to say black gene is prominent is wrong.
look at this celebrity, rashida jone. she looks fully white as much as the other asian biracial I have posted.
and the people who
and look at peggy jones ( the white mom of rashida, when she was young) rashida looks like her white mom than her black dad?
"Mary
The eye color can change depending on the light. For example, yellow light can make blue eyes look green. Since the quality of light changes throughout the day, ones eye color may appear to change."
From a huge site on color perception.
I myself have light brown eyes. I've never cared much about that, although I would prefer to have dark green eyes, or perhaps some kind of exotic color.
Really, look up colored contact lenses and their appeal. Eye color preferences seem extremely broad as well, with factors such as exociticism coming into play, heterochromia, multicolored eyes etc. The more I think of it, and look into it, the more that article seemed to be quoting a meager opinion piece from just one evolutionary psychologist.
Like I said, to me, the pupil shows greater contrast on grey eyes.
"Submitted by Erik on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:20.
Mogs: Brown eyes appear warmer than blue eyes, solely because of the coloring. Artists will agree as they are better tuned to warmer vs. cooler colors, and this is the right way of looking at the issue than soft vs. hard. You are correct that the best way to compare eye colors is to match the women for femininity/shape or else there is a major bias."
In the words of Erik. I'd say he's more qualified what with his sizable archive of realistic feminine art subject, albeit I find that stuff so gaudy. But, I don't think brown eyes are inherently "warmer". I don't think theres any innate preference for any eye color.
I mean, some of these colors don't even appear in humans, yet I'd be deeply drawn to some of them if I were to see someone sporting them:
Maybe you're right. I've called Emily many names, too, though. She just exhibits an extremism that unbelievably revolts me, that makes me feel as though a person who says such monsterous things about people outside of her ethnic group deserves little respect. Well, they don't, but I guess that is going abit too far. I've gotten to the point where I almost find Emily comical.
Still, when it comes to debate, this is something I probably do need to work on. I just find it hard to carry on such a bland and erudite tone at times, especially when confronted with things like this. Emily should expect to be "ganged up on" when she's attacking so many billions of people.
I don't know if I want to say sorry, or even if I should, and I don't know if I should feel guilt either. I'll refrain from extreme personal attacks like that from now on, though. If she does return.
In regards to your questions-
1) Yes, I'm male, I've said that today when Barbarella asked me if I'm white and hysterically claimed I hate whites.
2) It's just the way I am to a degree, but it's helpful to be well read on the literature on these subjects.
3) In regards to wooly hair, or whatever you'd like to term, it's quite relative. I mean, wooly hair is an extreme tropical adaption, and unlike the straight hair seen amongst europeans, asians etc. it grows outward and not downward. Hair that grows out is considered near-universally attractive, but the key here is growing OUT. I don't know of many anthropological studies on preferences in hair structure, but I pointed out some links showing the unbelievable diversity and variation amongst indigenous african hair styles. They're flat out alien to the ones you typically see among cold-adapted populations. I think it's just common sense that hair structure is probably the most relativistic aspect of human beauty.
In terms of form, in contrasting straight hair and wooly hair, I don't see how, at all, this can have an objective component.
When you mention eyes, what you say about "blue eyes" being more evolved reminds me of something. Non-human primates have dark sceleras, in contrast to the white ones of humans, and this is thought to be an aspect of human evolution, allowing us to pick up better on social cues- IE, the eyes contrasting better with the scelera.
And lighter eyes, with blue eyes especially it seems, the pupil contrasts more greatly with the iris. The pupil is black. The light eye is, er, lighter.
"But even as blue eyes give way to brown, lighter eyes will maintain a certain allure, said Carolyn Kaufman, who teaches evolutionary psychology at Otterbein College in Ohio. When people see something pleasurable, their eyes dilate, Kaufman said. Dilated pupils signal happiness and are, in turn, considered attractive. Since they are easier to see on lighter eyes, they have a natural appeal."
This idea has some big flaws, though. This ignores how lighting conditions can strongly effect the apperance of the pupil and iris, it's coloration and contrasts etc. and thus, different eye colors will look better under different conditions. Plus, the anthropological and psychological evidence indicates a huge variance in preference for eye color, not to mention how people will have strongly variable preferences in how the presence of the iris factors into their perceptions of beauty.
Besides, in regards to that study, wouldn't it be light blue eyes that show the greatest contrast to the pupils? Hell, I think grey eyes show the greatest contrast.
Like I said, I prefer dark green eyes and this idea never really came up to me. It seems deeply faulty when you consider things like light conditions, individual preferences, this study's narrow perception etc.
But that doesn't make blue eyes "more evolved". Under that narrow line of thinking, it's the dark sceleras of primates that set them apart, not their general eye color.
I can't find the study anywhere either- it might just be an opinion piece from that one evolutionary psychologist.
"I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?"
Not really. What do you really mean by evolutionarily superior? How many great scientists, white or otherwise, were deeply attractive and thus represnted an innate sexual allure? Even now?
Physical traits are incredibly shallow, but they have much significance for the world due to our psychological wiring.
That is horrible to say about Christina. I understand how you may think she looks a bit matronly. This is largely due to her weight. When Christina is at a more feminine weight, she will look even curvier (smaller waist) and her breasts won't appear so large and matronly, but they will still appear large compared to her body in general. This is attractive. Yes, she can probably benefit from a slight breast reduction, although breasts are feminine, there is a certain point where they become unattractive if they are extremely large especially compared to the body. Hyperfemininity is unattractive. However, overall Christina is very attractive and doesn't need much to help her looks except perhaps some weight loss and maybe a breast reduction. Her nose too isn't perfect and slightly robust in a sense, it just slightly deviates from ideal. Her face also isn't extremely feminine, or perhaps even above average in regards to femininity. But that doesn't matter because overall Christina is extremely attractive and I feel she has a certain unique beauty few women have.
VioletCorpus:
First of all I want to say something about this:
"You're an awful person, Emily"
I too have called Emily a terrible person. I now really regret it. I feel this is probably the worst insult. We are attacking Emily's character. I feel it is just to do so because Emily has said some horrible things about individuals and whole populations. She has also criticized more than my looks on here. However, I just feel that saying she is a horrible person is pretty bad too. I'm not trying to lecture you, I just don't want you to regret it like I do. I have said it multiple times recently and for some reason I feel this strong guilt about it. =I actually think that Emily isn't really a horrible person. She just ACTS that way on here for whatever reason. I don't understand Emily but I feel I should still be sympathetic to her in some ways. I understand her anger for example about how white people cannot say anything negative about other races. I agree to a certain extent. So Emily has some GOOD points sometimes. I am not standing up for her, I don't even know why I am writing this. Maybe I feel that everyone gangs up on Emily and I feel somewhat guilty for that because I have done it soo much. I don't know. But she does resort to personal attacks more than any of us do. That is just a fact and it makes her appear like a hippocrite for criticizing others for doing it.
Either way, I have more questions for you:
1)Are you a male or female? Don't feel obliged to answer but I'm curious. For some reason I keep getting the impression you are a male. I don't know why. I don't think your personality or writing style is masculine, I just for some reason read everything you write as if it is coming from a male. See I can easily tell Emily is female, because she is so CATTY! And no male would argue: YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!!! over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
2) How do you write and argue so well? How did you learn it? If anyone on here can inspire me to improve (dramatically) my writing and argument skills it would be you. I am impressed by you!
3) I believe I read that woolly hair is one of your preferences or likes on people. This is not attractive to the general European population from my understanding, and not even to Westernized Africans (African Americans). I can't say anything for Africans not exposed to the Western world. I know I just have made some claims without any scientific facts to back it up. However, this is my impression. Is this your natural preference or has some social experience or a certain person inspired this? I am just curious. Also, do you think that if a large population or say 3/4 of the world believes some feature is beautiful, does that mean it is automatically an evolutionary advantage? For example, most people probably do like blue eyes over brown. I personally don't care THAT much for blue eyes. But, for some reasons Europeans and even non-Europeans love them. Do you think blue eyed people have more evolved eyes for example or evolved in general? I personally don't believe this, but I am wondering what you think about universally admired features and what that means.
I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?
Still doesn't change how it's a broad neotenic trait not indicative of evolutionary advancement, and how one can find many ethnic traits to be present in certain genetic disorders.
I mean come on, this is the stuff of early physican anthropologists.
I also wonder if Erik will criticize her. Maybe he's too busy penning more screeds on the pathologies of homosexuals, with extensive scientific writings on enemas and homosexual literary terms, or reading up on the latest racialist literature, or hounding porn sites for bland women he thinks are universally considered gorgeous, or catching up on the latest developments in the search for 9/11 Truth.
Oh, hey, Emily. Since whites age so much faster compared to other races, maybe I can compare them to people with progeria. You know, that genetic disorder that makes people age extraordinarily early and fast, both biologically and physically. It also makes their noses develop extremely quickly and project outward more, kind of like caucasoids. See: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=progeria&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&start=0
Or, maybe I can compare them to albinos.
Something's wrong with whites, I believe.
Wait, no, I don't believe this. Because I can recognize largely transient physical traits when I see them and don't make broad sweeping judgements of value about them or some depraved shit like implicating the similarity of this one genetic disorder to some ethnic traits as indicative of their "evolutionary advancement".
That's because I'm intellectualy honest, consistent, have a decent understanding of anthropology, and have a good sense of empathy and an appreciation of a common humanity.
"You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile."
I guess the physical anthropologists are delusional, too.
"They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking."
That's because you're a sick little girl who reviles the idea of her tiny little subrace being at the center of everything. Emily, there's about 15,000+ genetic disorders that exist among humans. How did just a few physical traits sometimes present in one genetic disorder become so prevalent among them? Tell me how. Please, tell me how.
"They are androgynous,"
The men to a large degree, yes. But basic laws of inheritance requires a generally feminine man to create a feminine woman. This is basic stuff.
"unfeminine and unmasculine,"
These are both two polar opposite traits. And then you go back and forth calling them hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine or whatever. Make up your fucking mind.
" tiny, underdeveloped, "
You exagerate it, and it's a transient physical trait.
Oh, you don't need to get it through your head. You continue to show how desperate and hateful and twisted you are. You're fun.
"have huge and coarse heads"
Body size to head size. Also, what do you mean by "coarse"?
"unappealing eyes,"
They had no problem with that prior to substantial western contact. Show me any evidence that suggests they've always reviled their eyes, or they all get extreme eyelid reductions.
" puffy and huge cheeks,"
Head to body size, again. Maybe they do have excess fat in their cheeks, but whites also lose their facial fat much earlier than east asians, contributing to earlier wrinkling and more severe wrinkling.
But hey, I'm sane and unbiased enough to recognize these are heavily transient physical traits. You aren't in the least.
"flat profiles,"
Only in extremities, and those aren't anywhere near as common as you want to believe.
"teeth that don't fit their jaws"
Strongly related to transient factors and non-genetic ones. Hey Emily, can you back to me up on the teeth of the Swedes again? How can they be so perfect when they have fewer doctors than England?
"eyes they cannot see with properly,"
Still no proof of this batshit assertion.
"and just generally look like an experiment gone bad."
Hear that everybody? Emily thinks asians look like "experiments gone bad." Man, that's sure not hateful or hideously biased or spiteful or misanthropic in the least. Right Barbarella?
"They are horribly unattractive."
Your opinion. Go swoon over the tanned mannequins from night clubs you think are the pinnacle of human beauty and evolution some more.
...No, I don't think nordics look like tanned mannequins. That's just what some of the ones Emily likes to pass off as shining examples of nordic beauty look like TO ME, though.
"Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed."
What's so deformed about them, Emily? I've gone over extensiveley how humans have became profoundly less physically adept and developed throughout our evolution, and look grossly "deformed" compared to other primates.
This is such basic evolutionary science, Emily. And rememeber that the presence of epicanthic folds is a very broad neotenic trait and cannot be rated on a true scale of evolution or derivation.
"They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not."
Not all sufferers of downs syndrome have epicanthic folds, and they, the vast majority of the time, are only small epicanthic folds.
Why are a few of the traits present sometime in sufferers of just one genetic disorder of such significance to you? How do these become a common trait in about 2 billion people worldwide?
This sounds alot like what primitive psychologists and scientists said about downs syndrome patients about a century ago- they looked that way because they had "mongol genes", because the mongolians of the middle ages were such a destructive people.
Of course, that's a ridiculous, primitive belief. But you sure sound alot like them.
"Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.
Refined and gracile? I think not."
Again, tell that to basic evolutionary science. Or make up your mind. Or tell us why nordic men aren't so feminine if their men are. I don't know.
And now we have 2 relatively low quality photos of what seem to be people in a crowd in Korea making a whole variety of facial expressions. Wow, wonderful evidence.
This is Emily, everybody. When her ideology of nordic fetishism is torn apart, she'll break down and start spewing bile that sounds like something out of Stormfront or a white nationalist or a white supremacist forum. She has nothing to show for herself. Nothing but her own interpretations of photos. No consistency. No intellectual honesty. No scientific or anthropological evidence.
Just an insane little girl who hates almost everyone outside of her tiny little subrace.
"It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races."
You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile. They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking.
They are androgynous, unfeminine and unmasculine, tiny, underdeveloped, have huge and coarse heads with unappealing eyes, puffy and huge cheeks, flat profiles, teeth that don't fit their jaws, eyes they cannot see with properly, and just generally look like an experiment gone bad.
They are horribly unattractive. Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed. They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not. Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.
to I'm a racist : you sounded very moron, by the way....how old are you? go to die, huh? the small group people like you are not deserve for this world. -the majority of people in this earth has got black hair and brown eyes. the blonde people are the mutation just get it in your stupid head. I don't care if the white race is going to be death... let the nature decide it? and for the people who posted a pic of african woman with the large boooty vs. african-american celebrity. you are stupid, those africans are cool they could adapt their bodies to stay in such a cruel environment unlike you going to be rotten and die on the chair behind the pc. I hate the nazi people like you.
An ethnic trait can be best defined as a continuum of physical traits that follow a distribution in proportion to population averages. A population that averages unattractive, ethnic nose types, for example, are merely on the poor end of their range of regular ethnic variation.
That's also very well illustrated by facial shape, again.
To put it simply, you can't just look at one ethnic group with good average facial features and proclaim these are "proper ethnic traits".
"Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue."
Pray tell, what makes it so self-aggradizing and insufferable?
"You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable."
I'll admit that yes, Emily angers me. But why shouldn't I be? This site is a rarity. It's one of the most cohesive and extensive analysis of the evolution of human female beauty, it's objective correlates, and examination of population variance in cranio-facial structures that contribute to human beauty. Considering how this so heavily intersects with identity politics and the nature-nurture debate, it's of great interest. But, there's still consdiderable flaws with it, and not enough clarification in many regards. It's a subject that doesn't have enough proper study, especially in Erik's delineation of women in modern fashion and beauty pageants. (albeit I think his taste in "feminine women" is poor.)
The fact there's an extremist like Emily vomiting up her ultra-elitist nordic fetishism in site with so much grey area is significant.
Plus, I think it also begs the question of Emily's mental stability on how she's so hilariously desperate to prove the perfection and idealism of the women of her tiny little ethnic group, and shit all over billions upon billions of other people worldwide, who she will never meet, without any real evidence to back her up- outside of her photos of swedish women from night clubs, many of them with tans, many of them with bad tans, whom she happens to think attractive, and posting these photos over and over and over again, and...
Goddamn. Hasn't this been shown well enough? Even Erik, who's been very suspiciously silent on Emily, has criticized this.
"Whether whites hold a "primitive" trait that adds to masculinity, doesn't mean much when overall, they are still by far more refined, and thus more feminine."
Um, yeah, it is. Protuding, prominent, rugged browridges are a virtually universal correlate of masculinity. They have more refined facial features in most other areas than say, black africans or australian aborigines, but certainly not compared to east asians.
It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races. See this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Features
If whites were so much more feminine, why aren't white men, by proxy, more feminine as well? To produce women, you must have feminine looking men. It's a very basic aspect of inheritance, here.
Oops, I mean, Nordic whites, the pinnacle of human beauty and femininity, unlike those manly slavs and romanians.
"Picking apart the facial bones of persons of different ethnicities to try to dispell things that anyone with eyes can see is a waste of your time and everyone else's."
Um. Many people unaware of physical anthropology terms and population variance in such traits aren't going to be aware of the underpinnings of alot of these traits. How many lay men are that familiar with things like midfacial flatness? The more I've read into this subject, the more aware I've become of these traits among humans.
I've become more aware that yes indeed, whites have bigger browridges than east asians and unmixed blacks. That's what a mountain of physical anthropological evidence says. And someone with eyes.
"And all this just to "trash" Emily."
No, to show how hilariously wrong someone spreading gross scientific misinformation and injecting her own nationalist politics and crude ideals of racial purity into a poorly explored area of scientific inquiry.
"While Emily states her opinions, perhaps she's more of an artistic, visual or literary type and prefers to state her comments using photos that are very easy to interpret, as opposed to scientific articles that may be interpreted differently by whomever is reading them, just as her photos are interpreted differently by different people."
Um. What the hell is this? You're saying casual photos are more concrete than indepth scientific articles published by real physical anthropologists, who also adhere to the idea physical traits implicated in derivations from more primitive forms? But then you say her photos can be "interpreted differently by different people." Like the physical anthropology articles.
Ok. That's kind of really stupid and contradictory. But whatever.
"Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation."
Yeah, they do, and there's a near-consensus on what constitutes derived traits among humans. How implicated many of them are in feminine beauty is a matter of debate- I mean, some of them, like browridge size/protrusion and infraglabbelar notch depth, have strong consensus- but from what I can tell, most of them are neutral. These aren't just "my interepretations"- they are literally what the evidence says. I quote and agree with Erik in many regards. I often quote and show much of the information on his webpage.
But wait, maybe it really is my own opinions that protruding browridges are a universally masculine trait.
"You are doing the same thing you accuse her of doing: trying to convince people that your opinion, based on your presented information (in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret) is absolute and RIGHT"
Um, no, it's called informed debate. I'm showing what the scientific evidence really says and how grossly wrong she is on so many things. Emily has tried to defend her trash many times by saying that this an objective site devoted to feminine beauty, and that her thinking falls in line with it. She's trying to debate herself. Even though her evidence is atrocious, inane, scientifically unsound, and her attitude and outlook towards it is morally bankrupt. What's wrong with trying to show someone, and many other observers and commentators that this is false?
If she finds nordic women the most attractive, that's all fine and well, but it's a completely different matter when she shoves this down everyone else's throat.
"(in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret)"
Yeah. Some. This literature being concrete examinations of physical and psychological underpinnings of female beauty. As opposed to lots and lots of casual photos that get reposted all the time with the same moronic thinking.
Since you love photos so much, though, let me try it. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of it, but broad neoteny is inapplicable to a full-scale assessment of human beauty, and some cranio-facial traits are implicated in gracility in the least. An example of this would be jaw size and cheekbone size. To give you an idea, look at all of these japanese women:
I don't think all of these women are particularly attractive, or highly feminine, and I also notice alot of crowded teeth amongst them. But can you, with all honesty, say that they look "masculine" or "primitive" with their large jaws and cheekbones? Would they took better with them?
Plus, alot of them have typical asian looking noses, and most of them look fine with them.
"and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!!"
I never said this. I said Emily is like this because of her extreme views, which are incredibly baseless, and her attitude and outlook on these things is deplorable.
"And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me."
I never said I was an expert on hair. Isn't it self-evident that hair structure and style are perhaps the most relativistic aspects of human beauty? Well, maybe not to a nordic fetishist like Emily who reviles anything not blonde or red. But are you now? Do tell me why all these african women are sporting such bizzare, incredibly varied, and, in comparison to european hair styles, truly alien. Even when they lengthen their hair in a downward manner, why is it virtually always in the forms of complex and strange braids and dreadlocks? Why aren't they fashioning their hair to be less wooly, in fact? Why aren't they using artificial dyes and colors to make them blonde or approaching typical nordic hair colors?
In regards to that last tidbit, how many non-western cultures can you name that have ever done this?
I myself can't.
"If you're white, V.C., I'd be shocked. You have such a vehement hatred of them, taking all this time to cite countless sources on why white women are inferior to women of other races."
lmfao, get a goddamn grip. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER SAID white women are grossly inferior, or inferior at all, to women of other races. All I've been pointing out is how foolish it is to treat nordic women as the incomparable ideal female beauty. I wouldn't be going on and admitting- which SOMEONE CAN EYES WITH SEE!!!- that black women are much more masculine, on average, than white women, that the greater femininity of east asians makes them more prone to unattractive forms of hyper-femininity etc. But the difference here is that I recognize some very basic things:
-Most of the variation in facial feminity is due to testosterone differences, which is a largely transient trait.
-Much of the variation in below the neck feminity is also due to heavily transient physical traits, and is of considerably more subjectivity than above the neck traits.
Emily doesn't seem to recognize this in the least, despite how it's essentialy been bored into her skull by now with how much its shown and emphasized and backed up.
Oh, and yes, horrors of horrors, I'm white. I'm american. I'm of northern and western european descent. I just happen not to be disgustingly narrow and close minded and let my nationalistic politics cloud my judgement. We all have our personal reservations in debates like these, but some people are obviously more pronounced than others.
"I can't remember if you'd ever stated your ethnic background, your comments are endless, and at times, pointless, so forgive me for glossing over them."
I think I have. I don't remember. I don't see how my comments are "pointless" when Emily finds the time to come back to this site and stir up a shitstorm with the same repetitive and faulty reasoning every chance she gets, and how you and her constantly argue with Godis about far more trivial matters.
On another note, I honestly prefer east asian women to white women, at the moment. Not wholly in terms of averages, though. I don't have indexes or extensive experience to come up with a good picture of what a typical east asian woman looks like. But, say, in terms of comparisons of "attractive" white women to "attractive" east asian women, I find east asian women to be much, much more attractive. (for example, I find very few of the "attractive women" Erik parades around on this site to be, um, attractive.) I personally find most white women to be very plain or average. And I live in a majority white area.
But, these are just my opinions. I believe some of it's objective, though, such as the greater facial feminity of east asian women and their much smaller brow ridges, but I don't think of this as much importance because it, again, is largely related to testosterone, and correcting for such a difference would leave white men worse off.
I also don't have much of a marked preference, but I think black hair and reddish-brown or strawberry blonde hair is the most attractive. I also like dark green eyes the most.
That brings to mind how I, awhile back, remarked on how the extraordinarly high frequency of light hair among dark-skinned aborigines and melanesians is shining proof of how light hair won't "die out" due to race mixing and how it's probably due to their alleles for light hair being much different.
Yet, even though the light hair alleles seen among white, middle easterners, north africans, central asians etc. seems to be relatively easily diluted by even moderately dark skin, I falsely implicated light eyes with that as well.
I was wrong. I've seen far too many dark skinned american blacks and dark skinned south asians with light eyes for this to be true. Light eyes will never die out with the wonders of genetic engineering. Eye color is probably one of the easiest traits to propogate amongst humans with genetic engineering.
And yet the racial nationalists like Emily, who think they know genetics, seem to overlook this all too easily.
One other thing- I've defended whites. I've pointed out how people who knock on whites for aging poorly compared to other races don't realize this is largely unrelated to skin color and due to a whole host of other variable genetic factors. (note how well east asians age compared to whites, in spite of often similarly colored average skin tone and lower testosterone levels.) Or how excess body hair among whites is considerably related to testosterone, that variable trait again, and can also be an aspect of masculine beauty.
"For the record, and Blonde, Swedish Emily knows this, I don't agree with every single point proposed by her. It's just that I don't take it personal when someone has a different point of view."
I don't either, but I get offended when I see extremism. Don't you?
"I see other races saying offensive things about whites, the same type of things Emily says about them, but it's not a big deal, no one gets unnerved by this, it's perfectly acceptable."
Stop exagerating things. Read my comments to you and Emily's sickening hypocrisy on the Maria McBane article, for example. There's been non-whites that have said things just as bad as Emily, but not a single one on this site has been so extensive in their vitriolic views as her. Nobody else comes close.
"Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women."
Nothing I've said states white women are "insurmountably inferior". That's an extreme position, extreme like Emily. But oh, you're getting offended by extremism! But isn't that just people STATING THEIR OPINIONS, in your view?
"Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously."
In face of everything I've said, it's pure gold you'd say I'm like this. Read more carefully, unless you really think I like offending whites.
"Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass."
After distorting me so hilariously, you'll go around and defend Emily's extreme reluctance to admit the flaws of nordics/whites, admit ethnic extremities among nordics/whites, and endlessly trash on non-white and non-nordic women without even remotely decent evidence, without a shred of intellectual honesty, or human decency, or...
I'm getting abit tired of repeating how awful Emily is and how disgusting it is for you to defend her views and try to pass them off as "sound". In face of all this, I don't even think there's anywhere in the human body that can fit your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness.
"These comments just get more stalker-like,"
What do you call you and Emily's debates with Godis, again?
"I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC."
I don't think so. I don't think I'll ever change Emily's mind. I think my comments serve better as educational to people reading into this subject. It also works as good intellectual exercise.
"You are trying SO HARD to convince me and everyone else that, "No, these Nordics ARE NOT more feminine, see, look at ALL these articles!!""
I never said that the nordic women you're constantly waving around "aren't feminine". I'm just saying that...
Ok, not repeating myself.
"OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive."
Ok. Maybe alot of the nordic women you and Emily spam are highly feminine. Maybe you two have different standards of femininity. Whatever. I find few of them appealing. The thing is that, we're now going into relativism. Female beauty has many objective components, but, it's still quite broad in many areas, and is open to different perceptions based on one's own personal tastes. The point still stands that in general cranio-facial structure... white women aren't as feminine as east asian women.
"Many detractors have come here and tried to convince Erik, Emily and now myself that what we see and interpret as attractive is somehow askew and should be re-evaluated"
AGAIN. Erik's evidence and theories presented DO NOT support Emily's nordic fetishism and your narrow, though not as extreme, perceptions of female beauty. I got alot of that data on brow ridge size from this site. I quoted Erik directly saying that black african women generally have much more feminine structures around the orbits than other populations, yet features below that are, on average, heavily masculine. Erik is pretty nutty, but his views are very doubtful as extreme as Emily's, in spite of he's been incredibly silent, and in ways very positive about her.
Even though I do agree with many of Erik's ideas, I see many of them as flawed- his ideas of the strength of sexual selection and how this implicates in the beauty of nordics, his inconcistency to admit the high femininity of white/nordic women would mean white/nordic men are also highly feminine, his ranking of nasal structure on a scale of derivation, him implicating general jaw and cheekbone size in femininity. Things like that. I've elaborated well enough on many of these.
"because it dares not be PC."
I love how PC is so frequently invoked by all sorts of non-liberal extremists and many regular conservatives to act as if they're the ones truly persecuted for sometimes saying something unbelievably false, basless, or insulting to one's very humanity.
I'm not a liberal. I'm incredibly open minded politically and philosophically. I know what real "political correctness" and extreme cultural sensitivity looks like. I despise cultural relativism/multiculturalism. But goddamn it all if I'm not tired of people like YOU sweeping criticisms of your extreme beliefs as "PC", as if YOU'RE the ones really under attack.
"Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain)."
How am I pseudo-intellectual? I find Erik's incredibly monotonous and overtly erudite tone to be pseudo-intellectual in ways. And boring.
"For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them."
That's really funny, because I've been citing alot that do support him.
"Anthropology, and it's data, is debated and re-evaluated on a regular basis. What you are presenting here is not earth shattering or ground breaking, they are merely articles that support your opinions."
Not gonna go over the objective consensus on many forms of facial femininity and derivation again.
"Your excessive foul language is symptomatic of your emotional outrage and is the fuel for all of these incessant counter arguments. This is not evident of a scientific mind, but of a disturbed one."
Oh no! I swear at people who act like scumbags! I show emotion in some of my posts! (wait, who doesn't here?) I'm obviously a disturbed mind compared to Emily.
Ugh.
I just looked over Emily's comments. My god, I've never seen her this desperate.
I ask anyone with even a shred of scientific, political, philosophical, whatever objectivity to look at all of my comments, the various other more informed detractors of the nordic fetishist outlook, and compare it to... Emily. Emily's still ranting on about the deformed bodies of asians and calling epicanthic folds an "unevolved" trait and the same tired crap over and over again.
Look at them and tell me with all honesty who has the best evidence, and who is the most intellectualy honest.
I hope this debate, right here, and elswhere, stands as a shining example of the crippling flaws of how having such a narrow-minded sense of beauty is. I mean, common sense kind of goes against this. I've said it in regards to skin color- Emily and the like really revile anything that isn't nordic white. How likely is it, how much biological sense does it make for humans to have evolved where are preferences exclude about 95% or more of the skin color variation among humans? Not even taking into account a whole host of other physical traits?
A couple of other things. I've said before that, while it seems true at first glance that certain traits among ethnic groups shifted somewhat towards european, particularly nordic ideals are more attractive, this completely acts as if whites and nordics don't have their own ethnic cranio-facial extremities.
I mean, most of this is focused among the nose. To repeat:
"Nordics, and caucasoids as a whole, also have their own ethnic extremities in terms of nasal structure. Caucasoids, regardless of where you go, in spite of the angle of their noses, frequently have thin, long, tall bridged noses. Although nasal length varies considerably in Europe, and is more common among middle eastern populations and the like, this seems to be a trait wholly unrelated to desert or tundra climates and is a very typical expression of extreme caucasoid nasal types. In contrast to heavily flattened noses. But, more research needs to be done in that area. Still doesn't discount whites having their own ethnic nasal extremities. (all the various ethnicities of europe are quite closely related, too, you should know."
Thus, overtly projecting noses could be a universal trait of climates prone to producing caucasoid nasal types. Same for large noses in general. (like the ones often seen among many arab populations) Many europeans also have convex noses (better known as "hook noses"), albeit at a lower frequency than middle eastern, north african, and indian populations, which I think is quite closely linked to certain desert and arid adaptions. But, the overlap is probably just due to gross physical smilarity.
Plus, many europeans, particularly northern europeans, have lightly concave noses (the opposite of a convex/"hook nose", sometimes known as a "scoop" nose), albeit heavily concave ones are a rarity. But I pretty much only see them in whites or ethnic groups with similar nasal structures. That could be treated as an ethnic extremity of whites, and nordics in particular, albeit it's not that well expressed. I've seen noses like these a number of times, though. They've been posted on this site. But I'm not in the mood to go fishing them out. To get a better idea of all this, you'd probably have to look at an index of how nose types correlate with climactic conditions and are best suited to them, and what kinds of extreme features this can produce etc. and see how well implicated this is in human beauty. I don't know of any studies like that, though, but there's enough evidence out there to get a proper picture.
It seems like caucasoid nasal structures are more prone to extremities in the forms of extreme or asymmetrical bridge angles, overt projection and size, and overall extreme angularity of the nose, while the noses of tropical populations and arctic populations (IE, east asians) are more prone to extremities in nasal bridges being too broad, thick, or wide, noses in general being too flat, nostrils being too broad, flared, wide, etc. and noses in general being too thick.
Maybe caucasoids as a whole have fewer ethnic nasal structures than other populations. Considering how we haven't seen the full bulk of human variation expressed, it might not even be nordics or caucasoids who have the least nasal extremities.
It's abit idealistic to act as if all populations have equal amounts of nasal extremities, but it's not an impossibility. With my time in my readings into physical anthropology and beauty and race, I've amassed alot of data and galleries on traits like this, and goddamn if it hasn't broadened my horizons.
As another poster on this site once said, all ethnic groups look better shifted away from their ethnic extremities. Maybe some groups have fewer extreme traits than others, but why would this be a big deal? It'd be a far, far cry from something like Emily's nordic fetishism.
A couple of closing remarks- I will say that certain aspects of facial flatness are, well, really unattractive. Even though east asians have the flattest midfacial profiles, ones with incredibly flat faces are quite uncommon, and while it says the extremity on the primitive side of things is probably frequently disliked, the bulk of it isn't.
Another trait that's been discussed on Erik's "beauty pageants" series called fronto-orbital flatness is implicated in the flat faces of mongoloids, but it shows considerable population variance and I have no idea if it can be rated on a scale of derivation.
There's another primitive trait I've heard to be quite common among caucasoids called "midfacial prognathism", an outward projection of the midface- not related to midfacial flatness, though. It's also apparently common among neanderthals, albeit they didn't follow the linear evolution that lead to humans and went down a different path.
Googling it doesn't turn up much, though. (try it yourself) I'm not sure how valid it is, or how well studied it is, but from what I've seen, it doesn't seem like it can be rated much, if at all, in terms of physical beauty or masculinity.
Also- look up this entry: http://www.femininebeauty.info/eyebrow-aesthetics
It's quite obvious that all facial shapes are prone to extremities. One can point out asians with almost perfectly circular faces, yet then one can point out whites with overtly tall, narrow, or long faces. Better known as the "horse-face" look.
And finally, before I finish, I refreshed the page and saw Emily's desperate little comments about the teeth of asians.
"Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder."
As I've said before, this is probably related to them having a bell curve variation of teeth and mouth sizes that don't well fit each other, but it's incredibly variable, and again and again, large teeth might be a component of masculine beauty. (you can't have feminine women without feminine men) Among other things.
"They even have a name for it?! LOL"
We have names for it too, fool. One is "buck teeth".
"Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow."
That person details how it's strongly related to poor dental care and a disregard of dental care. Which is endemic to many non-american first world nations. Hard to call evolution treating them poorly. You seem to ignore how they mention the awful teeth of the british, too. (closely related to nordics, OH NO.)
Plus, alot of japanese treat that as attractive. I fail to see how that's related to "pedophilia", or any other pathological sexual views you like to pin on people who find asians attractive. Maybe physical ratings of certain aspects of tooth formation is more variable than alot of us believe, but as an american, I'm just fine with my teeth.
Whoa. Japan has very few dentists in proportion to it's population. But look closer.
SWEDEN HAS FEWER DENTISTS PER CAPITA THAN ENGLAND.
Man, that's hilarious. In regards to that, an actual academic citaiton, I seriously doubt Swedes have teeth as good as you lead us to believe. I have good reason to believe that too, considering how depraved you are. That'd be truly remarkable considering how europeans generally have bad teeth. Even if they miraculously do have such great teeth, it'd be largely environmental in origin, as tooth formation is has many non-genetic components.
I fade up with many racist comments on this site. don't you have anything else better to be proud of? rather than the beautiful appearance you have got? and you get it from your parents not from your own abilities? does the people like this being called the superior human?.....this site only makes the idiom "no brains blonde joke comes to truth!" the people like emily, visitor, erik and some people on here should get it? blonds are not more sexually attractive, just more scarce, 5% of all women on our planet. So if 10% of the gentlemen prefer blondes, they have a problem. my dad is sciencetist he told me if the blonde is a healthy characteristic, this world must be full of these people... but it doesn't?.... so please? don't make the overall people feel down with your opinion. I have seen beautiful people people of all ethnicity. when I have got enough time for this, I will scan a pictures of the beautiful non-white women to post on this site.
Godis : I totally agree with you on the picture emily posted asian girl vs. nordic girl.the asian girl is clearly fatter than the nordic girl so her face appeared larger. when I got enough time I will post a pic of some of the beautiful japanese, filipina, thai and black girls on here. anyway, I'm living in netherland. I curious if erik was the dutch because he has got holland as his lastname, but its also possible he would be the irish-american? I'm sure would be sad if he was the dutch.
I don't understand how someone can be so intolerable of other people. Even my blue eyed blonde perfect Nordic friend can admit she has imperfections, and this girl is gorgeous. And she is German, not Scandinavian, but Nordic nonetheless. But of course, these days Germans aren't even Nordic, they have a "dinaric" element, somebody claimed. Pretty soon Emily will claim only Swedes are the true Nordics.
"The girl on the right is hardly representative for Swedes when it comes to teeth as we have extremely good teeth, the one on the left looks like millions of Asians. That's the difference. :)"
Really? She isn't representative of Swedes when it comes to teeth? Well, if she isn't representative of the perfect Swede why did you use her as an example? Why do you cherry pick photos? Do you need one photo to prove Swedes have better teeth, then another to prove they have better heads, then yet another one to prove they have better noses? BTW: This woman already has wrinkles, has an odd bulbous nose, and what appears to be chin acne. Is she representative of Swedes in that way? Do they too have those features? Hmmm... You posted her up because her head was smaller in that photo. Very interesting really. If she isn't representative of Swedes in that way, then don't post her photo up. It is very contradictory. I mean since you are clearly very good at finding photos, and since you claim the average Swede looks the way they look, you should have no problem finding photos of a Swede that is representative of the typical Swede in every way and you should be able to compare them.
"The pedophile argument is a valid one, since it is the truth. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, dear, but that's the way it is. Pubescent, tiny and underdeveloped bodies normally do attract pedophiles who prefer them to adult women with curvy, feminine bodies. That is why white pedophiles flock to Asia. Deny that if you want to, everybody knows it's the truth anyway"
Oh wait wait, the truth doesn't matter to ME? I think that is something you should say to yourself, because Emily, the truth does not matter to you. You see things the way you want to see them, not me. If this theory of yours is "the truth" than why don't you post some facts to back it up. What percentage of pedophiles flock to Asia compared to other countries? Now now make sure these are "pedophiles". You can't claim that any man that likes a grown Asian woman is a pedophile, if you are willing to supply these statistics to back up your argument than you must be sure these are valid pedophiles...
And I find it interesting how the "innocent" look is so prized by Nordic women. Their baby blonde hair and baby blue eyes are sooo innocent. Their light skin and small tiny noses and small little delicate faces, sooo innocent.
Now, that is all a bad thing huh? To have small features? Because Nordic women are perfect. Latin women are VULGAR to you because they are not innocent looking enough(how she comes up with this is beyond me). Asian women are disgusting because they appear too innocent, too much like children. But Nordic women are just perfection.
You know what? Evolution shouldn't even go on. It's over guys! We have perfection! Nordics. We should just wait for the rest of the world to die out. Here is the plan, everybody else in the world stop having kids! Stop it! You are not worthy to have children you have horrible genes! And do not even think about mixing with pure Nordics. You will destroy a perfect line! Now, after everyone dies out Nordics can have Earth all to themselves. Ok? Nordics will also come up with a cure for cancer and aids, and after that everything will be perfect and everyone will be in heaven on Earth! YAY! It's a perfect plan. Perfect...
Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder.
This is one person's account of the teeth of the Japanese, for example;
"Japanese teeth are to Asia as British teeth are to Europe.Braces are very uncommon here and people rarely go to the dentist. Crooked teeth are seen as cute here, and the Western version of crooked teeth has nothing on the Japanese version of crooked teeth. You know the shark exhibits they have in aquariums? You know how sharks have two or three rows of teeth behind their regular teeth? Yes, you do. In Japan, wildly crooked teeth, especially when the front teeth overlap or when there's an extra tooth or two growing out of the upper gums, are called Yaeba.
They even have a name for it?! LOL
Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow.
The sad thing is that these photos are representative for asians, they are not the exceptions. Their teeth very often really are bad. When you need to invent a word for bad teeth you really have some problems, I think.
And the worst part is the fact that asian women know this and deliberately play on that. The Lolita look is heavily promoted and used, and for a reason. I have no respect for people who try to draw the attention of these sick men, just so they can make money.
They are encouraging sick behaviour in a calculating manner, and it incredibly common in Asia. The net is flooded by that kind of photos, geared at men who want pre-pubescent or pubescent girls. No wonder the pedophiles go to Asia in search of these girls. They practically invite them in.
to say black gene is prominent is wrong.
look at this celebrity, rashida jone. she looks fully white as much as the other asian biracial I have posted.
and look at peggy jones ( the white mom of rashida, when she was young) rashida looks like her white mom than her black dad?
white Mom.
the other beautiful black women.
src="/sites/default/files/imagepicker/others//3791987834_0a5910cbb4_o_1.jpg" alt="Image" />
the one with board nose looks attractive as well. at least, I sure she looks better than many racist people on this site.
beautiful somalian
beautiful somalian women.
Yeah, I have to go now. I can't find anything about Carolyn Kaufman and a study on eye color outside of that article being reposted and quoted. I did find this, though: http://www.colormatters.com/BBArchive/bubdarc3-vision.html#Anchor-Does-35326
"Mary
The eye color can change depending on the light. For example, yellow light can make blue eyes look green. Since the quality of light changes throughout the day, ones eye color may appear to change."
From a huge site on color perception.
I myself have light brown eyes. I've never cared much about that, although I would prefer to have dark green eyes, or perhaps some kind of exotic color.
Really, look up colored contact lenses and their appeal. Eye color preferences seem extremely broad as well, with factors such as exociticism coming into play, heterochromia, multicolored eyes etc. The more I think of it, and look into it, the more that article seemed to be quoting a meager opinion piece from just one evolutionary psychologist.
Like I said, to me, the pupil shows greater contrast on grey eyes.
And from here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/self-esteem
"Submitted by Erik on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:20.
Mogs: Brown eyes appear warmer than blue eyes, solely because of the coloring. Artists will agree as they are better tuned to warmer vs. cooler colors, and this is the right way of looking at the issue than soft vs. hard. You are correct that the best way to compare eye colors is to match the women for femininity/shape or else there is a major bias."
In the words of Erik. I'd say he's more qualified what with his sizable archive of realistic feminine art subject, albeit I find that stuff so gaudy. But, I don't think brown eyes are inherently "warmer". I don't think theres any innate preference for any eye color.
I mean, some of these colors don't even appear in humans, yet I'd be deeply drawn to some of them if I were to see someone sporting them:
http://photos.weddingbycolor.com/p/000/007/487/m/33833/p/thumbnail/101302.jpg
(these ones look very artificial, though)
http://www.uneekdesignz.com/images/contacts2.jpg
https://www.coastalcontacts.com/imageresources/product/pro_97166s.gif
Maybe you're right. I've called Emily many names, too, though. She just exhibits an extremism that unbelievably revolts me, that makes me feel as though a person who says such monsterous things about people outside of her ethnic group deserves little respect. Well, they don't, but I guess that is going abit too far. I've gotten to the point where I almost find Emily comical.
Still, when it comes to debate, this is something I probably do need to work on. I just find it hard to carry on such a bland and erudite tone at times, especially when confronted with things like this. Emily should expect to be "ganged up on" when she's attacking so many billions of people.
I don't know if I want to say sorry, or even if I should, and I don't know if I should feel guilt either. I'll refrain from extreme personal attacks like that from now on, though. If she does return.
In regards to your questions-
1) Yes, I'm male, I've said that today when Barbarella asked me if I'm white and hysterically claimed I hate whites.
2) It's just the way I am to a degree, but it's helpful to be well read on the literature on these subjects.
3) In regards to wooly hair, or whatever you'd like to term, it's quite relative. I mean, wooly hair is an extreme tropical adaption, and unlike the straight hair seen amongst europeans, asians etc. it grows outward and not downward. Hair that grows out is considered near-universally attractive, but the key here is growing OUT. I don't know of many anthropological studies on preferences in hair structure, but I pointed out some links showing the unbelievable diversity and variation amongst indigenous african hair styles. They're flat out alien to the ones you typically see among cold-adapted populations. I think it's just common sense that hair structure is probably the most relativistic aspect of human beauty.
In terms of form, in contrasting straight hair and wooly hair, I don't see how, at all, this can have an objective component.
When you mention eyes, what you say about "blue eyes" being more evolved reminds me of something. Non-human primates have dark sceleras, in contrast to the white ones of humans, and this is thought to be an aspect of human evolution, allowing us to pick up better on social cues- IE, the eyes contrasting better with the scelera.
And lighter eyes, with blue eyes especially it seems, the pupil contrasts more greatly with the iris. The pupil is black. The light eye is, er, lighter.
I get it from here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/10/17/dont_it_make_my_blue_eyes_brown/
"But even as blue eyes give way to brown, lighter eyes will maintain a certain allure, said Carolyn Kaufman, who teaches evolutionary psychology at Otterbein College in Ohio. When people see something pleasurable, their eyes dilate, Kaufman said. Dilated pupils signal happiness and are, in turn, considered attractive. Since they are easier to see on lighter eyes, they have a natural appeal."
This idea has some big flaws, though. This ignores how lighting conditions can strongly effect the apperance of the pupil and iris, it's coloration and contrasts etc. and thus, different eye colors will look better under different conditions. Plus, the anthropological and psychological evidence indicates a huge variance in preference for eye color, not to mention how people will have strongly variable preferences in how the presence of the iris factors into their perceptions of beauty.
Besides, in regards to that study, wouldn't it be light blue eyes that show the greatest contrast to the pupils? Hell, I think grey eyes show the greatest contrast.
Like I said, I prefer dark green eyes and this idea never really came up to me. It seems deeply faulty when you consider things like light conditions, individual preferences, this study's narrow perception etc.
But that doesn't make blue eyes "more evolved". Under that narrow line of thinking, it's the dark sceleras of primates that set them apart, not their general eye color.
I can't find the study anywhere either- it might just be an opinion piece from that one evolutionary psychologist.
"I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?"
Not really. What do you really mean by evolutionarily superior? How many great scientists, white or otherwise, were deeply attractive and thus represnted an innate sexual allure? Even now?
Physical traits are incredibly shallow, but they have much significance for the world due to our psychological wiring.
4) Yes.
JudgetoBeauty:
That is horrible to say about Christina. I understand how you may think she looks a bit matronly. This is largely due to her weight. When Christina is at a more feminine weight, she will look even curvier (smaller waist) and her breasts won't appear so large and matronly, but they will still appear large compared to her body in general. This is attractive. Yes, she can probably benefit from a slight breast reduction, although breasts are feminine, there is a certain point where they become unattractive if they are extremely large especially compared to the body. Hyperfemininity is unattractive. However, overall Christina is very attractive and doesn't need much to help her looks except perhaps some weight loss and maybe a breast reduction. Her nose too isn't perfect and slightly robust in a sense, it just slightly deviates from ideal. Her face also isn't extremely feminine, or perhaps even above average in regards to femininity. But that doesn't matter because overall Christina is extremely attractive and I feel she has a certain unique beauty few women have.
VioletCorpus:
First of all I want to say something about this:
"You're an awful person, Emily"
I too have called Emily a terrible person. I now really regret it. I feel this is probably the worst insult. We are attacking Emily's character. I feel it is just to do so because Emily has said some horrible things about individuals and whole populations. She has also criticized more than my looks on here. However, I just feel that saying she is a horrible person is pretty bad too. I'm not trying to lecture you, I just don't want you to regret it like I do. I have said it multiple times recently and for some reason I feel this strong guilt about it. =I actually think that Emily isn't really a horrible person. She just ACTS that way on here for whatever reason. I don't understand Emily but I feel I should still be sympathetic to her in some ways. I understand her anger for example about how white people cannot say anything negative about other races. I agree to a certain extent. So Emily has some GOOD points sometimes. I am not standing up for her, I don't even know why I am writing this. Maybe I feel that everyone gangs up on Emily and I feel somewhat guilty for that because I have done it soo much. I don't know. But she does resort to personal attacks more than any of us do. That is just a fact and it makes her appear like a hippocrite for criticizing others for doing it.
Either way, I have more questions for you:
1)Are you a male or female? Don't feel obliged to answer but I'm curious. For some reason I keep getting the impression you are a male. I don't know why. I don't think your personality or writing style is masculine, I just for some reason read everything you write as if it is coming from a male. See I can easily tell Emily is female, because she is so CATTY! And no male would argue: YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!!! over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
2) How do you write and argue so well? How did you learn it? If anyone on here can inspire me to improve (dramatically) my writing and argument skills it would be you. I am impressed by you!
3) I believe I read that woolly hair is one of your preferences or likes on people. This is not attractive to the general European population from my understanding, and not even to Westernized Africans (African Americans). I can't say anything for Africans not exposed to the Western world. I know I just have made some claims without any scientific facts to back it up. However, this is my impression. Is this your natural preference or has some social experience or a certain person inspired this? I am just curious. Also, do you think that if a large population or say 3/4 of the world believes some feature is beautiful, does that mean it is automatically an evolutionary advantage? For example, most people probably do like blue eyes over brown. I personally don't care THAT much for blue eyes. But, for some reasons Europeans and even non-Europeans love them. Do you think blue eyed people have more evolved eyes for example or evolved in general? I personally don't believe this, but I am wondering what you think about universally admired features and what that means.
I mean, I realize this may seem like a stupid question, but I want to know your opinion. Is a feature superior evolutionarily speaking just because it is adored by the majority? What do you think?
4)Do you read a lot?
Perhaps I was wrong about epicanthic folds being present only in down's snydrome sufferer's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold#Medical
Still doesn't change how it's a broad neotenic trait not indicative of evolutionary advancement, and how one can find many ethnic traits to be present in certain genetic disorders.
I mean come on, this is the stuff of early physican anthropologists.
I also wonder if Erik will criticize her. Maybe he's too busy penning more screeds on the pathologies of homosexuals, with extensive scientific writings on enemas and homosexual literary terms, or reading up on the latest racialist literature, or hounding porn sites for bland women he thinks are universally considered gorgeous, or catching up on the latest developments in the search for 9/11 Truth.
Oh, hey, Emily. Since whites age so much faster compared to other races, maybe I can compare them to people with progeria. You know, that genetic disorder that makes people age extraordinarily early and fast, both biologically and physically. It also makes their noses develop extremely quickly and project outward more, kind of like caucasoids. See: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=progeria&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&start=0
Or, maybe I can compare them to albinos.
Something's wrong with whites, I believe.
Wait, no, I don't believe this. Because I can recognize largely transient physical traits when I see them and don't make broad sweeping judgements of value about them or some depraved shit like implicating the similarity of this one genetic disorder to some ethnic traits as indicative of their "evolutionary advancement".
That's because I'm intellectualy honest, consistent, have a decent understanding of anthropology, and have a good sense of empathy and an appreciation of a common humanity.
You don't seem to have any of those.
"You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile."
I guess the physical anthropologists are delusional, too.
"They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking."
That's because you're a sick little girl who reviles the idea of her tiny little subrace being at the center of everything. Emily, there's about 15,000+ genetic disorders that exist among humans. How did just a few physical traits sometimes present in one genetic disorder become so prevalent among them? Tell me how. Please, tell me how.
"They are androgynous,"
The men to a large degree, yes. But basic laws of inheritance requires a generally feminine man to create a feminine woman. This is basic stuff.
"unfeminine and unmasculine,"
These are both two polar opposite traits. And then you go back and forth calling them hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine or whatever. Make up your fucking mind.
" tiny, underdeveloped, "
You exagerate it, and it's a transient physical trait.
Oh, you don't need to get it through your head. You continue to show how desperate and hateful and twisted you are. You're fun.
"have huge and coarse heads"
Body size to head size. Also, what do you mean by "coarse"?
"unappealing eyes,"
They had no problem with that prior to substantial western contact. Show me any evidence that suggests they've always reviled their eyes, or they all get extreme eyelid reductions.
" puffy and huge cheeks,"
Head to body size, again. Maybe they do have excess fat in their cheeks, but whites also lose their facial fat much earlier than east asians, contributing to earlier wrinkling and more severe wrinkling.
But hey, I'm sane and unbiased enough to recognize these are heavily transient physical traits. You aren't in the least.
"flat profiles,"
Only in extremities, and those aren't anywhere near as common as you want to believe.
"teeth that don't fit their jaws"
Strongly related to transient factors and non-genetic ones. Hey Emily, can you back to me up on the teeth of the Swedes again? How can they be so perfect when they have fewer doctors than England?
"eyes they cannot see with properly,"
Still no proof of this batshit assertion.
"and just generally look like an experiment gone bad."
Hear that everybody? Emily thinks asians look like "experiments gone bad." Man, that's sure not hateful or hideously biased or spiteful or misanthropic in the least. Right Barbarella?
"They are horribly unattractive."
Your opinion. Go swoon over the tanned mannequins from night clubs you think are the pinnacle of human beauty and evolution some more.
...No, I don't think nordics look like tanned mannequins. That's just what some of the ones Emily likes to pass off as shining examples of nordic beauty look like TO ME, though.
"Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed."
What's so deformed about them, Emily? I've gone over extensiveley how humans have became profoundly less physically adept and developed throughout our evolution, and look grossly "deformed" compared to other primates.
This is such basic evolutionary science, Emily. And rememeber that the presence of epicanthic folds is a very broad neotenic trait and cannot be rated on a true scale of evolution or derivation.
"They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not."
Not all sufferers of downs syndrome have epicanthic folds, and they, the vast majority of the time, are only small epicanthic folds.
Why are a few of the traits present sometime in sufferers of just one genetic disorder of such significance to you? How do these become a common trait in about 2 billion people worldwide?
This sounds alot like what primitive psychologists and scientists said about downs syndrome patients about a century ago- they looked that way because they had "mongol genes", because the mongolians of the middle ages were such a destructive people.
Of course, that's a ridiculous, primitive belief. But you sure sound alot like them.
"Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.
Refined and gracile? I think not."
Again, tell that to basic evolutionary science. Or make up your mind. Or tell us why nordic men aren't so feminine if their men are. I don't know.
And now we have 2 relatively low quality photos of what seem to be people in a crowd in Korea making a whole variety of facial expressions. Wow, wonderful evidence.
This is Emily, everybody. When her ideology of nordic fetishism is torn apart, she'll break down and start spewing bile that sounds like something out of Stormfront or a white nationalist or a white supremacist forum. She has nothing to show for herself. Nothing but her own interpretations of photos. No consistency. No intellectual honesty. No scientific or anthropological evidence.
Just an insane little girl who hates almost everyone outside of her tiny little subrace.
But, what someone still defend her?
You're an awful person, Emily.
"It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races."
You are delusional. Asians are not refined and gracile. They typically look like Down's syndrome patients, and I am convinced there is something utterly wrong with that race, evolutionally and physically speaking.
They are androgynous, unfeminine and unmasculine, tiny, underdeveloped, have huge and coarse heads with unappealing eyes, puffy and huge cheeks, flat profiles, teeth that don't fit their jaws, eyes they cannot see with properly, and just generally look like an experiment gone bad.
They are horribly unattractive. Femininity, gracility and refinement are words you cannot use on a race that in evolutionary terms looks almost deformed. They look like whites who have a disease that arrests the development and disfigures the face. Coincidence? I think not. Mongoloids are the most undeveloped of races.
Refined and gracile? I think not.
Your comments sound pretty "nazi" in regards to whites, "I'm nont annoymous."
Your comments sound pretty "nazi" in regards to whites, "I'm nont annoymous."
to I'm a racist : you sounded very moron, by the way....how old are you? go to die, huh? the small group people like you are not deserve for this world. -the majority of people in this earth has got black hair and brown eyes. the blonde people are the mutation just get it in your stupid head. I don't care if the white race is going to be death... let the nature decide it? and for the people who posted a pic of african woman with the large boooty vs. african-american celebrity. you are stupid, those africans are cool they could adapt their bodies to stay in such a cruel environment unlike you going to be rotten and die on the chair behind the pc. I hate the nazi people like you.
Ok. I can't pass this one up.
Emily in regards to Reon:
"Reon again..nice fake breasts lol She is so classy, isn't she? Work that pubescent body with the fake tits, baby."
Man, Emily sure does have an objective, scientific, and honest mind going for her.
You can just refer back to my writings on the transience and relativity of body structure.
Plus, even though I agree Reon's body isn't very good, I think she has a great face.
Princess Haya of Dubei.
Thai celebrity.
Indian celebrity karisma kapoor.
Indian.
Indian girl.
Black biracial.
Uzbek
Thai-Dutch biracial ( the one with blonde hair on the left)
Dutch-Thai biracial.
Oh, one last thing:
An ethnic trait can be best defined as a continuum of physical traits that follow a distribution in proportion to population averages. A population that averages unattractive, ethnic nose types, for example, are merely on the poor end of their range of regular ethnic variation.
That's also very well illustrated by facial shape, again.
To put it simply, you can't just look at one ethnic group with good average facial features and proclaim these are "proper ethnic traits".
Barbarella"
"Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue."
Pray tell, what makes it so self-aggradizing and insufferable?
"You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable."
I'll admit that yes, Emily angers me. But why shouldn't I be? This site is a rarity. It's one of the most cohesive and extensive analysis of the evolution of human female beauty, it's objective correlates, and examination of population variance in cranio-facial structures that contribute to human beauty. Considering how this so heavily intersects with identity politics and the nature-nurture debate, it's of great interest. But, there's still consdiderable flaws with it, and not enough clarification in many regards. It's a subject that doesn't have enough proper study, especially in Erik's delineation of women in modern fashion and beauty pageants. (albeit I think his taste in "feminine women" is poor.)
The fact there's an extremist like Emily vomiting up her ultra-elitist nordic fetishism in site with so much grey area is significant.
Plus, I think it also begs the question of Emily's mental stability on how she's so hilariously desperate to prove the perfection and idealism of the women of her tiny little ethnic group, and shit all over billions upon billions of other people worldwide, who she will never meet, without any real evidence to back her up- outside of her photos of swedish women from night clubs, many of them with tans, many of them with bad tans, whom she happens to think attractive, and posting these photos over and over and over again, and...
Goddamn. Hasn't this been shown well enough? Even Erik, who's been very suspiciously silent on Emily, has criticized this.
"Whether whites hold a "primitive" trait that adds to masculinity, doesn't mean much when overall, they are still by far more refined, and thus more feminine."
Um, yeah, it is. Protuding, prominent, rugged browridges are a virtually universal correlate of masculinity. They have more refined facial features in most other areas than say, black africans or australian aborigines, but certainly not compared to east asians.
It's a very commonly accepted aspect of phyiscal anthropology that east asians, in cranio-facial terms, ARE more refined and gracile than most other races. See this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Features
If whites were so much more feminine, why aren't white men, by proxy, more feminine as well? To produce women, you must have feminine looking men. It's a very basic aspect of inheritance, here.
Oops, I mean, Nordic whites, the pinnacle of human beauty and femininity, unlike those manly slavs and romanians.
"Picking apart the facial bones of persons of different ethnicities to try to dispell things that anyone with eyes can see is a waste of your time and everyone else's."
Um. Many people unaware of physical anthropology terms and population variance in such traits aren't going to be aware of the underpinnings of alot of these traits. How many lay men are that familiar with things like midfacial flatness? The more I've read into this subject, the more aware I've become of these traits among humans.
I've become more aware that yes indeed, whites have bigger browridges than east asians and unmixed blacks. That's what a mountain of physical anthropological evidence says. And someone with eyes.
"And all this just to "trash" Emily."
No, to show how hilariously wrong someone spreading gross scientific misinformation and injecting her own nationalist politics and crude ideals of racial purity into a poorly explored area of scientific inquiry.
"While Emily states her opinions, perhaps she's more of an artistic, visual or literary type and prefers to state her comments using photos that are very easy to interpret, as opposed to scientific articles that may be interpreted differently by whomever is reading them, just as her photos are interpreted differently by different people."
Um. What the hell is this? You're saying casual photos are more concrete than indepth scientific articles published by real physical anthropologists, who also adhere to the idea physical traits implicated in derivations from more primitive forms? But then you say her photos can be "interpreted differently by different people." Like the physical anthropology articles.
Ok. That's kind of really stupid and contradictory. But whatever.
"Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation."
Yeah, they do, and there's a near-consensus on what constitutes derived traits among humans. How implicated many of them are in feminine beauty is a matter of debate- I mean, some of them, like browridge size/protrusion and infraglabbelar notch depth, have strong consensus- but from what I can tell, most of them are neutral. These aren't just "my interepretations"- they are literally what the evidence says. I quote and agree with Erik in many regards. I often quote and show much of the information on his webpage.
But wait, maybe it really is my own opinions that protruding browridges are a universally masculine trait.
"You are doing the same thing you accuse her of doing: trying to convince people that your opinion, based on your presented information (in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret) is absolute and RIGHT"
Um, no, it's called informed debate. I'm showing what the scientific evidence really says and how grossly wrong she is on so many things. Emily has tried to defend her trash many times by saying that this an objective site devoted to feminine beauty, and that her thinking falls in line with it. She's trying to debate herself. Even though her evidence is atrocious, inane, scientifically unsound, and her attitude and outlook towards it is morally bankrupt. What's wrong with trying to show someone, and many other observers and commentators that this is false?
If she finds nordic women the most attractive, that's all fine and well, but it's a completely different matter when she shoves this down everyone else's throat.
"(in your case literature as opposed to photos, more difficult for some to interpret)"
Yeah. Some. This literature being concrete examinations of physical and psychological underpinnings of female beauty. As opposed to lots and lots of casual photos that get reposted all the time with the same moronic thinking.
Since you love photos so much, though, let me try it. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of it, but broad neoteny is inapplicable to a full-scale assessment of human beauty, and some cranio-facial traits are implicated in gracility in the least. An example of this would be jaw size and cheekbone size. To give you an idea, look at all of these japanese women:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7674/1163491889240ef6.jpg
(the inclusion of Donald Rumsfeld is obviously a joke)
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7223/1234053310634.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/696/1234056469553.jpg
I don't think all of these women are particularly attractive, or highly feminine, and I also notice alot of crowded teeth amongst them. But can you, with all honesty, say that they look "masculine" or "primitive" with their large jaws and cheekbones? Would they took better with them?
Plus, alot of them have typical asian looking noses, and most of them look fine with them.
"and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!!"
I never said this. I said Emily is like this because of her extreme views, which are incredibly baseless, and her attitude and outlook on these things is deplorable.
"And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me."
I never said I was an expert on hair. Isn't it self-evident that hair structure and style are perhaps the most relativistic aspects of human beauty? Well, maybe not to a nordic fetishist like Emily who reviles anything not blonde or red. But are you now? Do tell me why all these african women are sporting such bizzare, incredibly varied, and, in comparison to european hair styles, truly alien. Even when they lengthen their hair in a downward manner, why is it virtually always in the forms of complex and strange braids and dreadlocks? Why aren't they fashioning their hair to be less wooly, in fact? Why aren't they using artificial dyes and colors to make them blonde or approaching typical nordic hair colors?
In regards to that last tidbit, how many non-western cultures can you name that have ever done this?
I myself can't.
"If you're white, V.C., I'd be shocked. You have such a vehement hatred of them, taking all this time to cite countless sources on why white women are inferior to women of other races."
lmfao, get a goddamn grip. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER SAID white women are grossly inferior, or inferior at all, to women of other races. All I've been pointing out is how foolish it is to treat nordic women as the incomparable ideal female beauty. I wouldn't be going on and admitting- which SOMEONE CAN EYES WITH SEE!!!- that black women are much more masculine, on average, than white women, that the greater femininity of east asians makes them more prone to unattractive forms of hyper-femininity etc. But the difference here is that I recognize some very basic things:
-Most of the variation in facial feminity is due to testosterone differences, which is a largely transient trait.
-Much of the variation in below the neck feminity is also due to heavily transient physical traits, and is of considerably more subjectivity than above the neck traits.
Emily doesn't seem to recognize this in the least, despite how it's essentialy been bored into her skull by now with how much its shown and emphasized and backed up.
Oh, and yes, horrors of horrors, I'm white. I'm american. I'm of northern and western european descent. I just happen not to be disgustingly narrow and close minded and let my nationalistic politics cloud my judgement. We all have our personal reservations in debates like these, but some people are obviously more pronounced than others.
"I can't remember if you'd ever stated your ethnic background, your comments are endless, and at times, pointless, so forgive me for glossing over them."
I think I have. I don't remember. I don't see how my comments are "pointless" when Emily finds the time to come back to this site and stir up a shitstorm with the same repetitive and faulty reasoning every chance she gets, and how you and her constantly argue with Godis about far more trivial matters.
On another note, I honestly prefer east asian women to white women, at the moment. Not wholly in terms of averages, though. I don't have indexes or extensive experience to come up with a good picture of what a typical east asian woman looks like. But, say, in terms of comparisons of "attractive" white women to "attractive" east asian women, I find east asian women to be much, much more attractive. (for example, I find very few of the "attractive women" Erik parades around on this site to be, um, attractive.) I personally find most white women to be very plain or average. And I live in a majority white area.
But, these are just my opinions. I believe some of it's objective, though, such as the greater facial feminity of east asian women and their much smaller brow ridges, but I don't think of this as much importance because it, again, is largely related to testosterone, and correcting for such a difference would leave white men worse off.
I also don't have much of a marked preference, but I think black hair and reddish-brown or strawberry blonde hair is the most attractive. I also like dark green eyes the most.
That brings to mind how I, awhile back, remarked on how the extraordinarly high frequency of light hair among dark-skinned aborigines and melanesians is shining proof of how light hair won't "die out" due to race mixing and how it's probably due to their alleles for light hair being much different.
Yet, even though the light hair alleles seen among white, middle easterners, north africans, central asians etc. seems to be relatively easily diluted by even moderately dark skin, I falsely implicated light eyes with that as well.
I was wrong. I've seen far too many dark skinned american blacks and dark skinned south asians with light eyes for this to be true. Light eyes will never die out with the wonders of genetic engineering. Eye color is probably one of the easiest traits to propogate amongst humans with genetic engineering.
And yet the racial nationalists like Emily, who think they know genetics, seem to overlook this all too easily.
One other thing- I've defended whites. I've pointed out how people who knock on whites for aging poorly compared to other races don't realize this is largely unrelated to skin color and due to a whole host of other variable genetic factors. (note how well east asians age compared to whites, in spite of often similarly colored average skin tone and lower testosterone levels.) Or how excess body hair among whites is considerably related to testosterone, that variable trait again, and can also be an aspect of masculine beauty.
"For the record, and Blonde, Swedish Emily knows this, I don't agree with every single point proposed by her. It's just that I don't take it personal when someone has a different point of view."
I don't either, but I get offended when I see extremism. Don't you?
"I see other races saying offensive things about whites, the same type of things Emily says about them, but it's not a big deal, no one gets unnerved by this, it's perfectly acceptable."
Stop exagerating things. Read my comments to you and Emily's sickening hypocrisy on the Maria McBane article, for example. There's been non-whites that have said things just as bad as Emily, but not a single one on this site has been so extensive in their vitriolic views as her. Nobody else comes close.
"Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women."
Nothing I've said states white women are "insurmountably inferior". That's an extreme position, extreme like Emily. But oh, you're getting offended by extremism! But isn't that just people STATING THEIR OPINIONS, in your view?
"Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously."
In face of everything I've said, it's pure gold you'd say I'm like this. Read more carefully, unless you really think I like offending whites.
"Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass."
After distorting me so hilariously, you'll go around and defend Emily's extreme reluctance to admit the flaws of nordics/whites, admit ethnic extremities among nordics/whites, and endlessly trash on non-white and non-nordic women without even remotely decent evidence, without a shred of intellectual honesty, or human decency, or...
I'm getting abit tired of repeating how awful Emily is and how disgusting it is for you to defend her views and try to pass them off as "sound". In face of all this, I don't even think there's anywhere in the human body that can fit your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness.
"These comments just get more stalker-like,"
What do you call you and Emily's debates with Godis, again?
"I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC."
I don't think so. I don't think I'll ever change Emily's mind. I think my comments serve better as educational to people reading into this subject. It also works as good intellectual exercise.
"You are trying SO HARD to convince me and everyone else that, "No, these Nordics ARE NOT more feminine, see, look at ALL these articles!!""
I never said that the nordic women you're constantly waving around "aren't feminine". I'm just saying that...
Ok, not repeating myself.
"OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive."
Ok. Maybe alot of the nordic women you and Emily spam are highly feminine. Maybe you two have different standards of femininity. Whatever. I find few of them appealing. The thing is that, we're now going into relativism. Female beauty has many objective components, but, it's still quite broad in many areas, and is open to different perceptions based on one's own personal tastes. The point still stands that in general cranio-facial structure... white women aren't as feminine as east asian women.
"Many detractors have come here and tried to convince Erik, Emily and now myself that what we see and interpret as attractive is somehow askew and should be re-evaluated"
AGAIN. Erik's evidence and theories presented DO NOT support Emily's nordic fetishism and your narrow, though not as extreme, perceptions of female beauty. I got alot of that data on brow ridge size from this site. I quoted Erik directly saying that black african women generally have much more feminine structures around the orbits than other populations, yet features below that are, on average, heavily masculine. Erik is pretty nutty, but his views are very doubtful as extreme as Emily's, in spite of he's been incredibly silent, and in ways very positive about her.
Even though I do agree with many of Erik's ideas, I see many of them as flawed- his ideas of the strength of sexual selection and how this implicates in the beauty of nordics, his inconcistency to admit the high femininity of white/nordic women would mean white/nordic men are also highly feminine, his ranking of nasal structure on a scale of derivation, him implicating general jaw and cheekbone size in femininity. Things like that. I've elaborated well enough on many of these.
"because it dares not be PC."
I love how PC is so frequently invoked by all sorts of non-liberal extremists and many regular conservatives to act as if they're the ones truly persecuted for sometimes saying something unbelievably false, basless, or insulting to one's very humanity.
I'm not a liberal. I'm incredibly open minded politically and philosophically. I know what real "political correctness" and extreme cultural sensitivity looks like. I despise cultural relativism/multiculturalism. But goddamn it all if I'm not tired of people like YOU sweeping criticisms of your extreme beliefs as "PC", as if YOU'RE the ones really under attack.
"Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain)."
How am I pseudo-intellectual? I find Erik's incredibly monotonous and overtly erudite tone to be pseudo-intellectual in ways. And boring.
"For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them."
That's really funny, because I've been citing alot that do support him.
"Anthropology, and it's data, is debated and re-evaluated on a regular basis. What you are presenting here is not earth shattering or ground breaking, they are merely articles that support your opinions."
Not gonna go over the objective consensus on many forms of facial femininity and derivation again.
"Your excessive foul language is symptomatic of your emotional outrage and is the fuel for all of these incessant counter arguments. This is not evident of a scientific mind, but of a disturbed one."
Oh no! I swear at people who act like scumbags! I show emotion in some of my posts! (wait, who doesn't here?) I'm obviously a disturbed mind compared to Emily.
Ugh.
I just looked over Emily's comments. My god, I've never seen her this desperate.
I ask anyone with even a shred of scientific, political, philosophical, whatever objectivity to look at all of my comments, the various other more informed detractors of the nordic fetishist outlook, and compare it to... Emily. Emily's still ranting on about the deformed bodies of asians and calling epicanthic folds an "unevolved" trait and the same tired crap over and over again.
Look at them and tell me with all honesty who has the best evidence, and who is the most intellectualy honest.
I hope this debate, right here, and elswhere, stands as a shining example of the crippling flaws of how having such a narrow-minded sense of beauty is. I mean, common sense kind of goes against this. I've said it in regards to skin color- Emily and the like really revile anything that isn't nordic white. How likely is it, how much biological sense does it make for humans to have evolved where are preferences exclude about 95% or more of the skin color variation among humans? Not even taking into account a whole host of other physical traits?
A couple of other things. I've said before that, while it seems true at first glance that certain traits among ethnic groups shifted somewhat towards european, particularly nordic ideals are more attractive, this completely acts as if whites and nordics don't have their own ethnic cranio-facial extremities.
I mean, most of this is focused among the nose. To repeat:
"Nordics, and caucasoids as a whole, also have their own ethnic extremities in terms of nasal structure. Caucasoids, regardless of where you go, in spite of the angle of their noses, frequently have thin, long, tall bridged noses. Although nasal length varies considerably in Europe, and is more common among middle eastern populations and the like, this seems to be a trait wholly unrelated to desert or tundra climates and is a very typical expression of extreme caucasoid nasal types. In contrast to heavily flattened noses. But, more research needs to be done in that area. Still doesn't discount whites having their own ethnic nasal extremities. (all the various ethnicities of europe are quite closely related, too, you should know."
Thus, overtly projecting noses could be a universal trait of climates prone to producing caucasoid nasal types. Same for large noses in general. (like the ones often seen among many arab populations) Many europeans also have convex noses (better known as "hook noses"), albeit at a lower frequency than middle eastern, north african, and indian populations, which I think is quite closely linked to certain desert and arid adaptions. But, the overlap is probably just due to gross physical smilarity.
Plus, many europeans, particularly northern europeans, have lightly concave noses (the opposite of a convex/"hook nose", sometimes known as a "scoop" nose), albeit heavily concave ones are a rarity. But I pretty much only see them in whites or ethnic groups with similar nasal structures. That could be treated as an ethnic extremity of whites, and nordics in particular, albeit it's not that well expressed. I've seen noses like these a number of times, though. They've been posted on this site. But I'm not in the mood to go fishing them out. To get a better idea of all this, you'd probably have to look at an index of how nose types correlate with climactic conditions and are best suited to them, and what kinds of extreme features this can produce etc. and see how well implicated this is in human beauty. I don't know of any studies like that, though, but there's enough evidence out there to get a proper picture.
It seems like caucasoid nasal structures are more prone to extremities in the forms of extreme or asymmetrical bridge angles, overt projection and size, and overall extreme angularity of the nose, while the noses of tropical populations and arctic populations (IE, east asians) are more prone to extremities in nasal bridges being too broad, thick, or wide, noses in general being too flat, nostrils being too broad, flared, wide, etc. and noses in general being too thick.
Maybe caucasoids as a whole have fewer ethnic nasal structures than other populations. Considering how we haven't seen the full bulk of human variation expressed, it might not even be nordics or caucasoids who have the least nasal extremities.
It's abit idealistic to act as if all populations have equal amounts of nasal extremities, but it's not an impossibility. With my time in my readings into physical anthropology and beauty and race, I've amassed alot of data and galleries on traits like this, and goddamn if it hasn't broadened my horizons.
As another poster on this site once said, all ethnic groups look better shifted away from their ethnic extremities. Maybe some groups have fewer extreme traits than others, but why would this be a big deal? It'd be a far, far cry from something like Emily's nordic fetishism.
A couple of closing remarks- I will say that certain aspects of facial flatness are, well, really unattractive. Even though east asians have the flattest midfacial profiles, ones with incredibly flat faces are quite uncommon, and while it says the extremity on the primitive side of things is probably frequently disliked, the bulk of it isn't.
Another trait that's been discussed on Erik's "beauty pageants" series called fronto-orbital flatness is implicated in the flat faces of mongoloids, but it shows considerable population variance and I have no idea if it can be rated on a scale of derivation.
There's another primitive trait I've heard to be quite common among caucasoids called "midfacial prognathism", an outward projection of the midface- not related to midfacial flatness, though. It's also apparently common among neanderthals, albeit they didn't follow the linear evolution that lead to humans and went down a different path.
Googling it doesn't turn up much, though. (try it yourself) I'm not sure how valid it is, or how well studied it is, but from what I've seen, it doesn't seem like it can be rated much, if at all, in terms of physical beauty or masculinity.
Also- look up this entry: http://www.femininebeauty.info/eyebrow-aesthetics
It's quite obvious that all facial shapes are prone to extremities. One can point out asians with almost perfectly circular faces, yet then one can point out whites with overtly tall, narrow, or long faces. Better known as the "horse-face" look.
And finally, before I finish, I refreshed the page and saw Emily's desperate little comments about the teeth of asians.
"Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder."
As I've said before, this is probably related to them having a bell curve variation of teeth and mouth sizes that don't well fit each other, but it's incredibly variable, and again and again, large teeth might be a component of masculine beauty. (you can't have feminine women without feminine men) Among other things.
"They even have a name for it?! LOL"
We have names for it too, fool. One is "buck teeth".
"Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow."
That person details how it's strongly related to poor dental care and a disregard of dental care. Which is endemic to many non-american first world nations. Hard to call evolution treating them poorly. You seem to ignore how they mention the awful teeth of the british, too. (closely related to nordics, OH NO.)
Plus, alot of japanese treat that as attractive. I fail to see how that's related to "pedophilia", or any other pathological sexual views you like to pin on people who find asians attractive. Maybe physical ratings of certain aspects of tooth formation is more variable than alot of us believe, but as an american, I'm just fine with my teeth.
Oh, this is really telling too: http://gabuchan.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/dentist-in-japan/
People per dentist by country: http://gabuchan.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/dentist-chart-japan.jpg
Whoa. Japan has very few dentists in proportion to it's population. But look closer.
SWEDEN HAS FEWER DENTISTS PER CAPITA THAN ENGLAND.
Man, that's hilarious. In regards to that, an actual academic citaiton, I seriously doubt Swedes have teeth as good as you lead us to believe. I have good reason to believe that too, considering how depraved you are. That'd be truly remarkable considering how europeans generally have bad teeth. Even if they miraculously do have such great teeth, it'd be largely environmental in origin, as tooth formation is has many non-genetic components.
For a shining example of this, read up on "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", a classic landmark, and widely influential book on dental anthropology:
http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Price/dp/0916764206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253916744&sr=8-1
So, I'm done for now.
Some horribly ugly non nordics!
I fade up with many racist comments on this site. don't you have anything else better to be proud of? rather than the beautiful appearance you have got? and you get it from your parents not from your own abilities? does the people like this being called the superior human?.....this site only makes the idiom "no brains blonde joke comes to truth!" the people like emily, visitor, erik and some people on here should get it? blonds are not more sexually attractive, just more scarce, 5% of all women on our planet. So if 10% of the gentlemen prefer blondes, they have a problem. my dad is sciencetist he told me if the blonde is a healthy characteristic, this world must be full of these people... but it doesn't?.... so please? don't make the overall people feel down with your opinion. I have seen beautiful people people of all ethnicity. when I have got enough time for this, I will scan a pictures of the beautiful non-white women to post on this site.
Godis : I totally agree with you on the picture emily posted asian girl vs. nordic girl.the asian girl is clearly fatter than the nordic girl so her face appeared larger. when I got enough time I will post a pic of some of the beautiful japanese, filipina, thai and black girls on here. anyway, I'm living in netherland. I curious if erik was the dutch because he has got holland as his lastname, but its also possible he would be the irish-american? I'm sure would be sad if he was the dutch.
bookworm/ i'm not annoymous
Dex,
Yes I agree. Josie Maran is very attractive.
I don't understand how someone can be so intolerable of other people. Even my blue eyed blonde perfect Nordic friend can admit she has imperfections, and this girl is gorgeous. And she is German, not Scandinavian, but Nordic nonetheless. But of course, these days Germans aren't even Nordic, they have a "dinaric" element, somebody claimed. Pretty soon Emily will claim only Swedes are the true Nordics.
the Visitor above=Godis
"The girl on the right is hardly representative for Swedes when it comes to teeth as we have extremely good teeth, the one on the left looks like millions of Asians. That's the difference. :)"
Really? She isn't representative of Swedes when it comes to teeth? Well, if she isn't representative of the perfect Swede why did you use her as an example? Why do you cherry pick photos? Do you need one photo to prove Swedes have better teeth, then another to prove they have better heads, then yet another one to prove they have better noses? BTW: This woman already has wrinkles, has an odd bulbous nose, and what appears to be chin acne. Is she representative of Swedes in that way? Do they too have those features? Hmmm... You posted her up because her head was smaller in that photo. Very interesting really. If she isn't representative of Swedes in that way, then don't post her photo up. It is very contradictory. I mean since you are clearly very good at finding photos, and since you claim the average Swede looks the way they look, you should have no problem finding photos of a Swede that is representative of the typical Swede in every way and you should be able to compare them.
"The pedophile argument is a valid one, since it is the truth. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, dear, but that's the way it is. Pubescent, tiny and underdeveloped bodies normally do attract pedophiles who prefer them to adult women with curvy, feminine bodies. That is why white pedophiles flock to Asia. Deny that if you want to, everybody knows it's the truth anyway"
Oh wait wait, the truth doesn't matter to ME? I think that is something you should say to yourself, because Emily, the truth does not matter to you. You see things the way you want to see them, not me. If this theory of yours is "the truth" than why don't you post some facts to back it up. What percentage of pedophiles flock to Asia compared to other countries? Now now make sure these are "pedophiles". You can't claim that any man that likes a grown Asian woman is a pedophile, if you are willing to supply these statistics to back up your argument than you must be sure these are valid pedophiles...
And I find it interesting how the "innocent" look is so prized by Nordic women. Their baby blonde hair and baby blue eyes are sooo innocent. Their light skin and small tiny noses and small little delicate faces, sooo innocent.
Now, that is all a bad thing huh? To have small features? Because Nordic women are perfect. Latin women are VULGAR to you because they are not innocent looking enough(how she comes up with this is beyond me). Asian women are disgusting because they appear too innocent, too much like children. But Nordic women are just perfection.
You know what? Evolution shouldn't even go on. It's over guys! We have perfection! Nordics. We should just wait for the rest of the world to die out. Here is the plan, everybody else in the world stop having kids! Stop it! You are not worthy to have children you have horrible genes! And do not even think about mixing with pure Nordics. You will destroy a perfect line! Now, after everyone dies out Nordics can have Earth all to themselves. Ok? Nordics will also come up with a cure for cancer and aids, and after that everything will be perfect and everyone will be in heaven on Earth! YAY! It's a perfect plan. Perfect...
Asians have notoriously bad teeth. I mean, I understand that not everyone can have perfect teeth, but when you look for pictures of asians and almost every other person has some kind of strange, crooked and uneven teeth that obviously don't fit the jaw you begin to wonder.
This is one person's account of the teeth of the Japanese, for example;
"Japanese teeth are to Asia as British teeth are to Europe.Braces are very uncommon here and people rarely go to the dentist. Crooked teeth are seen as cute here, and the Western version of crooked teeth has nothing on the Japanese version of crooked teeth. You know the shark exhibits they have in aquariums? You know how sharks have two or three rows of teeth behind their regular teeth? Yes, you do. In Japan, wildly crooked teeth, especially when the front teeth overlap or when there's an extra tooth or two growing out of the upper gums, are called Yaeba.
They even have a name for it?! LOL
Even celebrities apparently have these kinds of teeth, so just imagine ordinary people. As usual, evolution didn't treat asians kindly. Even when teeth are straight they look unappealing somehow.
The sad thing is that these photos are representative for asians, they are not the exceptions. Their teeth very often really are bad. When you need to invent a word for bad teeth you really have some problems, I think.
And the worst part is the fact that asian women know this and deliberately play on that. The Lolita look is heavily promoted and used, and for a reason. I have no respect for people who try to draw the attention of these sick men, just so they can make money.
They are encouraging sick behaviour in a calculating manner, and it incredibly common in Asia. The net is flooded by that kind of photos, geared at men who want pre-pubescent or pubescent girls. No wonder the pedophiles go to Asia in search of these girls. They practically invite them in.
Pages