal, primitive, exciting, mysterious. "It's not the girl next door, oh she's a pretty cute girl, tee hee hee allure" It's supposed to say, "Look at me and my tight exotic toned body, I'm ready for something, COME HERE and get it, BE intimidated" The intimidating woman adds excitement to the whole situation.
The AVERAGE man likes women that are approachable. Erik represents this with his photos. All the women in there are "approachable". A bland and boring face also makes a woman appear more approachable. There is nothing mysterious, exotic, foreign about a bland and boring face. There is nothing intimidating about it... Men are deathly afraid of rejection. It is a blow to their self-esteem and ego. When I am not interested in a guy and I don't want him coming near me, I don't smile. I look down, away, or try to appear distracted. I don't make eye contact, or I DO make eye contact but it is saying, "stay back, go away, don't come any nearer".
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.
A "toned" look is not masculine. A toned look shows a man that this female wouldn't be a joke when she tries to run. A toned look makes a female appear healthy, structured, put together.
A feminine woman that is toned is ideal for lingerie modeling. One with large breasts, but not too large. They should be round and perky, and not saggy. Large breasts can be perky. The women in our family have strong underlying tissue that lifts the breast up even though they are large. A tiny bit of sag is alright, but overall most men prefer perky breasts.
This woman would be a joke if she tried to model before she lost some weight and got a breast lift...
"VC, what do you KNOW of my "narrow" perceptions of female beauty? Not a thing."
I should have said "relatively", but from what I've seen- which is a good deal- your perceptions are quite narrow. Here's exactly what I said:
"and your narrow, though not as extreme, perceptions of female beauty."
That's not saying your perceptions are all around "so narrow".
"You know that I defended a person being harrassed for expressing her views, PC or not, which I would have done for any one of you, by the way."
I haven't seen it a single time. You, the majority of the time, defend Emily, and defend many of the terrible things she says and try to twist them to others to present them as less monsterous and corrosive compared to what anyone with reading comprehension can easily see. If you're so sure of it, show me YOUR defense of other posters, and show me an appreciable amount of times you've done it.
"I have said, time and time again to you, Godis, and others, that I'm not Emily, and do not share each and every one of her views, but I do share some. I've stated that I've found beauty to be found in all races, ethnicities, etc. Would you like me to post up pictures of non-Nordic attractive women to ease yours and Godis' minds?"
Ok. You can stop clarifying it. I think we get it. I know I've called you a "clone" once before, and I was wrong, but, as you admit, you share some similarities to her, and considering how you seem to virtually never defend anyone else, well, what conclusions can someone make?
" Emily knows this too. She does not chastise me for having stated the opinions I have, has she? No,"
Yeah, she hasn't. I find that kind of weird.
"I've found that when you lay of name-calling, personal attacks and similar behaviors, it is a lot easier to have intelligent conversation."
Obviously, but that varies from person to person and site to site, doesn't it? Emily will STILL act and say incredibly bigoted and misanthropic things even when you lay off her. Perhaps she wouldn't have been as prone to breakdowns where she's just spamming how she thinks asians look like "genetic experiments gone wrong", but if she's so incredibly more refined, wouldn't she take the high-ground and not say sick crap like that?
"For all of the scientific knowledge you personally have, I call you a "pseudo" intellectual because you lack the ability to debate with any class."
ANY class? I'll admit I curse too often and have been prone to too much ad-hominems, but that only comes up when I see extreme viewpoints, like those FREQUENTLY expressed by Emily. I'm not alone. It's quite common for people to get deeply offended and angered at such things, and I'm nowhere near alone in this regard.
"Now, I'm sure you're about to balk at the fact that Emily has class, what with all her "horrible" stated opinions of other races,"
Get. Real. I am SO SICK of you trying to defend Emily's extreme behavior and viewpoints when she says things about so many non-nordics to the point where she acts as if many of them are barely even human or look like monstronsities the vast, majority of the time.
"but she is seemily very intelligent, without having to cite tons of articles."
....And having good, concise, varied citations makes you seem more intelligent.
"She does not use excessive slang and swearing, which I believe is a very low-rent way to "debate"."
True, but she does...
Not repeating the mountains of other trash she exhudes. You're almost like a broken record.
"I can't think of too many people who wouldn't give her that, even if they disagree with everything she says."
I agree.
"You seem obviously immature, otherwise you'd refrain from the foul debating tactics that you use, and then deem them "acceptable" because you're angry. To use your own words, get a goddamn grip!"
I never really deemed them acceptable, just understandable in face of her extremism. Emily likes to debate her tactics as "the truth", even though her behavior, even if what she says, by some hilariously unlikely margin, was "true", wouldn't warrant her behavior, especially when she, often, hasn't even really been attacked.
"Addressing your self-supiority in regards to your using articles as opposed to pictures. Well, if you can't see my point than let me explain again. Ever heard the expression, a picture states a thousand words? I believe, on this site, that's true."
Ever heard the idea that those words can vary? Kind of implicates with how, in spite of certain objective beauty standards... people still have their own standards. And biases.
"You can talk about nasal bridges and gonial angles and brow ridges, and myself, being admittedly less scientificly and more visually or literally inclined will base my opinions on what it is that I see first and what I read last. For some, it is more easily interpreted visually. That has nothing to do with anyone's intellect being inferior, it has to do with the fact that this site is about BEAUTY, beauty being something more readily interpreted through use of visual aids instead of written ones."
True to a large degree, but those anthropological studies, well... reflect an underlying reality around us. I could do with more photos- and yes, I've posted ALOT, in many of my previous discourses on other posts, and in this one, such as on things with eye color and how it seems overall jaw and mandible size has nothing to do with overall facial masculinity.
"That has nothing to do with anyone's intellect being inferior, it has to do with the fact that this site is about BEAUTY, beauty being something more readily interpreted through use of visual aids instead of written ones."
And yet, this site is heavily based around written ones. Which I admit is also faulty. Many of these terms Erik discusses are poorly shown even with the pictures he includes, and that's understandable, since many of these traits are hard to properly show and represent, considering how they focus on such specific anatomical traits that many people aren't particularly consciously aware of, or aren't even really aware of until they're properly detailed. Like I said, reading into this site and similar works has been profoundly informative to me.
However, for all of Erik's scientific background and knowledge of the literature, he obviously knows full well of how many of these anthropological studies on beauty require image manipulation and alteration, the use of photoshop, applying mathematical and geometric structures to the human body etc. Maybe he isn't particularly well versed in this area, but it would really, REALLY help. Many of these anthropometric models don't even require extensive knowledge or high-end software, but Erik's work shows a striking lack of it all.
But yes, I'll admit that, in certain regards, such as the whole thing with brow ridges, I haven't provided a good deal of visual evidence to support this. I'll address this though.
". As of May 2010, I'll have a bachelors in one of the literary arts. I obviously enjoy reading, even science, but I think that maybe, for all the scientific knowledge you have, you should show some photos to prove your points to those of us who aren't as scientificly minded."
I have.
"This is not unreasonable. If you know you're at a debate site where the vast mojority of commentators DO use photos, try doing that yourself. And try NOT to state that photos aren't concrete scientific evidence and when used, makes our arguments less valid."
I never said they wern't concrete evidence. It's just that many photos shown here, such as Emily spamming photos of swedish girls at bars or nightclubs or whatever are poor evidence, since they can easily be effected by things like the greatly variable lighting conditions of the clubs, and, as Erik has said, such random photos, many of them in a poor anthropological context, are very open to greatly variable personal interpretations. Sadly, the only thing Erik has called Emily out upon.
"That is foolish and once again, lacks maturity and is insulting."
How is that foolish, immature and insulting? It often IS weak evidence.
"And once again, I'll state that for all the evidence you have cited about Nordics being less feminine, I still believe that Nordics are very feminine based on what I SEE. Present a photo showing your point to those of us lay persons, VC."
I've got an idea. Since you've gotten so riled up about me claiming caucasoids, and by implication, nordics, have such larger brow ridges than africans and east asians, a universally masculine trait, compared all these photos of nordics and asians and the like and tell me what you see. Now, browridge ruggedness is going to be less prominent in a feminine person, but the size and protrusion will still be there.
Besides, you also haven't addressed this- if nordic women are so incredibly feminine, why aren't nordic men, by implication, more feminine? This is a very, very basic law of inheritance. Emily seems to understand this full well by calling asian men androgynous- which they are, on average- but seems to jump back and forth on whether or not she thinks asian women are feminine. Feminine men are often treated as less attractive.
What about a highly feminine, gracile woman? What kind of man would that take to produce?
And in a population where feminine women are the norm, based on simple laws of averages, they'd obviously be more prone to hyper-feminine, pubescent looking women. But even in uncommon populations where hyper-feminine women are the norm, highly feminine women would be more common than in a population of averages.
This is all really basic laws of heritability, again. This site details it extensively, too.
....And yes. I know many of the body types seen amongst east asians are too undeveloped looking, but this is a by product of having a feminine population, and this is also a highly variable, transient physical trait. It's of much less importance than cranio-facial structure. This is something I've hit home many times, that's been hit home before on this site, and it's something Emily refuses to accept.
"Bookworm, first of all, you state that Scandinavians are unattractive, and then state that they look like quasi-Asians, who are attractive. And furthermore, accusing Emily of being jealous of Asians is absurd. I don't see any jealousy there, I see you trying to use photos that are insufficient in making any points at all. And your facts? I'm not the expert, VC has more scientific background, but I'M willing to bet that Finns have NO WHERE near 25% Asian DNA. They appear to have risidual characteristics derived from some very distant Asian admixture, but to my knowledge, populations with this many blue-eyed blondes are not typically heavy on Asian DNA, at least not recent. Like VC does, cite your sources if you care to make such outrageous claims. So you don't like the looks of Scandinavians? It's ok to say that without making ridiculous accusations or posting outright lies."
Bookworm is probably parodying Emily's biases, but it's obviously along the lines of anti-white racism, in a rather contradictory fashion by saying nordics look "ugly" due to their central asian admixture, then... ugh, whatever.
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
Plus, even if, by some fluke, in face of all the genetic evidence, finns and the like didn't have so much asian admixture, you'd still have all these relatively mongoloid traits, and especially with the Sami, who have a very high frequency of them.
Back to Emily on such a regard, how did Finns, so close to nordics, manage to attain all these deformed-looking features characteristic of asians?
"Godis, asking Violet Corpus for tips on debating tactics is typical: scathing character assassinations, vulgarity and tactless use of the English language...what can this person teach you? How to be more arrogant? More judgemental?"
I can admit some of my flaws. But thanks alot for focusing on the only negative aspects.
Godis:
No, it's alright. Emily, in spite of her terrible things she's said about non-nordics, doesn't devolve to cursing or major personal attacks, but this topic of innate beauty standards and its implication with ethnic traits is such a volatile topic. I've been heavily involved with what you could call the "nature-nurture" debate for quite some time, and this issue of aestethics is really only one of the last ones I'm vexed on. I've gone through so much crap, that I'm just prone to lashing out on this topic at times. Does that exscuse it? No, but I don't see why it's so unreasonable, especially, again, in regards to exremists like Emily.
I'm going to try to distance myself more from this site. It's like, a morbid fascination. I come back often to check up on Erik's writings because, damn it all, even though the man is pretty "off", he's extremely knowledge and presents alot of good ideas, and his writings have an extensive range of literature. It's good stuff to build upon. But then there's these comments sections. Like I said, it works as an intellectual exercise and to show a good avenue for a proper viewpoint. I'll be incorporating alot of this into some of my future work, when I get more involved with academia and college education.
Visitor:
Yes, I've gone by the name "ghfghfghf" before on this site. What's the problem with not choosing a proper identity? Only when I became more involved with this site did I do so.
"The god of anthropology with a predilection for Asian women? There couldn't possibly be two of you! Deranged little cunt? Misanthropic little shit? How original!! Great minds definitly DON'T think alike.
Meet Violet Corpus, your greatest fan!"
Yeah, I've never tried to pass myself as a "god of anthropology". Just because I find "attractive" asian women better looking than "attractive" white women doesn't necesarrily mean I, or others, have a "fetish" for them.
"It would appear that the only "fetishism" on this site is of the Asian nature."
Pure garbage. I haven't stated asians have some kind of unparalleled beauty beauty. I admit they have faults, such as high femininity accompanied by low testosterone can make a population prone to undeveloped bodies- albeit the objective attractive value of that is more variable, and of more debate than facial structure- along with them sometimes being prone to heavily flattened facial profiles, very doubtful a relativistic trait.
And to say that only asian fetishism goes on here? Uhhhhhh, yeah. Sure. Tell that to Emily assaulting non-nordics who don't fit her ridiculous ideals. Maybe I should use the term "nordic worship" instead.
"Watch Violet Corpus/ghfghfghf go predictably insane at the mention of East Asians being unattractive."
I admitedly act too vitriolic at times, but I don't act "insane". And I CERTAINLY don't go "insane" when someone simply says "hi, I don't think asians look attractive." What I find to be of contention is when someone tries to treat nordics as the paragons of beauty and says asians look deformed, like downs syndrome patients, like genetic experiments gone wrong etc. Besides, my comments on "Is it possible to objectively compare etc." was when I saw Emily at her most extreme, mouthing off explicetly white nationalist positions and saying non-nordics are only motivated by some callous urge to breed and improve their disgusting genes by breeding with nordics, how they hate the way they look etc. Obviously, it's typical for someone to just sit back and let that kind of bile pass by.
Man, I can't get enough of this kind of distortion.
And to address your other recent comment:
"No, Asian's do not improve the looks of whites. Rarely a racially mixed Asian/Caucasian will look attractive, but not usually. There is bookworm again, who has an Asian fetish, as well as ghfghfghf/Violet Corpus. The Swedish girl is accused of being a Nordic fetishist, but I think that Asian fetishism is far more rampant."
I haven't seen a single person saying "asians improve the looks of whites" here. To say another race will universally improve the looks of another is inane, since it seems to act as if most of the members of so-called "more attractive" race are super models. But there you go crying about "asian fetishism" and saying asian-white mixes rarely look attractive.
Uh huh. I often see people say mixed-race individuals look more attractive, but this is probably due to an effect of them looking supposedly more "exotic", wherein the uniqueness of their traits, under a certain degree of intrinsic beauty standards, will be enchanced, regardless of as to how they look beyond that.
People with burned off faces are "exotic" and "unique", but they're never interpreted as being attractive like so many multiracial people are.
Still, that effect wouldn't equate to your idea of eurasians "rarely" looking attractive. Maybe that's just your own perceptions or biases.
And at the end of all that, I'm called out on acting out more on the actual validity of my arguments, and then have those twisted (saying I have an "asian fetish"), defend the arguments of extremists like Emily, and then have my detractor go on with more nordic worship.
I really, really can't enough of this.
Barbarella, again:
"I think, VC, that while scientific articles are OF COURSE more of a sound source of evidence, prattling on and on and on and on...about browridges, for example, and maintaining that the Nordic female, based on "articles", has such masculine facial bone sructure is still going to be useless in the long run."
Again, I never said nordics have such "masculine bone structure". Just mainly in the brow area. I mean, they're certainly alot less masculine than typical black africans, aren't they? But they're considerable less feminine, in the FACIAL AREA, compared to east asians.
"You really must show this. Yes, I love my photos. As much as Godis and Emily and Erik and MANY others."
Compare the photos of all the asians Emily and others have posted and the like, and compare the brow structure. Please tell me what you see. It might not be too perceptible, but when you look at photo alterations and geometric arrangements going at this, you'll come to realize the underlying nature of so many of these traits. Like I said, this site has greatly broadened my perceptions of human population variance in facial structure.
This video sadly has some aspects of asian fetishism- saying "asians have no browridges" and the like- but it's still quite informative. Plus, it just leaves Jessica Alba looking rather eurasian.
And while one could bring up Jessica Alba being "hispanic", only her father was hispanic- her mother was white. Hispanics are typically amerind-white mixes, so they're bound to have more prominent brow ridges than east asians (albeit I don't know much of browridge prominence on amerinds), and then, you have to rememebr her mother was white.
Plus, note the comparison at :38, with that white girl and those 2 asian girls in profile view.
"Trying to be an asshole by condescending to us "idiots" who would like to see what the FUCK you're talking about is arrogance."
I've never really conescended to you. I've never called you an "idiot". I've just knocked on you for trying very poorly to discount anthropological studies. Maybe if you were clearer before like you are now, I wouldn't have knocked on you as much.
"Of all the personality traits of anyone's here that you've been so judgemental of, which is arrogance, you seem to be the most arrogant person posting here right now. You're knowledge of anthropology is impressive, but your patronizing those of us who are not "fluent" in a lot of the scientific terminology you use is insulting."
I've never patronized people for being non-fluent in the scientific terminology. Not once. Alot of the things Erik details, I don't get some myself. I've never seen anyone ask for me to explain what features I'm talking about, either. Have I been arrogant? At times, perhaps. But to say I'm the most arrogant person here? Yeah right.
"If you want to debate other scientists, than going to a more appropriate website to do that may be the solution to your obvious frustration at having to "show" in photos the points it is you're attempting to make here."
There's few sites like this.
"I am so sorry for my lack of intelligence and wasting your precious time. Please allow me to bow down to the genius that is Violet Corpus."
Stop trying to act like I've been so patronizing when the only time I've even come close to this is when you've criticized my sometimes overt use of scientific and anthropological research, in crude and poorly constructed manners. Like I said, if you criticized that in the way you're doing now, maybe you wouldn't feel like I've been patronizing.
"It also appears that the source of your rage, that being a personal attraction to Asian females and Emily's barrage of insults of them, is pretty base and immature."
No. No. No. No. No. Stop distorting me. Please. I've called Emily out plenty of times on her other attacks on non-nordics- really, I find it incredibly doubtful you haven't noticed this by now. I've taken strong contention at Emily trashing on slavs and romanians, and yet I don't find them particularly attractive myself. It just so happens that Emily focuses the majority of her attacks on asians.
"In a prior statement, I mistakenly misspelled "superiority". Please accept my humble apologies."
Didn't notice it, doesn't really matter. I notice I've mispelled pretty often myself.
Emily:
I'll only be responding to your more varied claims from now on, not your incredibly repetitive and dense ones.
"First of all. Less intelligent posters here spam this thread with photos of models and other people who have obvious white admixture."
True, and I don't take that approach.
"Also, they conveniently leave out the times I have said positive things about asians. As a group I find them terribly lacking in looks for the reasons I have stated. There are always exceptions and one girl I found pretty is this one, a Vietnamese girl, and I said so in one comment, and showed these photos."
And yet, I find this woman rather unattractive myself. Whoa. Looks like an asian woman who manages to fit the ideals of Emily isn't to my liking. She looks kind of masculine. (a masculine asian woman?!?)
"Now, asians do sometimes have impaired vision sincethe fold over their eyes limits vision somewhat, especially when the excessive skin increases and hangs over the eyes. That is one reason they sometimes need plastic surgery to correct this. It is self-evident that an open eye, not slits, without skin partially blocking eye sight will work better."
Proof of this. See, it depends on what parts of the eye the skin is blocking. If it's blocking the edges of the scelera, and other parts where the world is percieved, then, no, it's not going to impair vision. That's the case of asian eyes.
"We have no shortage of dentists here. lol We are not exactly a third world nation. We have less need for dentists here than the British, so that is the obvious reason we have fewer dentists. Your argument works against you, VC, but I guess you are not that intelligent."
I never said swedes have bad teeth, I just doubted they were as "wondeful" as you claim. If you have no shortage of dentists, explain why the chart I posted says you have fewer dentists than the british.
"A nation that has lots of dentists isn't necessarily a nation of people with strong teeth."
True, but many aspects of dental structure have little to do with genetics. Why can't this hold true for east asians? Oh, right, you refuse to admit the impermeability of many physical features. Please tell me why the british, who are white, obviously, have such worse teeth than the swedes.
"I for one, have never in my life had even one cavity, and I have zero fillings. I have perfect teeth, as do all the people in my family and my friends, so we don't need dentist service."
And that's just you. That doesn't apply nationwide.
"As for visoon, what kind of eyes do you think have superior function? Eyelid surgery is extremely common among asians and I don't think it is only for cosmetic reasons."
I wonder why I, in my entire life, in regards to eyelid surgery, I've never once heard an asian claim they can see better after the surgery.
Your pictures don't tell me much. The first girl is grinning abit. That's... well, known to make your eyes look squntier. Regardless, the areas of the eyes that percieve light and the like aren't obscured by their epicanthic folds. I mean, since I'm white, I can just move my eye muscles or use my hands to move my eyes to make my eyelids more like that of an asian, and the only reason my vision is obscured in the least is because my eye lashes are brought down. Not because of the structure of the eyelids.
The second picture is too distant.
The first swedish girl is closer, but she's not grinning.
In the second pic, it's an extreme closeup, and the girl on the left... why, she's grinning. And it's making her eyes squint more.
Wonderful picture evidence again.
The last few comments is another troll spamming pictures. And then Emily repeating her routine again.
"Marketa, although flatter-chested than Adriana, has a face, body proportions and backside that don’t give her a boyish look; Marketa looks like a girl."
Yes. You are 100% correct. Marketa looks like a 10 yr. old girl. Not even a 12 yr. old girl, because by the age of 12 I already had a pretty full set of breasts. Most girls start developing those by 12. I have seen men with bigger breasts than Marketa's, men that aren't even overweight.
Seriously, you want to convince me that this girl has a nicer body than Adriana's? Adriana's body isn't all that impressive but holy shit, Adriana has some STRUCTURE! That is an attractive thing whether it is masculine or not. This girl's body actually scares me. I would choose any of the Victoria's Secret model's bodies before I had to choose hers. Seriously! Who are you trying to convince here?
She has a pretty face though. But it's not all that. I feel that Adriana has some structure in her face as well, and that is what makes it attractive. No one wants a blob for a face.
while i can se where the masculinazation of Adriana Lima is on her face (on the first shot she reminded of a young black boy) i must say that she is also very feminine and absolutely gorgeous...
And i agree with what Lish said...also its wrong to compare mixed race women with european women ( whether they are north european or south european)
Ugh, she has no cheeks either, just jutty cheekbones.
Eriks response to another poster, asking about the femininity of Veronika:
"Tom: Veronika Zemanova has well above average femininity, but note that her breasts are not natural. So I would stop short of describing her as extremely feminine. There is nothing masculine about her."
Well, look again guys. You really can't find anything masculine about Veronika? Facially and body wise? ESPECIALLY in her earlier photos? Hmm...
Veronika's jaw, chin, forehead area do not appear masculine? This really doesn't appear to be due to her ethnicity to me. She to me is not a very feminine woman... She has had too much plastic surgery to be a good example of anything. Why is she even on here?
I can see the masculinity in this supposedly feminine woman. From her face to her body.
Look at the photos Erik has of her, particularly the first photo of her lifting her shirt up, next to Adrianna.
Compare THAT Veronika to the earlier photos I posted of her.
Please tell me people, how did her waist shrink naturally? How did her rib cage become extremely small compared to before? Besides, the obvious boob job this woman has had a lot of surgery.
Hey Erik, where did Veronika's waist go? Her small rib cage? Her hips? WTF?
Compare those earlier photos to this later one:
It appears Veronika got a little more than a boob job. From the earlier photos above it appears Veronika got BIGGER implants, as she clearly had implants back then too. Veronika got a few ribs removed, she also appears to have gotten butt implants. I wouldn't be surprised if she got liposuction either, probably in the arms and "problem" areas. She also got lip injections since then and has probably had more done to her face. Maybe a brow lift.
This woman didn't just get a boob job. She got a lot done. How can you even compare her to Adrianna?
I think Adrianna's body in that red dress is manly. I mean it looks like a guys body. However, she doesn't appear to have the extensive surgery Veronika had done, so it is unfair to compare.
Sorry, I had to come back to this because I think this page is hilarious.
Here are some photos of VERONIKA!
She doesn't look all that feminine to me. Facially she isn't feminine at all in my opinion. Adrianna is prettier facially in my opinion.
Her body is feminine but I actually am suspicious, maybe she got some ribs removed. Something isn't adding up.
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.
The alcoholic or down syndrome parade?
Also notice how the hair of this girl was done to look thin in opposition to the coarse hair which japanese people have.
Also notice how the hair of this girl was done to look thin in opposition to the coarse hair which japanese people have.
[img]http://www.femininebeauty.info/sites/default/files/imagepicker/others//saya_saski_04.jpg{[/img]
notice the plastic surgery on her nose
The "regular" japanese girl:
"no" photoshop retouch, no eye or nose surgery. And her skin also emits white light lol
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
However, finns, all the baltic people and hungarians are neither nordic nor germanic.
Actually, the pseudo mongoloid traits which a few scandinavians present are due to admixture with lapps which are neither nordic nor germanic as well
Anyway, in regard to mongoloid admixture being more largely present in nordics than in southern europeans, I beg to differ. Southern europeans possess most of the TRUE mongoloid admixture. Most of the mongoloid invasions were concentrated in Central Europe. Frenchs and Italians have more mongoloid admixture than scandinavians.
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
However, finns, all the baltic people and hungarians are neither nordic nor germanic.
Actually, the pseudo mongoloid traits which a few scandinavians present are due to admixture with lapps which are neither nordic nor germanic as well
Anyway, in regard to mongoloid admixture being more largely present in nordics than in southern europeans, I beg to differ. Southern europeans possess most of the TRUE mongoloid admixture. Most of the mongoloid invasions were concentrated in Central Europe. Frenchs and Italians have more mongoloid admixture than scandinavians.
"You even attack the site owner in a most vicious way, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive. "
Wait Emily are you talking about V.C. or yourself? Because last time I checked you were the one that attacked anyone "who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive..."
I mean we are all hippocrites sometimes. It's only human, but seriously you are the most hippocritical person at times.
"I am sick of trolls who think they can insult and gang up on people in order to make them conform. That kind of nasty tactic doesn't work with me."
You have ganged up on people too. Don't act like you haven't. And don't act like you haven't ever personally attacked anyone either. This is the "hooked nose, broad round faced, brown eyed brown haired ugly Romanian girl talking." Remember?
Emily : You can use the civilized language to debate rather than using the ebonic language don't you? I sure most of your arguments iritate many people of the other races. the way you using a harshfull sentences to describe people doesn't sounded mature or superior at all in my opinion. - you can admire what you like...at least not by putting the others down, in order to get yourself high. What iS the point of putting down others? do you have low self-esteem? I don't know what's reason makes you dislike the non-white so much but I'd tone it down if I were you.
VC;
"Emily will STILL act and say incredibly bigoted and misanthropic things even when you lay off her."
It's funny...it's always those who show a blatant lack of tolerance for the taste and opinions of others who accuse others of being bigots. Hilarious.
You are the bigot for not accepting that not everyone shares your taste and perception of beauty (me and Barberella, for example). You are nothing but a name calling troll who pretends to actually have something to say.
You even attack the site owner in a most vicious way, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, or who has negative opinions on the ones you find attractive.
I am sick of trolls who think they can insult and gang up on people in order to make them conform. That kind of nasty tactic doesn't work with me.
Since this site is so unbelievably emotionally draining, I'm just going to interject one last thing for a long time.
I've been seriously starting to doubt the idea of some ethnic groups being more genetically dominant over others recently, in face of this very intriguing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7DfLZAMAkE&feature=channel_page
Someone should do this study, although I would already know the results:
Take 30 women. Masculine feminine, it doesn't matter.
Take 2 photos of each. One of each girl smiling and one of each girl with a relaxed face, expressionless.
Ask a bunch of men to rate the attractiveness of the faces. Shuffle them up.
I bet you men will rate the smiling photo of the SAME woman as significantly more attractive than the photo of the woman not smiling.
Now go on Erik's attractive woman section and count the smiling women...
Men are so predictable. You can easily work them with body language t0o. They are really visually stimulated...
VC;
"Emily seems to understand this full well by calling asian men androgynous- which they are, on average- but seems to jump back and forth on whether or not she thinks asian women are feminine."
What a blatant lie. Yes, I call you a liar because no one who has read what I write here - and you clearly have - can be unaware of the fact that I think asian women are unfeminine due to their lack of a developed, curvy and adult feminine body. I have said so repeatedly, many times, and shown photos that explain what I mean.
Asians are generally androgynous, and the men are unmasculine and the women unfeminine. I hope this clears it up in case it was a misunderstanding.
There will be exceptions, as I said, but generally speaking asians are too underdeveloped to be called either masculine or feminine. They are like perpetual adolescents with large heads.
As to my photos of Swedes I can understand why they bug you. They are the very reason for this entry that Erik wrote.
They are part of a race that is the most appealing and most evolved, the Nordic race. Those things go hand in hand. Deformed eyes and undeveloped bodies can never be considered evolved. That is why asians try to look less mongoloid and more white. You will deny it, and still you will know it is the truth, and hate me for stating it, instead of blaming evolution.
You have to be careful though, sometimes when I am shy or intimidated I look away and appear distracted because even though I LIKE the guy, I am intimidated by him. This happens when an extremely intelligent funny attractive guy is around for me. So, its confusing. Either a girl is shy or she doesn't want you around when she acts like that.
Therefore, guys, just because a girl doesn't smile at you or flex her face in any way, doesn't mean she doesn't like you. The problem may be that she DOES like you and is just shy.
Body language is a tricky thing sometimes.
Erik also doesn't appreciate Adriana's low set eye brows, but what he doesn't realize is that the majority of the women in his attractive women's section don't have very high or even regularly set eyebrows. Almost none of them have higher eyebrows than Adrianna. Many of them have low set eyebrows actually. The ones that DO have high set eyebrows are posing and flexing their faces. Many times they are smiling as well. This raises the eyebrows. This is the first thing I do when I want to make myself appear more approachable to a guy. Flexing your face and smiling at a guy is saying," Come here, I won't reject you or be mean to you". Adrianna and the majority of the Victoria Secret models are not posed to be "approachable". They have a completely different allure. The allure is carnal, primitive, exciting, mysterious. "It's not the girl next door, oh she's a pretty cute girl, tee hee hee allure" It's supposed to say, "Look at me and my tight exotic toned body, I'm ready for something, COME HERE and get it, BE intimidated" The intimidating woman adds excitement to the whole situation.
The AVERAGE man likes women that are approachable. Erik represents this with his photos. All the women in there are "approachable". A bland and boring face also makes a woman appear more approachable. There is nothing mysterious, exotic, foreign about a bland and boring face. There is nothing intimidating about it... Men are deathly afraid of rejection. It is a blow to their self-esteem and ego. When I am not interested in a guy and I don't want him coming near me, I don't smile. I look down, away, or try to appear distracted. I don't make eye contact, or I DO make eye contact but it is saying, "stay back, go away, don't come any nearer".
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.
A "toned" look is not masculine. A toned look shows a man that this female wouldn't be a joke when she tries to run. A toned look makes a female appear healthy, structured, put together.
A feminine woman that is toned is ideal for lingerie modeling. One with large breasts, but not too large. They should be round and perky, and not saggy. Large breasts can be perky. The women in our family have strong underlying tissue that lifts the breast up even though they are large. A tiny bit of sag is alright, but overall most men prefer perky breasts.
This woman would be a joke if she tried to model before she lost some weight and got a breast lift...
Her face is bland and boring as well.
Barbarella:
"VC, what do you KNOW of my "narrow" perceptions of female beauty? Not a thing."
I should have said "relatively", but from what I've seen- which is a good deal- your perceptions are quite narrow. Here's exactly what I said:
"and your narrow, though not as extreme, perceptions of female beauty."
That's not saying your perceptions are all around "so narrow".
"You know that I defended a person being harrassed for expressing her views, PC or not, which I would have done for any one of you, by the way."
I haven't seen it a single time. You, the majority of the time, defend Emily, and defend many of the terrible things she says and try to twist them to others to present them as less monsterous and corrosive compared to what anyone with reading comprehension can easily see. If you're so sure of it, show me YOUR defense of other posters, and show me an appreciable amount of times you've done it.
"I have said, time and time again to you, Godis, and others, that I'm not Emily, and do not share each and every one of her views, but I do share some. I've stated that I've found beauty to be found in all races, ethnicities, etc. Would you like me to post up pictures of non-Nordic attractive women to ease yours and Godis' minds?"
Ok. You can stop clarifying it. I think we get it. I know I've called you a "clone" once before, and I was wrong, but, as you admit, you share some similarities to her, and considering how you seem to virtually never defend anyone else, well, what conclusions can someone make?
" Emily knows this too. She does not chastise me for having stated the opinions I have, has she? No,"
Yeah, she hasn't. I find that kind of weird.
"I've found that when you lay of name-calling, personal attacks and similar behaviors, it is a lot easier to have intelligent conversation."
Obviously, but that varies from person to person and site to site, doesn't it? Emily will STILL act and say incredibly bigoted and misanthropic things even when you lay off her. Perhaps she wouldn't have been as prone to breakdowns where she's just spamming how she thinks asians look like "genetic experiments gone wrong", but if she's so incredibly more refined, wouldn't she take the high-ground and not say sick crap like that?
"For all of the scientific knowledge you personally have, I call you a "pseudo" intellectual because you lack the ability to debate with any class."
ANY class? I'll admit I curse too often and have been prone to too much ad-hominems, but that only comes up when I see extreme viewpoints, like those FREQUENTLY expressed by Emily. I'm not alone. It's quite common for people to get deeply offended and angered at such things, and I'm nowhere near alone in this regard.
"Now, I'm sure you're about to balk at the fact that Emily has class, what with all her "horrible" stated opinions of other races,"
Get. Real. I am SO SICK of you trying to defend Emily's extreme behavior and viewpoints when she says things about so many non-nordics to the point where she acts as if many of them are barely even human or look like monstronsities the vast, majority of the time.
"but she is seemily very intelligent, without having to cite tons of articles."
....And having good, concise, varied citations makes you seem more intelligent.
"She does not use excessive slang and swearing, which I believe is a very low-rent way to "debate"."
True, but she does...
Not repeating the mountains of other trash she exhudes. You're almost like a broken record.
"I can't think of too many people who wouldn't give her that, even if they disagree with everything she says."
I agree.
"You seem obviously immature, otherwise you'd refrain from the foul debating tactics that you use, and then deem them "acceptable" because you're angry. To use your own words, get a goddamn grip!"
I never really deemed them acceptable, just understandable in face of her extremism. Emily likes to debate her tactics as "the truth", even though her behavior, even if what she says, by some hilariously unlikely margin, was "true", wouldn't warrant her behavior, especially when she, often, hasn't even really been attacked.
"Addressing your self-supiority in regards to your using articles as opposed to pictures. Well, if you can't see my point than let me explain again. Ever heard the expression, a picture states a thousand words? I believe, on this site, that's true."
Ever heard the idea that those words can vary? Kind of implicates with how, in spite of certain objective beauty standards... people still have their own standards. And biases.
"You can talk about nasal bridges and gonial angles and brow ridges, and myself, being admittedly less scientificly and more visually or literally inclined will base my opinions on what it is that I see first and what I read last. For some, it is more easily interpreted visually. That has nothing to do with anyone's intellect being inferior, it has to do with the fact that this site is about BEAUTY, beauty being something more readily interpreted through use of visual aids instead of written ones."
True to a large degree, but those anthropological studies, well... reflect an underlying reality around us. I could do with more photos- and yes, I've posted ALOT, in many of my previous discourses on other posts, and in this one, such as on things with eye color and how it seems overall jaw and mandible size has nothing to do with overall facial masculinity.
"That has nothing to do with anyone's intellect being inferior, it has to do with the fact that this site is about BEAUTY, beauty being something more readily interpreted through use of visual aids instead of written ones."
And yet, this site is heavily based around written ones. Which I admit is also faulty. Many of these terms Erik discusses are poorly shown even with the pictures he includes, and that's understandable, since many of these traits are hard to properly show and represent, considering how they focus on such specific anatomical traits that many people aren't particularly consciously aware of, or aren't even really aware of until they're properly detailed. Like I said, reading into this site and similar works has been profoundly informative to me.
However, for all of Erik's scientific background and knowledge of the literature, he obviously knows full well of how many of these anthropological studies on beauty require image manipulation and alteration, the use of photoshop, applying mathematical and geometric structures to the human body etc. Maybe he isn't particularly well versed in this area, but it would really, REALLY help. Many of these anthropometric models don't even require extensive knowledge or high-end software, but Erik's work shows a striking lack of it all.
But yes, I'll admit that, in certain regards, such as the whole thing with brow ridges, I haven't provided a good deal of visual evidence to support this. I'll address this though.
". As of May 2010, I'll have a bachelors in one of the literary arts. I obviously enjoy reading, even science, but I think that maybe, for all the scientific knowledge you have, you should show some photos to prove your points to those of us who aren't as scientificly minded."
I have.
"This is not unreasonable. If you know you're at a debate site where the vast mojority of commentators DO use photos, try doing that yourself. And try NOT to state that photos aren't concrete scientific evidence and when used, makes our arguments less valid."
I never said they wern't concrete evidence. It's just that many photos shown here, such as Emily spamming photos of swedish girls at bars or nightclubs or whatever are poor evidence, since they can easily be effected by things like the greatly variable lighting conditions of the clubs, and, as Erik has said, such random photos, many of them in a poor anthropological context, are very open to greatly variable personal interpretations. Sadly, the only thing Erik has called Emily out upon.
"That is foolish and once again, lacks maturity and is insulting."
How is that foolish, immature and insulting? It often IS weak evidence.
"And once again, I'll state that for all the evidence you have cited about Nordics being less feminine, I still believe that Nordics are very feminine based on what I SEE. Present a photo showing your point to those of us lay persons, VC."
I've got an idea. Since you've gotten so riled up about me claiming caucasoids, and by implication, nordics, have such larger brow ridges than africans and east asians, a universally masculine trait, compared all these photos of nordics and asians and the like and tell me what you see. Now, browridge ruggedness is going to be less prominent in a feminine person, but the size and protrusion will still be there.
Besides, you also haven't addressed this- if nordic women are so incredibly feminine, why aren't nordic men, by implication, more feminine? This is a very, very basic law of inheritance. Emily seems to understand this full well by calling asian men androgynous- which they are, on average- but seems to jump back and forth on whether or not she thinks asian women are feminine. Feminine men are often treated as less attractive.
What about a highly feminine, gracile woman? What kind of man would that take to produce?
And in a population where feminine women are the norm, based on simple laws of averages, they'd obviously be more prone to hyper-feminine, pubescent looking women. But even in uncommon populations where hyper-feminine women are the norm, highly feminine women would be more common than in a population of averages.
This is all really basic laws of heritability, again. This site details it extensively, too.
....And yes. I know many of the body types seen amongst east asians are too undeveloped looking, but this is a by product of having a feminine population, and this is also a highly variable, transient physical trait. It's of much less importance than cranio-facial structure. This is something I've hit home many times, that's been hit home before on this site, and it's something Emily refuses to accept.
"Bookworm, first of all, you state that Scandinavians are unattractive, and then state that they look like quasi-Asians, who are attractive. And furthermore, accusing Emily of being jealous of Asians is absurd. I don't see any jealousy there, I see you trying to use photos that are insufficient in making any points at all. And your facts? I'm not the expert, VC has more scientific background, but I'M willing to bet that Finns have NO WHERE near 25% Asian DNA. They appear to have risidual characteristics derived from some very distant Asian admixture, but to my knowledge, populations with this many blue-eyed blondes are not typically heavy on Asian DNA, at least not recent. Like VC does, cite your sources if you care to make such outrageous claims. So you don't like the looks of Scandinavians? It's ok to say that without making ridiculous accusations or posting outright lies."
Bookworm is probably parodying Emily's biases, but it's obviously along the lines of anti-white racism, in a rather contradictory fashion by saying nordics look "ugly" due to their central asian admixture, then... ugh, whatever.
Bookworm did cite sources, but poorly presented them. Yes, it's true that there is a small amount of central asian ancestry in northern europeans, and that it's considerably higher among Finns, Baltics, and Hungarians, but it's certainly not anywhere near 25%. The presence of this asian admixture is on the y-chromosomal line, and since this makes up only a fraction of one's genetic makeup- the others being mtDNA, inherited from the mother, and autosomal, inherited from both parents- would knock the average admixture down to about half of that, meaning finns have, on average, about 10% central asian admixture.
There are many finns, baltics, and hungarians, with asian affinities, such as relatively flattened facial profiles, more prominent than average epicanthic folds, and wider noses with more flattened bridges, (this being detailed on Erik's post under "chiseled nordic noses", but he noted how swedes of finnish extraction don't undergo rhinoplasty at any appreciable rate to indicate a reduction in their "ethnic features") but the admixture is far too low to account for such a frequency. It's probably due to the ancestors of the Finns living in arctic-like environments, similar to those of asians.
Plus, even if, by some fluke, in face of all the genetic evidence, finns and the like didn't have so much asian admixture, you'd still have all these relatively mongoloid traits, and especially with the Sami, who have a very high frequency of them.
Back to Emily on such a regard, how did Finns, so close to nordics, manage to attain all these deformed-looking features characteristic of asians?
"Godis, asking Violet Corpus for tips on debating tactics is typical: scathing character assassinations, vulgarity and tactless use of the English language...what can this person teach you? How to be more arrogant? More judgemental?"
I can admit some of my flaws. But thanks alot for focusing on the only negative aspects.
Godis:
No, it's alright. Emily, in spite of her terrible things she's said about non-nordics, doesn't devolve to cursing or major personal attacks, but this topic of innate beauty standards and its implication with ethnic traits is such a volatile topic. I've been heavily involved with what you could call the "nature-nurture" debate for quite some time, and this issue of aestethics is really only one of the last ones I'm vexed on. I've gone through so much crap, that I'm just prone to lashing out on this topic at times. Does that exscuse it? No, but I don't see why it's so unreasonable, especially, again, in regards to exremists like Emily.
I'm going to try to distance myself more from this site. It's like, a morbid fascination. I come back often to check up on Erik's writings because, damn it all, even though the man is pretty "off", he's extremely knowledge and presents alot of good ideas, and his writings have an extensive range of literature. It's good stuff to build upon. But then there's these comments sections. Like I said, it works as an intellectual exercise and to show a good avenue for a proper viewpoint. I'll be incorporating alot of this into some of my future work, when I get more involved with academia and college education.
Visitor:
Yes, I've gone by the name "ghfghfghf" before on this site. What's the problem with not choosing a proper identity? Only when I became more involved with this site did I do so.
"The god of anthropology with a predilection for Asian women? There couldn't possibly be two of you! Deranged little cunt? Misanthropic little shit? How original!! Great minds definitly DON'T think alike.
Meet Violet Corpus, your greatest fan!"
Yeah, I've never tried to pass myself as a "god of anthropology". Just because I find "attractive" asian women better looking than "attractive" white women doesn't necesarrily mean I, or others, have a "fetish" for them.
"It would appear that the only "fetishism" on this site is of the Asian nature."
Pure garbage. I haven't stated asians have some kind of unparalleled beauty beauty. I admit they have faults, such as high femininity accompanied by low testosterone can make a population prone to undeveloped bodies- albeit the objective attractive value of that is more variable, and of more debate than facial structure- along with them sometimes being prone to heavily flattened facial profiles, very doubtful a relativistic trait.
And to say that only asian fetishism goes on here? Uhhhhhh, yeah. Sure. Tell that to Emily assaulting non-nordics who don't fit her ridiculous ideals. Maybe I should use the term "nordic worship" instead.
"Watch Violet Corpus/ghfghfghf go predictably insane at the mention of East Asians being unattractive."
I admitedly act too vitriolic at times, but I don't act "insane". And I CERTAINLY don't go "insane" when someone simply says "hi, I don't think asians look attractive." What I find to be of contention is when someone tries to treat nordics as the paragons of beauty and says asians look deformed, like downs syndrome patients, like genetic experiments gone wrong etc. Besides, my comments on "Is it possible to objectively compare etc." was when I saw Emily at her most extreme, mouthing off explicetly white nationalist positions and saying non-nordics are only motivated by some callous urge to breed and improve their disgusting genes by breeding with nordics, how they hate the way they look etc. Obviously, it's typical for someone to just sit back and let that kind of bile pass by.
Man, I can't get enough of this kind of distortion.
And to address your other recent comment:
"No, Asian's do not improve the looks of whites. Rarely a racially mixed Asian/Caucasian will look attractive, but not usually. There is bookworm again, who has an Asian fetish, as well as ghfghfghf/Violet Corpus. The Swedish girl is accused of being a Nordic fetishist, but I think that Asian fetishism is far more rampant."
I haven't seen a single person saying "asians improve the looks of whites" here. To say another race will universally improve the looks of another is inane, since it seems to act as if most of the members of so-called "more attractive" race are super models. But there you go crying about "asian fetishism" and saying asian-white mixes rarely look attractive.
Uh huh. I often see people say mixed-race individuals look more attractive, but this is probably due to an effect of them looking supposedly more "exotic", wherein the uniqueness of their traits, under a certain degree of intrinsic beauty standards, will be enchanced, regardless of as to how they look beyond that.
People with burned off faces are "exotic" and "unique", but they're never interpreted as being attractive like so many multiracial people are.
Still, that effect wouldn't equate to your idea of eurasians "rarely" looking attractive. Maybe that's just your own perceptions or biases.
And at the end of all that, I'm called out on acting out more on the actual validity of my arguments, and then have those twisted (saying I have an "asian fetish"), defend the arguments of extremists like Emily, and then have my detractor go on with more nordic worship.
I really, really can't enough of this.
Barbarella, again:
"I think, VC, that while scientific articles are OF COURSE more of a sound source of evidence, prattling on and on and on and on...about browridges, for example, and maintaining that the Nordic female, based on "articles", has such masculine facial bone sructure is still going to be useless in the long run."
Again, I never said nordics have such "masculine bone structure". Just mainly in the brow area. I mean, they're certainly alot less masculine than typical black africans, aren't they? But they're considerable less feminine, in the FACIAL AREA, compared to east asians.
"You really must show this. Yes, I love my photos. As much as Godis and Emily and Erik and MANY others."
Compare the photos of all the asians Emily and others have posted and the like, and compare the brow structure. Please tell me what you see. It might not be too perceptible, but when you look at photo alterations and geometric arrangements going at this, you'll come to realize the underlying nature of so many of these traits. Like I said, this site has greatly broadened my perceptions of human population variance in facial structure.
I mean, why not a video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ICKFf2Vq8&feature=channel_page
This video sadly has some aspects of asian fetishism- saying "asians have no browridges" and the like- but it's still quite informative. Plus, it just leaves Jessica Alba looking rather eurasian.
And while one could bring up Jessica Alba being "hispanic", only her father was hispanic- her mother was white. Hispanics are typically amerind-white mixes, so they're bound to have more prominent brow ridges than east asians (albeit I don't know much of browridge prominence on amerinds), and then, you have to rememebr her mother was white.
Plus, note the comparison at :38, with that white girl and those 2 asian girls in profile view.
"Trying to be an asshole by condescending to us "idiots" who would like to see what the FUCK you're talking about is arrogance."
I've never really conescended to you. I've never called you an "idiot". I've just knocked on you for trying very poorly to discount anthropological studies. Maybe if you were clearer before like you are now, I wouldn't have knocked on you as much.
"Of all the personality traits of anyone's here that you've been so judgemental of, which is arrogance, you seem to be the most arrogant person posting here right now. You're knowledge of anthropology is impressive, but your patronizing those of us who are not "fluent" in a lot of the scientific terminology you use is insulting."
I've never patronized people for being non-fluent in the scientific terminology. Not once. Alot of the things Erik details, I don't get some myself. I've never seen anyone ask for me to explain what features I'm talking about, either. Have I been arrogant? At times, perhaps. But to say I'm the most arrogant person here? Yeah right.
"If you want to debate other scientists, than going to a more appropriate website to do that may be the solution to your obvious frustration at having to "show" in photos the points it is you're attempting to make here."
There's few sites like this.
"I am so sorry for my lack of intelligence and wasting your precious time. Please allow me to bow down to the genius that is Violet Corpus."
Stop trying to act like I've been so patronizing when the only time I've even come close to this is when you've criticized my sometimes overt use of scientific and anthropological research, in crude and poorly constructed manners. Like I said, if you criticized that in the way you're doing now, maybe you wouldn't feel like I've been patronizing.
"It also appears that the source of your rage, that being a personal attraction to Asian females and Emily's barrage of insults of them, is pretty base and immature."
No. No. No. No. No. Stop distorting me. Please. I've called Emily out plenty of times on her other attacks on non-nordics- really, I find it incredibly doubtful you haven't noticed this by now. I've taken strong contention at Emily trashing on slavs and romanians, and yet I don't find them particularly attractive myself. It just so happens that Emily focuses the majority of her attacks on asians.
"In a prior statement, I mistakenly misspelled "superiority". Please accept my humble apologies."
Didn't notice it, doesn't really matter. I notice I've mispelled pretty often myself.
Emily:
I'll only be responding to your more varied claims from now on, not your incredibly repetitive and dense ones.
"First of all. Less intelligent posters here spam this thread with photos of models and other people who have obvious white admixture."
True, and I don't take that approach.
"Also, they conveniently leave out the times I have said positive things about asians. As a group I find them terribly lacking in looks for the reasons I have stated. There are always exceptions and one girl I found pretty is this one, a Vietnamese girl, and I said so in one comment, and showed these photos."
And yet, I find this woman rather unattractive myself. Whoa. Looks like an asian woman who manages to fit the ideals of Emily isn't to my liking. She looks kind of masculine. (a masculine asian woman?!?)
"Now, asians do sometimes have impaired vision sincethe fold over their eyes limits vision somewhat, especially when the excessive skin increases and hangs over the eyes. That is one reason they sometimes need plastic surgery to correct this. It is self-evident that an open eye, not slits, without skin partially blocking eye sight will work better."
Proof of this. See, it depends on what parts of the eye the skin is blocking. If it's blocking the edges of the scelera, and other parts where the world is percieved, then, no, it's not going to impair vision. That's the case of asian eyes.
"We have no shortage of dentists here. lol We are not exactly a third world nation. We have less need for dentists here than the British, so that is the obvious reason we have fewer dentists. Your argument works against you, VC, but I guess you are not that intelligent."
I never said swedes have bad teeth, I just doubted they were as "wondeful" as you claim. If you have no shortage of dentists, explain why the chart I posted says you have fewer dentists than the british.
"A nation that has lots of dentists isn't necessarily a nation of people with strong teeth."
True, but many aspects of dental structure have little to do with genetics. Why can't this hold true for east asians? Oh, right, you refuse to admit the impermeability of many physical features. Please tell me why the british, who are white, obviously, have such worse teeth than the swedes.
"I for one, have never in my life had even one cavity, and I have zero fillings. I have perfect teeth, as do all the people in my family and my friends, so we don't need dentist service."
And that's just you. That doesn't apply nationwide.
"As for visoon, what kind of eyes do you think have superior function? Eyelid surgery is extremely common among asians and I don't think it is only for cosmetic reasons."
I wonder why I, in my entire life, in regards to eyelid surgery, I've never once heard an asian claim they can see better after the surgery.
Your pictures don't tell me much. The first girl is grinning abit. That's... well, known to make your eyes look squntier. Regardless, the areas of the eyes that percieve light and the like aren't obscured by their epicanthic folds. I mean, since I'm white, I can just move my eye muscles or use my hands to move my eyes to make my eyelids more like that of an asian, and the only reason my vision is obscured in the least is because my eye lashes are brought down. Not because of the structure of the eyelids.
The second picture is too distant.
The first swedish girl is closer, but she's not grinning.
In the second pic, it's an extreme closeup, and the girl on the left... why, she's grinning. And it's making her eyes squint more.
Wonderful picture evidence again.
The last few comments is another troll spamming pictures. And then Emily repeating her routine again.
Will someone rush to her defense?
"Marketa, although flatter-chested than Adriana, has a face, body proportions and backside that don’t give her a boyish look; Marketa looks like a girl."
Yes. You are 100% correct. Marketa looks like a 10 yr. old girl. Not even a 12 yr. old girl, because by the age of 12 I already had a pretty full set of breasts. Most girls start developing those by 12. I have seen men with bigger breasts than Marketa's, men that aren't even overweight.
Seriously, you want to convince me that this girl has a nicer body than Adriana's? Adriana's body isn't all that impressive but holy shit, Adriana has some STRUCTURE! That is an attractive thing whether it is masculine or not. This girl's body actually scares me. I would choose any of the Victoria's Secret model's bodies before I had to choose hers. Seriously! Who are you trying to convince here?
She has a pretty face though. But it's not all that. I feel that Adriana has some structure in her face as well, and that is what makes it attractive. No one wants a blob for a face.
while i can se where the masculinazation of Adriana Lima is on her face (on the first shot she reminded of a young black boy) i must say that she is also very feminine and absolutely gorgeous...
And i agree with what Lish said...also its wrong to compare mixed race women with european women ( whether they are north european or south european)
Pages