You really pissed me off there. Just because I can find beauty in other ethnicities, to you it means I am not who I am. Please. You can tell from my photos how white I look. I am in no way mixed. In fact, I have asked people to tell me what they think I am. The first thing that rolls off their tongue is GERMAN! I have blonde hair and big round hazel eyes, I have extremely pale skin, a thin straight nose, small lips. The only thing un-Nordic about me for Christ's sake is that I am pretty short, at 5'31/2/5'4ish. That is not typical among the "true" Nordics, because they are generally a very tall people. I also believe my face is too rounded to be Nordic. I have a small rounded chin, but it is not very pointy as I often see in Nordic women. But I believe my chin to be more feminine and I believe it to give me a more gracile look, because it is more delicate.
I am not a mixed individual. You like to claim these things. I remember when you claimed I was a gypsy, although my pictures of my facial bone structure certainly do not resemble an ethnically Indian-white mixed type of person. It actually is pretty close to an average NORDIC face.
The problem is that you cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people on the planet. I disagree with you that they are, this is why I argue against the whole Scandinavians are the most attractive theory all the time. I point out the inconsistincies. I simply believe that OTHER Nordics are more attractive, and that OTHER Nordics such as the Keltic Irish people or Nordic German people are more deserving of the title. I have stated OVER and OVER and OVER again that I can see that Nordic women are on average more feminine and attractive. However, I feel that if you compare Scandinavian women to German or Irish women, their features will be less fine and they will be less feminine on average. Simple as that. It is nothing personal or nothing against Scandinavians. I still find Scandinavians to be more attractive than other ethnicities on average, but I don't think they are at the top of the attractiveness scale. They come after Germans and Irish in my opinion. Simple as that.
I also think that an individual asessment is more important. Afterall, my cousin has very Latin looks with dark hair in curly ringlets and olive skin. She is gorgeous and everyone in town knows it, and everyone in town wants her. It's kind of annoying actually. But she is just as pretty as any Nordic. Now her features are deviated towards Nordic ones, but her coloring is not and you can still tell she is clearly Latin! She looks better than most "Nordic" women around here. Including me. And I can admit that, I don't have ego issues... I can accept the fact I am not the most attractive woman on the planet. Besides, I believe I have much more to offer than attractiveness and I am quite content with the way I look.
It's not that I can't bear the thought that Scandinavians are more attractive than other races. I simply find beauty in all things. I can find flaws in any race. You cannot find ANY flaws in Scandinavians. YOU, EMILY, cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people... You are the one that has agendas. I simply state what I see. I can say I disagree that Scandinavians are the most attractive people. What is wrong with that? Why can't I disagree without being accused of being biased because I am "mixed". Why?
These comments just get more stalker-like, I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC. 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!!"
OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive. 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 because it dares not be PC.
Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain). For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them. 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.
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.
Other Emily: I live in a large Mid-west city where it is ok for black people to make fun of other races TO THEIR FACES, and then go running to the NAACP if someone dared to do the same to them. Sorry, but asking for special treatment, by insisting that double standards remain, IS NOT equality. I'm un-PC, and I don't give a damn if it offends your fragile sensibilities. Maybe you laugh at white comedians making fun of blacks, but most blacks don't, they balk at such behavior. They've demonized a certain very offensive racial epithet, but say it themselves ad nauseum. If I don't care for this, I may state it if I wish. And you're right, joining a discussion on a topic that you don't believe in is absurd.
Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue. You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable. 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. 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. And all this just to "trash" Emily. 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. Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation. 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 and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!! And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me.
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. 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.
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 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. Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women. Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously. Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass.
My last paragraph shouldn't have the use of the word "plus"- it was just in regards to how crude some of these sexual selection theories about humans are.
Oh, I just noticed Emily's baseless, sick little comments about epicanthic folds.
"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas."
Yeah, YOU DON'T. It's thought to be both an adaption to extreme arctic conditions and extreme desert conditions. It's extremely common amongst khoisan blacks of southern africa, and as a lesser known fact it's also common amongst Sudanese blacks. You know, some of those unevolved people, who also happen to have very dark skin.
"I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn."
Are you out of your fucking mind? Do you realize how hilariously contradictory you are in this regard? It's true that the lineage leading up to us humans has resulted in more derived features, in large part due to changing social stratification, greater reliance on technology, changes in diet etc. but within the broad phenotypical expression of our species, even highly primitive cranio-facial traits don't serve their more "primitive" uses and only do so when they have strong muscles or bone density or whatever to back them up.
Consider east asians and their massive jaws and cheeks, yet their mesognathous (between prognathous and orthognathous) jaws and small brow ridges, or caucasoids and their small jaws, cheekbones etc. yet their highly developed brow ridges. To put it simply, the vast majority, if not all of the differences that could be implicated in biting and chewing force on uncooked meat and tough plant fibers- such as prognathous jaws or large cheekbones- are entirely irrelevant to their strength. Such strength can only be accounted for by tougher muscles and denser bones.
Back on the main point, though, humans have become profoundly more neotenic leading up to their current state, albeit neoteny and pedomorphism can't account for all aspects of female attraction.
To put it simply, Emily, even though neoteny is only a part of the puzzle to female attraction, it certainly IS less primitive than non-neotenic traits. Smaller, lighter bones, reduced muscle mass and other more neotenic physical traits, approaching the ones seen amongst children and infants, ARE more derived. Non-human primates and hominids had, and do have profoundly denser bones and greater and more powerful muscle mass than humans. If you want to take it to extremes, humans in the far, far future could very well looked less developed than they are now. They'd probably be much, much taller and definitely have much larger brains, but they'd also be physically far less developed, frailer, weaker etc. Humans have become "less developed", but at the same time "less primitive".
You're confounding the two far too much. But epicanthic folds can't be rated on such a broad scale. They're neotenic, but they don't fit on a scale of derivation. Nothing about them is "less evolved". Erik hasn't said they are either, albeit he's shown a bias towards the idea of east asians liking them less.
As has been mentioned MANY other times on this site, there's almost NO evidence to show east asians showed a preference for eyes lacking epicanthic folds prior to extensive western contact, and east asians, in fact, showed a preference for differing shapes of the epicanthic fold- not reduced ones.
Even today, many, many east asians only get partial reductions of the epicanthic fold, not full-blown ones.
"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.
Deformed eyes are clearly not needed."
Yeah Emily, that makes alot of sense. One "deformed" physical trait present in one type of the thousands of genetic disorders that plague humans somehow managed to proliferate among about 2 billion people worldwide.
Yeah, explain how that happens, you sick little girl. As has also been said before, relatively flattened nasal bridges are also a neotenic trait- something that's more common amongst east asians and africans- but I doubt you people would ever rank that as a more neotenic, and thus "more feminine" trait, along with epicanthic folds. But you love to embrace light skin and light hair and eyes as such and excluding almost everything that falls outside of them, and like to act as if broad neoteny only applies to them in terms of objective beauty, because, oops, whites, particularly nordics, have those at the highest frequency.
One more thing to interject about "undeveloped" physical traits- it's blatantly obvious that very few men, outside of sexual fetishists, like hyper-undeveloped women. But those women, with their extremely soft and childlike facial features and body structure, are technically more derived from an evolutionary standpoint.
Basically, humans, while frequently preferring some structures that are more derived in form, and many more derived in gracility on women, don't much like ultra-pedomorphic ones, because it bespeaks of undevelopment from a standpoint of maturation, but NOT evolution.
" Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes."
..........Examples? The prominence of the epicanthic folds does NOT effect the field of vision.
"I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea."
And yet humans have become much less physically developed in our lineage. Sounds like a bad idea to me too.
"A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed."
That's not apart of any aspect of human evolution, because it can't be ranked on a scale of derivation in the least.
This also brings to mind how Erik and others push off how sexual selection accounts for the more derived features of caucasoids, particularly nordics. It seems true that colder climates exert greater sexual selection for female beauty in a hunter-gatherer context, but this is so unbelievably broad and so likely to have dissipated in subsequent generations that it's really hard to make statements about these things.
Plus, could someone explain why caucasoids, even nordics, have such substantially larger browridges than africans and east asians, which is pretty much universally regarded as a more masculine trait? And why europeans, and nordic men especially by proxy aren't highly feminine as well? Along with general facial masculinity? (that can be largely explained in terms of dietary differences when it comes to europeans and east asians, IE, testosterone)
I keep saying I need to stop coming here, but today I couldn't resist. We have Emily showing some more her hilarious fallacious thinking that's been torn apart before, some of it even on this site.
In regards to Emily endlessly prattling on about how asians are physically undeveloped (true to an extent), let's go look at a little link on this right.
Look at this page. It's pretty big. It's devoted to how one can alter their body structure- in terms of fat distribution, muscle mass, whatever- by all sorts of dietary and physical fitness activities.
I mean, I shouldn't even have to cite this. It's kind of really, really, really obvious to anyone. Maybe I could cite a boatload of heritability studies on physical traits.
The hyper-under development seen among a number of east asians is probably of little appeal to most people, regardless of cultural influences. But I'm going to repeat myself again.
THESE PHYSICAL FEATURES ARE HEAVILY TRANSIENT.
As another example, maybe I could dig up literally mountaints of photos of obese white women. Even swedes.
Why do people like this exist so prominently? Why, because east asians have better diets, and as another aspect of genetics (also a VERY TRANSIENT ONE), whites have more uneven fat distribution than asians, causing them to look worse when overweight.
Want alot of examples of androgynous and undeveloped white women?
While Erik goes on about white women having more feminine bodies than non-white women (I'm not as well-read on the literature, but I believe it's broader than Erik indicates, especially with some prominent evidence going against the whole "hour-glass ideal" having risen up recently), he also bespeaks of....
Wait for it. VARIANCE IN PREFERENCES.
" Compared to European men, the Hadza prefer higher WHRs in front view, but lower WHRs in side view, which is consistent with the anatomical differences between European and African women (Fig 2).
Fig 2. Drawings used to compare profile WHR preferences between European and Hadza men.(14) A, stimuli presented to Hadza men; B, stimuli presented to European men. When asked to rate preferred figure with respect to attractiveness, healthiness and wife-material, on all three counts, the most common first-choice preferred WHR was 0.6 for Hadza men and 0.65 for European men. “Between 17% and 32% of the Hadza selected 0.55 first on one of the three criteria, whereas not a single [white] man in the United States selected 0.55 on any question.”(14)
Therefore, some population differences in aesthetic preferences lie along the lines of anatomical differences between populations, as also shown previously for the shape of the nasal bones in Europeans, which make it difficult to specify exacting aesthetic criteria to compare attractiveness across populations."
Can't forget the khoisan who, in spite of their burst in population numbers and more extensive contact with western culture and media, still consider steatopygia to be generally more attractive.
Whoa. People in the Ivory Coast going for buttocks enhancements. This being a... recent development.
Maybe I could also go and look up Erik's writings on how cultural influences by way of the androgynous high fashion models has increased frequences of bulimia and anorexia.
Like I said, even if white women have objectively more "feminine" body structures on average, this would still remain heavily variable, and isn't that important for one simple reason:
IT'S VERY TRANSIENT.
I doubt you'll be understanding that anytime soon. Maybe it's because you're dense and arrogant as fuck.
And again, and again, and again- regardless of body structure, it is unbelievably blatant east asian women have more gracile facial structure, owing to their considerably lower testosterone levels. This doesn't translate to across the board greater beauty or femininity or whatever, but it's pretty obvious that the single greatest correlate of facial femininity is testosterone levels. This can lead to androgynous men more often though, along with undeveloped women. In the case of whites, who are somewhat in between blacks and east asians, they're more prone to average looking facial femininity.
But hey. Testosterone levels are quite transient.
Emily also mentions how teeth look "crowded" in asian mouths. This could be due to how east asians average teeth in between the extremities of human phenotypcical expression- between the small, derived teeth typical of caucasoid populations as a whole and the massive teeth of black africans and aborigines. Thus, the larger teeth among them more likely to show crowding in smaller mouths. That's not really a feature you can pin specifically on any ethnic group, considering how highly variable both structures are, and how east asians are more likely to be more balanced in such a regard, but also show extremities in either direction that balance it out.
From: Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.
See, Emily, isn't this interesting? You're freakishly biased in favor of nordics. I doubt you'd like to tell us how small teeth in a large mouth would end up looking heavily gapped and uneven anytime soon, too. I'm unsure of how mouth size can be rated on a scale of derivation, though, and tooth size as well, though extremely large teeth are probably interpreted as masculine. (but, certain primtive traits are also strong components of masculine beauty.)
That also brings to mind your comments about Michelle Obama, and picking a really poor photo of her. Personally, I don't find Michelle attractive, but to me, that's due to how her face is an uneven mix of masculine and feminine facial features. Correct for that and she'd be attractive. I think her nose is just fine, too.
And, in regards to "callmewhateveryouwant" (Emily also echos this line of reasoning):
"In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.
Asian resembler hydrocephaly"
Another nordic fetishist to pop up here. Yes, east asians do typically have heads that would fit taller bodies, but...
This study only looked at the ratings on manipulations of Da Vinci's work and not on anything else. But, think of it this way:
A woman with smaller jaws, cheekbones and a narrower face would look better on a proportionately smaller body. (IE, european woman) A woman with larger jaws, cheekbones, and a wider face would look better on a proportionately taller body. (IE, an asian woman)
They both create problems, but it's quite telling how neither of you admit the same damn thing would hold true of nordics. I like how you compare asians to hydrocephalics (more comparisons of asians to people with genetic disorders), when someone could go ahead and compare whites to microcephalics. (the extremely small brain size results in extremely small jaws and cheekbones)
"What have you read, girl?
Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer? "
I think it's especially telling for YOU to bring these people into this discussion. Dienekes Pontikos is a Greek pseudo-anthropologist with nationalistic and medicentric tendencies, who has an obsession with Carleton Coon's hilariously outdated racial classifications, and who's work frequently attracts racialists, white nationalists etc. across the board. MedHammer isn't even an actual person and is just a parody of hyper ethnocentric southern europeans.
It's also incredibly telling how you'd make such an idiotic comment like "most scientists being" white. While it's true that most scientific achievements and inventions are due to whites, it's so unbelievably STUPID to say most scientists as a whole are white. I shouldn't even have to go into detail on something that moronic. That's like something I'd see on VNN or Stormfront.
Just a few more closing remarks. Emily on black women:
"There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile"
Largely related to testosterone.
" with less prominent noses,"
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. Moreso than most other groups on earth. I like how you once claimed romanians have such "ugly noses" due to their roma blood, in spite of there being profoundly little mixing between both populations and Roma... being only 3% of the population.
"thinner lips,"
Black african populations, in spite of larger lips being considered more "feminine", are more prone to basic extremities, in the range of massive lips compared to very small lips with europeans, true. But I've noticed that many colder adapted populations have certain lip forms that, in spite of being the same size as africans, look much worse even at the same size, probably owing to a certain form. No, I've noticed this far too often. Maybe it's balanced out.
" smaller teeth,"
Not much research as of now to properly put alot of this on a scale of derivation, and again, highly variable and a component of masculine beauty.
" less protruding jaw,"
There's no evidence that rates jaw protrustion and beauty on an objective scale. None.
"less wolly, wild hair."
HAH. Hair structure is the single most variable aspect of physical beauty among humans around. Have you EVER seen the sort of hair styles indigenous africans sport? It's truly alien to typical western hair styles.
Even though alot of them do sport hair that comes down more, it's of incredibly different form and structure compared to european hair, and, although outward hair is frequently considered more feminine on women, it's not just downward hair, it's OUTWARD from the head. Just look at these people, and the woman with the massive afro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadendoa
By the way, those black girls at the end of your post generally have some good looking noses. Not as fond about the rest of their faces, though.
Go down towards the bottom on the illustrations of structures around the eyes and its population variance. Look at how africans have the most derived and feminine forms on many orbital structures. They even have the smallest brow ridges, in spite of their high testosterone levels, wherein testosterone is known to increase brow ridge size. This says similar things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#In_modern_humans
"Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches".[2] Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges".[2] Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge".[2] Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges.[2]"
Caucasoids including whites.
I've seen this myself, actually. I've noticed how whites typically have quite large or moderate sized browridges, especially in relation to blacks and east asians. The blacks with the large brows are, the majority of the time, the ones with sizable white admixture.
Not a single ethnic group holds a monopoly on derived physical features. I mean, this site even shows that aborigines/melanesians have the most projecting midfacial profiles. And it's virtually impossible to find a single individual in modern times who's derived on every single scale, or primitive on every single scale, too.
This also shows whites, and caucasoids as a whole, also frequently posess a primitive trait that adds to masculinity.
I've forgotten how fun it can be to tear Emily apart.
If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too
If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too
If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too
Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people."
lol Yes, that's true, actually. She does. I see that now.
Her problem is that she's not exactly convincing. I think she is of some kind of mixed ethnicity/race herself. At least she clearly identifies with them, and she is hostile and critical ONLY of Scandinavians. No one else. She really only sees a problem with Scandinavians in terms of looks, and I now see that indeed she tries to project the physical problems of others onto Scandinavians.
I think these photos are very interesting. They show the disproportionate head size of the asians compared to the Swedish girls. The Swedish girls should really have larger heads since they are probably taller. It also shows how terribly unappealing the mongoloid eye form is, and why asians themselves so often correct it with plastic surgery.
I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.
People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas. Deformed eyes are clearly not needed. Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes. I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea. A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed.
Through this entire debate you insist that other people use "facts" to substantiate their arguments when all you have done so far is express your opinion and post fairly worthless and biased photographs to express your extremely limited and ignorant perceptions of other ethnic groups. You may request that other people take you seriously and allow you to express yourself, but you must realise that your behaviour is unbecoming.
I will make no assumptions to tell you what you should think or what you should find attractive. However, your crusade against the appearance of men and women from other ethnic backgrounds disgusts me. So, some white individuals find asian, black, hispanic, etc. women and men attractive. Great. Good for them. Those people are celebrating what they think is attractive and being positive. You are just being hateful and otherwise spreading ridiculous, closed-minded, and downright offensive opinions.
The fact that you continue to persist in these arguments, mounting more and more insults against huge swaths of people who have never done anything wrong to you, tells me that you are a sad, pathetic, and insecure human being. To me, you are the sort of person with a slanted view of the world and a bizarre need to validate herself by putting down others. While some of the women you posted images of might not be attractive to you, you must understand that a person who spends their time insulting others for something they cannot help because they were born a certain ethnicity is much much uglier.
Furthermore, you have derailed what was an interesting article featuring interesting images pertaining to evolution into an ugly debate whereupon people will continue to tell you how wrong and ignorant you are.
ekaterina is not getting booked simply because she doesnt look like a model...
she looks like an average/normal woman who btw looks older than her age...
she has no bone structure...
a long witch-esque nose...
receassed chin...
and round unexpressive eyes...
shes not a model...
think of another carreer...
not all of us were meant to live off our looks...
ekaterina is not getting booked simply because she doesnt look like a model...
she looks like an average/normal woman who btw looks older than her age...
she has no bone structure...
a long witch-esque nose...
receassed chin...
and round unexpressive eyes...
shes not a model...
think of another carreer...
not all of us were meant to live off our looks...
fashion is not soap...
high fashion doesnt work like the clothes u can simply buy at Kmart...
theres a whole pshycological aspect to it...
people who buy high fashion feel better by buying stuff thats marketed in a more fantastic way than a more realistic way...its part of the "magic" or "experience" of wearing expensive clothes...
people dont need high fashion like they need soap...
they can just buy clothes to cover themselves up...like many people do...
but people who go for "labels" dont buy with that mentality...
theyre in for the whole "trip" ,and that includes the marketing of the brand
high fashion is not for everybody to understand...
its like abstract art...
some people get it...some people dont...
some preffer those paintings of flowers and landscapes...
and wonder why some artists paint such "ugly" stuff...
those type of people will never understand...
Interestingly she follows the same school of some angry southern europeans which are envious of nordics. She always bring up theories like: nordics are mongoliform; southern europeans, arabs and indians are more caucasian than nordics; nordics have noses which are robust; southern europeans and arabs are pure, while nordics are inbreed.
What have you read, girl?
Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer?
She always use the same tactic as well:
If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too
If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too
If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too
Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people.
Why would you even go there? Currently the most intelligent man on Earth is Asian. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan stumph every other country on the PISA test. The one Caucasian country among them? Finland, interestingly the one Caucasian race with features most similar to mongloid ones as noticed by many here
In the 4s and 5s you start getting countries like New Zealand, and Canada. Besides that, the top places are dominated by Asian countries and of course Finland... Are these tests accurate? I don't know. Do they matter? It depends on how much the smart people in those countries are accomplishing. If they are doing nothing with their brain, the value of their intelligence is lost...
And most genius and relevant science still happen to be by white caucasians.
But it seems that the BIG ASIAN heads may have an advantage...Swedes are actually known for their larges heads, I have found articles with measurements included on this but have lost them since, however if you don't believe just look at the photos Emily posts. Look at the size of all of their heads. I believe they score pretty well on the PISA tests as well...
Actually swedes have heads which are proportional to the size of their bodies (like any european). On another hand, asians have heads disproportionally big to their body size. Swedes are proportional: when their bodies are big, their heads are big; when their bodies are smaller, their heads are smaller too. In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.
Asian resembler hydrocephaly
Besides, you are looking at photos without a reference to compare.
The photo below speak to itself
see how the head of the swedish woman is much smaller and better proportionate than the asian head is.
As a person, a human being, I am utterly appalled by Emily, and Barbella.
First off, Emily, you must be looking at different pictures then me, because Reon is really pretty I think. Any way, you are a pathetic person, and it is sad that you have such anathema towards people of other nationalities. Now, before your head starts spinning off into another dimension, please read very carefully--your English is really good, but you have failed to see this point: no one is chastising you because you prefer Nordic-women's looks to other women's looks. I don't care that you prefer swedish girl to any other type of girl. That is fine, that is your perogative, great for you. Godis has professed the same thing, prefer the looks of caucasians over other groups. That is totally cool. The problem is that you The same thing goes for you barbella. Cool beans! My problem with you is that you are so vile and evil and hateful about what you say. It is disgusting. I don't care how blonde your hair is, or how blue your eyes are, or how feminine you are, you are a disgusting person. I don't wish for you to rot in hell, I wish for you to open your eyes and your heart to others, and become a not so disgusting person.
And Barbella, black/other comedians do make fun of white people a lot. But they make fun of themselves and other ethnicities too. I have even seen white comedian make fun of black people. It is not that uncommon. Being from the US like you, I have heard white people make fun of black people, and I find it funny. I am not offended. A lot of white comedians make fun of some of the names that black people come up with, hair styles, etc. And its funny it isn't a big deal. And you are right, Emily's and others have a right to their own opinions. That is fine, but Emily takes it to a level that is beyond just have pride in one's own ethnic group. She puts down others in the process and that is not right. I mean, it is cool that you are proud of where you came from, everyone should be proud of their heritage. But don't step on others in the process!
Any way, I don't believe in evolution, so this page doesn't even really phase me or make me rethink any of the positions I have taken. It is just more unscientific drivel.
"Whether it deviates towards European norms than the average Asian face or not, doesn't matter. Her face is lovely."
Yes, it matters very much since the entire argument in this blog is that a shift towards the more evolved white standard of beauty is what makes someone more appealing, not only to whites but to other races and ethnicities as well. You think it is lovely since it looks more white and less mongoloid, which, of course, is my entire point.
By the way, Reon Kadena...is this as good as it gets? That's truly sad.
23 year-old Reon has an underdeveloped, tiny body with the usual problems seen in that race. She is not feminine at all since she lacks the development into adulthood needed in order to display femininity. Pubescent girlishness with fake breasts is not femininity. Let's separate apples and oranges, shall we.
Reon is the ultimate proof that adult, mature femininity is practically non-existing in Asians, since this is probably as good as it gets after plastic surgery and heavy retouching and photoshopping (hard to find true candid shots of her, just like with any other Asian model. Gee, wonder why)
She appeals to men who like pubescent girls who are not yet fully developed women. Arrested development is not feminine, it is lack of evolvement.
I don't believe her breasts are real as they are unnatural for her straight and childlike body, and in many photos they don't appear natural.
Asian plastic surgeons are used to working with the non-existing curves of Asian women and are also well-known for the more natural looks they can achieve. Her breasts hardly do much to alter the impression of a non-finished, pubescent body with a giant head on top.
Fake or not they look like breasts on a child, and serve as an excuse to get turned on by a child's body. In that case, just throw in some fake breasts on a 12-year-old white girl and we will see the exact same result, and the same creepiness.
Her face does shift towards a less mongoloid form, and with much help from plastic surgery, probably. Reon is nice evidence of my statement that the Asian mongoloid form is unattractive to Asians themselves, who prefer a face with less mongoloid traits, shifting towards the white norm.
These models that Asians idolize hardly represent what most Asians look like. Less mongoloid-looking = more beautiful to Asians.
Real breasts? LOL Femininity? If you think so and are white, you have problems.
A child's body on a woman's face. Creepy.
When they fixed her breasts they forgot the backside.
Put on fake breasts and feel free to be turned on by children;
By the way, why is it that Asian teeth seem to have such a hard time fitting within their jaw? They are often not in a straight line, as if the jaw is too small to support the correct number of teeth. Their heads are very large so there should be no problem, but maybe the teeth are too large for the heads or jaws. I don't know.
This is the typical chest of the Japanese women..without the breast implants, that is.
And the backside;
Asian women are unfeminine and often even androgynous. They look like children with giant heads.
The greenish-yellowish "snake belly skin" colour is very unattractive. Their white skin has an unclean look to it. It also lacks life since there is very little blood colouring it. They need a tan.
In whites you usually see some blood colouring the skin, making it appear alive and healthy.
she looks like a furbie...
eyes are droopy
again no bone structure...
whats up with u liking these faces that look like globs of skin with eyes?
Emily,
You really pissed me off there. Just because I can find beauty in other ethnicities, to you it means I am not who I am. Please. You can tell from my photos how white I look. I am in no way mixed. In fact, I have asked people to tell me what they think I am. The first thing that rolls off their tongue is GERMAN! I have blonde hair and big round hazel eyes, I have extremely pale skin, a thin straight nose, small lips. The only thing un-Nordic about me for Christ's sake is that I am pretty short, at 5'31/2/5'4ish. That is not typical among the "true" Nordics, because they are generally a very tall people. I also believe my face is too rounded to be Nordic. I have a small rounded chin, but it is not very pointy as I often see in Nordic women. But I believe my chin to be more feminine and I believe it to give me a more gracile look, because it is more delicate.
I am not a mixed individual. You like to claim these things. I remember when you claimed I was a gypsy, although my pictures of my facial bone structure certainly do not resemble an ethnically Indian-white mixed type of person. It actually is pretty close to an average NORDIC face.
The problem is that you cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people on the planet. I disagree with you that they are, this is why I argue against the whole Scandinavians are the most attractive theory all the time. I point out the inconsistincies. I simply believe that OTHER Nordics are more attractive, and that OTHER Nordics such as the Keltic Irish people or Nordic German people are more deserving of the title. I have stated OVER and OVER and OVER again that I can see that Nordic women are on average more feminine and attractive. However, I feel that if you compare Scandinavian women to German or Irish women, their features will be less fine and they will be less feminine on average. Simple as that. It is nothing personal or nothing against Scandinavians. I still find Scandinavians to be more attractive than other ethnicities on average, but I don't think they are at the top of the attractiveness scale. They come after Germans and Irish in my opinion. Simple as that.
I also think that an individual asessment is more important. Afterall, my cousin has very Latin looks with dark hair in curly ringlets and olive skin. She is gorgeous and everyone in town knows it, and everyone in town wants her. It's kind of annoying actually. But she is just as pretty as any Nordic. Now her features are deviated towards Nordic ones, but her coloring is not and you can still tell she is clearly Latin! She looks better than most "Nordic" women around here. Including me. And I can admit that, I don't have ego issues... I can accept the fact I am not the most attractive woman on the planet. Besides, I believe I have much more to offer than attractiveness and I am quite content with the way I look.
It's not that I can't bear the thought that Scandinavians are more attractive than other races. I simply find beauty in all things. I can find flaws in any race. You cannot find ANY flaws in Scandinavians. YOU, EMILY, cannot bear the thought that Scandinavians are not the most attractive people... You are the one that has agendas. I simply state what I see. I can say I disagree that Scandinavians are the most attractive people. What is wrong with that? Why can't I disagree without being accused of being biased because I am "mixed". Why?
These comments just get more stalker-like, I mean, it's utterly useless to try change anyone's mind VC. 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!!"
OK, I looked at them, and they don't change the perception my mind's eye interprets as feminine, or attractive. 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 because it dares not be PC.
Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me (or anyone else with half a brain). For every person who finds an article that disspells Erik's findings, there is one that supports them. 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.
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.
*sigh*
Thanks for your input. You might have wanted to read everything before you posted.
Once again, I model for fun. Not for a career.
Goodbye.
*sigh*
Thanks for your input. You might have wanted to read everything before you posted.
Once again, I model for fun. Not for a career.
Goodbye.
*sigh*
Thanks for your input. You might have wanted to read everything before you posted.
Once again, I model for fun. Not for a career.
Goodbye.
Other Emily: I live in a large Mid-west city where it is ok for black people to make fun of other races TO THEIR FACES, and then go running to the NAACP if someone dared to do the same to them. Sorry, but asking for special treatment, by insisting that double standards remain, IS NOT equality. I'm un-PC, and I don't give a damn if it offends your fragile sensibilities. Maybe you laugh at white comedians making fun of blacks, but most blacks don't, they balk at such behavior. They've demonized a certain very offensive racial epithet, but say it themselves ad nauseum. If I don't care for this, I may state it if I wish. And you're right, joining a discussion on a topic that you don't believe in is absurd.
Violet Corpus, thinking you're trashing Emily again? As if anyone cares to read the pages of your insufferable, self-aggrandizing monologue. You're outrage with an anonymous poster on this website gives one pause to think that perhaps your mental stability may be questionable. 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. 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. And all this just to "trash" Emily. 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. Many scientists disagree on basic theories but not all of them are wrong. You are merely giving your interpretation. 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 and anyone who disagrees is just a misanthropic little shit!! And now you're an expert on HAIR? Leave that one to me.
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. 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.
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 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. Perhaps Violet Corpus is offending me, with her stack of scientific articles that state the insurmountable inferiority of white women. Does she care that she offends some with HER comments? Not if the offended persons are white, obviously. Stick your double standards, hypocrisy, and self righteousness up your ass.
My last paragraph shouldn't have the use of the word "plus"- it was just in regards to how crude some of these sexual selection theories about humans are.
Oh, I just noticed Emily's baseless, sick little comments about epicanthic folds.
"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas."
Yeah, YOU DON'T. It's thought to be both an adaption to extreme arctic conditions and extreme desert conditions. It's extremely common amongst khoisan blacks of southern africa, and as a lesser known fact it's also common amongst Sudanese blacks. You know, some of those unevolved people, who also happen to have very dark skin.
Here's a prominent example: http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2672/2321889620ee8bbd1151.jpg
"I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn."
Are you out of your fucking mind? Do you realize how hilariously contradictory you are in this regard? It's true that the lineage leading up to us humans has resulted in more derived features, in large part due to changing social stratification, greater reliance on technology, changes in diet etc. but within the broad phenotypical expression of our species, even highly primitive cranio-facial traits don't serve their more "primitive" uses and only do so when they have strong muscles or bone density or whatever to back them up.
Consider east asians and their massive jaws and cheeks, yet their mesognathous (between prognathous and orthognathous) jaws and small brow ridges, or caucasoids and their small jaws, cheekbones etc. yet their highly developed brow ridges. To put it simply, the vast majority, if not all of the differences that could be implicated in biting and chewing force on uncooked meat and tough plant fibers- such as prognathous jaws or large cheekbones- are entirely irrelevant to their strength. Such strength can only be accounted for by tougher muscles and denser bones.
Back on the main point, though, humans have become profoundly more neotenic leading up to their current state, albeit neoteny and pedomorphism can't account for all aspects of female attraction.
To put it simply, Emily, even though neoteny is only a part of the puzzle to female attraction, it certainly IS less primitive than non-neotenic traits. Smaller, lighter bones, reduced muscle mass and other more neotenic physical traits, approaching the ones seen amongst children and infants, ARE more derived. Non-human primates and hominids had, and do have profoundly denser bones and greater and more powerful muscle mass than humans. If you want to take it to extremes, humans in the far, far future could very well looked less developed than they are now. They'd probably be much, much taller and definitely have much larger brains, but they'd also be physically far less developed, frailer, weaker etc. Humans have become "less developed", but at the same time "less primitive".
You're confounding the two far too much. But epicanthic folds can't be rated on such a broad scale. They're neotenic, but they don't fit on a scale of derivation. Nothing about them is "less evolved". Erik hasn't said they are either, albeit he's shown a bias towards the idea of east asians liking them less.
As has been mentioned MANY other times on this site, there's almost NO evidence to show east asians showed a preference for eyes lacking epicanthic folds prior to extensive western contact, and east asians, in fact, showed a preference for differing shapes of the epicanthic fold- not reduced ones.
Even today, many, many east asians only get partial reductions of the epicanthic fold, not full-blown ones.
"I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.
Deformed eyes are clearly not needed."
Yeah Emily, that makes alot of sense. One "deformed" physical trait present in one type of the thousands of genetic disorders that plague humans somehow managed to proliferate among about 2 billion people worldwide.
Yeah, explain how that happens, you sick little girl. As has also been said before, relatively flattened nasal bridges are also a neotenic trait- something that's more common amongst east asians and africans- but I doubt you people would ever rank that as a more neotenic, and thus "more feminine" trait, along with epicanthic folds. But you love to embrace light skin and light hair and eyes as such and excluding almost everything that falls outside of them, and like to act as if broad neoteny only applies to them in terms of objective beauty, because, oops, whites, particularly nordics, have those at the highest frequency.
One more thing to interject about "undeveloped" physical traits- it's blatantly obvious that very few men, outside of sexual fetishists, like hyper-undeveloped women. But those women, with their extremely soft and childlike facial features and body structure, are technically more derived from an evolutionary standpoint.
Basically, humans, while frequently preferring some structures that are more derived in form, and many more derived in gracility on women, don't much like ultra-pedomorphic ones, because it bespeaks of undevelopment from a standpoint of maturation, but NOT evolution.
" Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes."
..........Examples? The prominence of the epicanthic folds does NOT effect the field of vision.
"I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea."
And yet humans have become much less physically developed in our lineage. Sounds like a bad idea to me too.
"A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed."
That's not apart of any aspect of human evolution, because it can't be ranked on a scale of derivation in the least.
This also brings to mind how Erik and others push off how sexual selection accounts for the more derived features of caucasoids, particularly nordics. It seems true that colder climates exert greater sexual selection for female beauty in a hunter-gatherer context, but this is so unbelievably broad and so likely to have dissipated in subsequent generations that it's really hard to make statements about these things.
Plus, could someone explain why caucasoids, even nordics, have such substantially larger browridges than africans and east asians, which is pretty much universally regarded as a more masculine trait? And why europeans, and nordic men especially by proxy aren't highly feminine as well? Along with general facial masculinity? (that can be largely explained in terms of dietary differences when it comes to europeans and east asians, IE, testosterone)
she looks like her lover beated her up or something LOL
call the police gurl !
is that a pimple on her forehead?
yeah...
it focuses more on white women LOL
I keep saying I need to stop coming here, but today I couldn't resist. We have Emily showing some more her hilarious fallacious thinking that's been torn apart before, some of it even on this site.
In regards to Emily endlessly prattling on about how asians are physically undeveloped (true to an extent), let's go look at a little link on this right.
Right to the left, wherever you go.
http://femininebeauty.info/improving-looks
Look at this page. It's pretty big. It's devoted to how one can alter their body structure- in terms of fat distribution, muscle mass, whatever- by all sorts of dietary and physical fitness activities.
I mean, I shouldn't even have to cite this. It's kind of really, really, really obvious to anyone. Maybe I could cite a boatload of heritability studies on physical traits.
The hyper-under development seen among a number of east asians is probably of little appeal to most people, regardless of cultural influences. But I'm going to repeat myself again.
THESE PHYSICAL FEATURES ARE HEAVILY TRANSIENT.
As another example, maybe I could dig up literally mountaints of photos of obese white women. Even swedes.
Why do people like this exist so prominently? Why, because east asians have better diets, and as another aspect of genetics (also a VERY TRANSIENT ONE), whites have more uneven fat distribution than asians, causing them to look worse when overweight.
Want alot of examples of androgynous and undeveloped white women?
Um, right on this site: http://femininebeauty.info/top-fashion-models
http://femininebeauty.info/sexy-fashion-models
More transience and large-scale physical variability.
Here's another one, from this site: http://www.femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/physique
While Erik goes on about white women having more feminine bodies than non-white women (I'm not as well-read on the literature, but I believe it's broader than Erik indicates, especially with some prominent evidence going against the whole "hour-glass ideal" having risen up recently), he also bespeaks of....
Wait for it. VARIANCE IN PREFERENCES.
" Compared to European men, the Hadza prefer higher WHRs in front view, but lower WHRs in side view, which is consistent with the anatomical differences between European and African women (Fig 2).
Fig 2. Drawings used to compare profile WHR preferences between European and Hadza men.(14) A, stimuli presented to Hadza men; B, stimuli presented to European men. When asked to rate preferred figure with respect to attractiveness, healthiness and wife-material, on all three counts, the most common first-choice preferred WHR was 0.6 for Hadza men and 0.65 for European men. “Between 17% and 32% of the Hadza selected 0.55 first on one of the three criteria, whereas not a single [white] man in the United States selected 0.55 on any question.”(14)
Therefore, some population differences in aesthetic preferences lie along the lines of anatomical differences between populations, as also shown previously for the shape of the nasal bones in Europeans, which make it difficult to specify exacting aesthetic criteria to compare attractiveness across populations."
Can't forget the khoisan who, in spite of their burst in population numbers and more extensive contact with western culture and media, still consider steatopygia to be generally more attractive.
Oh, and this: http://www.newser.com/story/19361/ivory-coast-crazy-for-big-butts.html
Whoa. People in the Ivory Coast going for buttocks enhancements. This being a... recent development.
Maybe I could also go and look up Erik's writings on how cultural influences by way of the androgynous high fashion models has increased frequences of bulimia and anorexia.
Like I said, even if white women have objectively more "feminine" body structures on average, this would still remain heavily variable, and isn't that important for one simple reason:
IT'S VERY TRANSIENT.
I doubt you'll be understanding that anytime soon. Maybe it's because you're dense and arrogant as fuck.
And again, and again, and again- regardless of body structure, it is unbelievably blatant east asian women have more gracile facial structure, owing to their considerably lower testosterone levels. This doesn't translate to across the board greater beauty or femininity or whatever, but it's pretty obvious that the single greatest correlate of facial femininity is testosterone levels. This can lead to androgynous men more often though, along with undeveloped women. In the case of whites, who are somewhat in between blacks and east asians, they're more prone to average looking facial femininity.
But hey. Testosterone levels are quite transient.
Emily also mentions how teeth look "crowded" in asian mouths. This could be due to how east asians average teeth in between the extremities of human phenotypcical expression- between the small, derived teeth typical of caucasoid populations as a whole and the massive teeth of black africans and aborigines. Thus, the larger teeth among them more likely to show crowding in smaller mouths. That's not really a feature you can pin specifically on any ethnic group, considering how highly variable both structures are, and how east asians are more likely to be more balanced in such a regard, but also show extremities in either direction that balance it out.
Here's a table on tooth size by population: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4720/toothsize.gif
From: Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.
See, Emily, isn't this interesting? You're freakishly biased in favor of nordics. I doubt you'd like to tell us how small teeth in a large mouth would end up looking heavily gapped and uneven anytime soon, too. I'm unsure of how mouth size can be rated on a scale of derivation, though, and tooth size as well, though extremely large teeth are probably interpreted as masculine. (but, certain primtive traits are also strong components of masculine beauty.)
That also brings to mind your comments about Michelle Obama, and picking a really poor photo of her. Personally, I don't find Michelle attractive, but to me, that's due to how her face is an uneven mix of masculine and feminine facial features. Correct for that and she'd be attractive. I think her nose is just fine, too.
And, in regards to "callmewhateveryouwant" (Emily also echos this line of reasoning):
"In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.
Asian resembler hydrocephaly"
Another nordic fetishist to pop up here. Yes, east asians do typically have heads that would fit taller bodies, but...
Oh, let's look at another fun part of this site: http://www.femininebeauty.info/head-length-height-attractiveness
This study only looked at the ratings on manipulations of Da Vinci's work and not on anything else. But, think of it this way:
A woman with smaller jaws, cheekbones and a narrower face would look better on a proportionately smaller body. (IE, european woman) A woman with larger jaws, cheekbones, and a wider face would look better on a proportionately taller body. (IE, an asian woman)
They both create problems, but it's quite telling how neither of you admit the same damn thing would hold true of nordics. I like how you compare asians to hydrocephalics (more comparisons of asians to people with genetic disorders), when someone could go ahead and compare whites to microcephalics. (the extremely small brain size results in extremely small jaws and cheekbones)
"What have you read, girl?
Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer? "
I think it's especially telling for YOU to bring these people into this discussion. Dienekes Pontikos is a Greek pseudo-anthropologist with nationalistic and medicentric tendencies, who has an obsession with Carleton Coon's hilariously outdated racial classifications, and who's work frequently attracts racialists, white nationalists etc. across the board. MedHammer isn't even an actual person and is just a parody of hyper ethnocentric southern europeans.
It's also incredibly telling how you'd make such an idiotic comment like "most scientists being" white. While it's true that most scientific achievements and inventions are due to whites, it's so unbelievably STUPID to say most scientists as a whole are white. I shouldn't even have to go into detail on something that moronic. That's like something I'd see on VNN or Stormfront.
Just a few more closing remarks. Emily on black women:
"There are attractive black women, and they will be less coarse and more gracile"
Largely related to testosterone.
" with less prominent noses,"
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. Moreso than most other groups on earth. I like how you once claimed romanians have such "ugly noses" due to their roma blood, in spite of there being profoundly little mixing between both populations and Roma... being only 3% of the population.
"thinner lips,"
Black african populations, in spite of larger lips being considered more "feminine", are more prone to basic extremities, in the range of massive lips compared to very small lips with europeans, true. But I've noticed that many colder adapted populations have certain lip forms that, in spite of being the same size as africans, look much worse even at the same size, probably owing to a certain form. No, I've noticed this far too often. Maybe it's balanced out.
" smaller teeth,"
Not much research as of now to properly put alot of this on a scale of derivation, and again, highly variable and a component of masculine beauty.
" less protruding jaw,"
There's no evidence that rates jaw protrustion and beauty on an objective scale. None.
"less wolly, wild hair."
HAH. Hair structure is the single most variable aspect of physical beauty among humans around. Have you EVER seen the sort of hair styles indigenous africans sport? It's truly alien to typical western hair styles.
http://nubianhairsupplies.homestead.com/hair-styles-in-africa.html
Even though alot of them do sport hair that comes down more, it's of incredibly different form and structure compared to european hair, and, although outward hair is frequently considered more feminine on women, it's not just downward hair, it's OUTWARD from the head. Just look at these people, and the woman with the massive afro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadendoa
By the way, those black girls at the end of your post generally have some good looking noses. Not as fond about the rest of their faces, though.
Oh, and another thing on blacks: http://femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/face-gracilization
Go down towards the bottom on the illustrations of structures around the eyes and its population variance. Look at how africans have the most derived and feminine forms on many orbital structures. They even have the smallest brow ridges, in spite of their high testosterone levels, wherein testosterone is known to increase brow ridge size. This says similar things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#In_modern_humans
"Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches".[2] Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges".[2] Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge".[2] Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges.[2]"
Caucasoids including whites.
I've seen this myself, actually. I've noticed how whites typically have quite large or moderate sized browridges, especially in relation to blacks and east asians. The blacks with the large brows are, the majority of the time, the ones with sizable white admixture.
Not a single ethnic group holds a monopoly on derived physical features. I mean, this site even shows that aborigines/melanesians have the most projecting midfacial profiles. And it's virtually impossible to find a single individual in modern times who's derived on every single scale, or primitive on every single scale, too.
This also shows whites, and caucasoids as a whole, also frequently posess a primitive trait that adds to masculinity.
I've forgotten how fun it can be to tear Emily apart.
"She always use the same tactic as well:
If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too
If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too
If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too
Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people."
lol Yes, that's true, actually. She does. I see that now.
Her problem is that she's not exactly convincing. I think she is of some kind of mixed ethnicity/race herself. At least she clearly identifies with them, and she is hostile and critical ONLY of Scandinavians. No one else. She really only sees a problem with Scandinavians in terms of looks, and I now see that indeed she tries to project the physical problems of others onto Scandinavians.
I think these photos are very interesting. They show the disproportionate head size of the asians compared to the Swedish girls. The Swedish girls should really have larger heads since they are probably taller. It also shows how terribly unappealing the mongoloid eye form is, and why asians themselves so often correct it with plastic surgery.
I don't believe it is an adaptation to a sandy environment. I think it is a deformity, in that it resembles white Down's syndrome patients, who don't mature properly physically. It is lack of evolvement, or rather, evolution taking a U-turn.
People in North Africa don't have these types of eyes and they also live in dry, windy and sandy areas. Deformed eyes are clearly not needed. Asians who hav ehad that surgery say that their vision is improved as it opens their eyes. I mean, evolvement that makes your vision impaired seems like a bad idea. A deformity is probably more likely. Some asians have more open and less deformed eyes, and I think that is the way the evolution of the asian race is headed.
Emily,
Through this entire debate you insist that other people use "facts" to substantiate their arguments when all you have done so far is express your opinion and post fairly worthless and biased photographs to express your extremely limited and ignorant perceptions of other ethnic groups. You may request that other people take you seriously and allow you to express yourself, but you must realise that your behaviour is unbecoming.
I will make no assumptions to tell you what you should think or what you should find attractive. However, your crusade against the appearance of men and women from other ethnic backgrounds disgusts me. So, some white individuals find asian, black, hispanic, etc. women and men attractive. Great. Good for them. Those people are celebrating what they think is attractive and being positive. You are just being hateful and otherwise spreading ridiculous, closed-minded, and downright offensive opinions.
The fact that you continue to persist in these arguments, mounting more and more insults against huge swaths of people who have never done anything wrong to you, tells me that you are a sad, pathetic, and insecure human being. To me, you are the sort of person with a slanted view of the world and a bizarre need to validate herself by putting down others. While some of the women you posted images of might not be attractive to you, you must understand that a person who spends their time insulting others for something they cannot help because they were born a certain ethnicity is much much uglier.
Furthermore, you have derailed what was an interesting article featuring interesting images pertaining to evolution into an ugly debate whereupon people will continue to tell you how wrong and ignorant you are.
ekaterina is not getting booked simply because she doesnt look like a model...
she looks like an average/normal woman who btw looks older than her age...
she has no bone structure...
a long witch-esque nose...
receassed chin...
and round unexpressive eyes...
shes not a model...
think of another carreer...
not all of us were meant to live off our looks...
ekaterina is not getting booked simply because she doesnt look like a model...
she looks like an average/normal woman who btw looks older than her age...
she has no bone structure...
a long witch-esque nose...
receassed chin...
and round unexpressive eyes...
shes not a model...
think of another carreer...
not all of us were meant to live off our looks...
well...
as far as he is the designer...
he can pick who the hell he wants for his show...
people who dont like it ,dont watch or dont buy ,simple as that
those can just go to their local sears/jc penney and wear something intended for the masses...
fashion is not soap...
high fashion doesnt work like the clothes u can simply buy at Kmart...
theres a whole pshycological aspect to it...
people who buy high fashion feel better by buying stuff thats marketed in a more fantastic way than a more realistic way...its part of the "magic" or "experience" of wearing expensive clothes...
people dont need high fashion like they need soap...
they can just buy clothes to cover themselves up...like many people do...
but people who go for "labels" dont buy with that mentality...
theyre in for the whole "trip" ,and that includes the marketing of the brand
high fashion is not for everybody to understand...
its like abstract art...
some people get it...some people dont...
some preffer those paintings of flowers and landscapes...
and wonder why some artists paint such "ugly" stuff...
those type of people will never understand...
First Godis stood for indians
Now she stands for japaneses
Who is next?
Interestingly she follows the same school of some angry southern europeans which are envious of nordics. She always bring up theories like: nordics are mongoliform; southern europeans, arabs and indians are more caucasian than nordics; nordics have noses which are robust; southern europeans and arabs are pure, while nordics are inbreed.
What have you read, girl?
Dienekes Pontikos or MEDHammer?
She always use the same tactic as well:
If you say that slavs have rounded heads, she will die to prove that nordics have rounded heads too
If you say that blacks have robust nose, she will die to prove that nordics have robust nose too
If you say that asians have disproportional heads, she will die to prove that nordics have disproportional heads too
Everything she does is to try to equate nordics to other people.
Why would you even go there? Currently the most intelligent man on Earth is Asian. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan stumph every other country on the PISA test. The one Caucasian country among them? Finland, interestingly the one Caucasian race with features most similar to mongloid ones as noticed by many here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment
In the 4s and 5s you start getting countries like New Zealand, and Canada. Besides that, the top places are dominated by Asian countries and of course Finland... Are these tests accurate? I don't know. Do they matter? It depends on how much the smart people in those countries are accomplishing. If they are doing nothing with their brain, the value of their intelligence is lost...
And most genius and relevant science still happen to be by white caucasians.
But it seems that the BIG ASIAN heads may have an advantage...Swedes are actually known for their larges heads, I have found articles with measurements included on this but have lost them since, however if you don't believe just look at the photos Emily posts. Look at the size of all of their heads. I believe they score pretty well on the PISA tests as well...
Actually swedes have heads which are proportional to the size of their bodies (like any european). On another hand, asians have heads disproportionally big to their body size. Swedes are proportional: when their bodies are big, their heads are big; when their bodies are smaller, their heads are smaller too. In the case of asians, even when they stand 150 cm tall their heads have the size which would fit a 220 cm man better.
Asian resembler hydrocephaly
Besides, you are looking at photos without a reference to compare.
The photo below speak to itself
see how the head of the swedish woman is much smaller and better proportionate than the asian head is.
this woman is gross
your examples of attractive women make me curious...
they look like inbreds with mental retardation.
As a person, a human being, I am utterly appalled by Emily, and Barbella.
First off, Emily, you must be looking at different pictures then me, because Reon is really pretty I think. Any way, you are a pathetic person, and it is sad that you have such anathema towards people of other nationalities. Now, before your head starts spinning off into another dimension, please read very carefully--your English is really good, but you have failed to see this point: no one is chastising you because you prefer Nordic-women's looks to other women's looks. I don't care that you prefer swedish girl to any other type of girl. That is fine, that is your perogative, great for you. Godis has professed the same thing, prefer the looks of caucasians over other groups. That is totally cool. The problem is that you The same thing goes for you barbella. Cool beans! My problem with you is that you are so vile and evil and hateful about what you say. It is disgusting. I don't care how blonde your hair is, or how blue your eyes are, or how feminine you are, you are a disgusting person. I don't wish for you to rot in hell, I wish for you to open your eyes and your heart to others, and become a not so disgusting person.
And Barbella, black/other comedians do make fun of white people a lot. But they make fun of themselves and other ethnicities too. I have even seen white comedian make fun of black people. It is not that uncommon. Being from the US like you, I have heard white people make fun of black people, and I find it funny. I am not offended. A lot of white comedians make fun of some of the names that black people come up with, hair styles, etc. And its funny it isn't a big deal. And you are right, Emily's and others have a right to their own opinions. That is fine, but Emily takes it to a level that is beyond just have pride in one's own ethnic group. She puts down others in the process and that is not right. I mean, it is cool that you are proud of where you came from, everyone should be proud of their heritage. But don't step on others in the process!
Any way, I don't believe in evolution, so this page doesn't even really phase me or make me rethink any of the positions I have taken. It is just more unscientific drivel.
Here you go. Reon without the fake breasts. She looks like a 13-year-old girl in need of braces. Feminine? Only if you like minors.
"Whether it deviates towards European norms than the average Asian face or not, doesn't matter. Her face is lovely."
Yes, it matters very much since the entire argument in this blog is that a shift towards the more evolved white standard of beauty is what makes someone more appealing, not only to whites but to other races and ethnicities as well. You think it is lovely since it looks more white and less mongoloid, which, of course, is my entire point.
By the way, Reon Kadena...is this as good as it gets? That's truly sad.
23 year-old Reon has an underdeveloped, tiny body with the usual problems seen in that race. She is not feminine at all since she lacks the development into adulthood needed in order to display femininity. Pubescent girlishness with fake breasts is not femininity. Let's separate apples and oranges, shall we.
Reon is the ultimate proof that adult, mature femininity is practically non-existing in Asians, since this is probably as good as it gets after plastic surgery and heavy retouching and photoshopping (hard to find true candid shots of her, just like with any other Asian model. Gee, wonder why)
She appeals to men who like pubescent girls who are not yet fully developed women. Arrested development is not feminine, it is lack of evolvement.
I don't believe her breasts are real as they are unnatural for her straight and childlike body, and in many photos they don't appear natural.
Asian plastic surgeons are used to working with the non-existing curves of Asian women and are also well-known for the more natural looks they can achieve. Her breasts hardly do much to alter the impression of a non-finished, pubescent body with a giant head on top.
Fake or not they look like breasts on a child, and serve as an excuse to get turned on by a child's body. In that case, just throw in some fake breasts on a 12-year-old white girl and we will see the exact same result, and the same creepiness.
Her face does shift towards a less mongoloid form, and with much help from plastic surgery, probably. Reon is nice evidence of my statement that the Asian mongoloid form is unattractive to Asians themselves, who prefer a face with less mongoloid traits, shifting towards the white norm.
These models that Asians idolize hardly represent what most Asians look like. Less mongoloid-looking = more beautiful to Asians.
Real breasts? LOL Femininity? If you think so and are white, you have problems.
A child's body on a woman's face. Creepy.
When they fixed her breasts they forgot the backside.
Put on fake breasts and feel free to be turned on by children;
By the way, why is it that Asian teeth seem to have such a hard time fitting within their jaw? They are often not in a straight line, as if the jaw is too small to support the correct number of teeth. Their heads are very large so there should be no problem, but maybe the teeth are too large for the heads or jaws. I don't know.
This is the typical chest of the Japanese women..without the breast implants, that is.
And the backside;
Asian women are unfeminine and often even androgynous. They look like children with giant heads.
The greenish-yellowish "snake belly skin" colour is very unattractive. Their white skin has an unclean look to it. It also lacks life since there is very little blood colouring it. They need a tan.
In whites you usually see some blood colouring the skin, making it appear alive and healthy.
Swedish girls;
Pages