not sure where this is going really. are you attacking the general standards of the modelling industry as outlined by the above article? I would have to agree with that especially given the young age of most high fashion models. I would certainly like to see all models under 18 banned from high fashion.
or are you attacking the so called masculization? and putting blame for it squarely at the feet of homosexual fashion deseigners, which comes across as an attack on homosexuals. it is a relatively small section, nay tiny, of society that you are lashing out at. surely you don't begrudge them their sphere of influence?
I prefer Cories definitions of dominant features, and believe it is this rather than masculinazation that gives these girls their appeal. besides there is a scale, as someone who has a small nose and wide jaw, flat bum and big boobs, i think i fall squarely in the middle of said scale as probably do most woman, and much of what you call masculine, such as jawlines etc are more to do with the fact that the average face of a woman has more fat on it than the average fashion models, lack of fat making the features seem more dominant/masculine.
further more, i wonder why this so called masculisation bothers you so much, as you have pointed out and proved by this site, there are more than enough feminine women for men to ogle and most seem quite happy with what is out there. as said above in reagrds womens self esteem picking odd or unusual looking women and celebrating them is good. idealising overly skinny women is not. as for your obsession with so called feminity again it seems as extreme and as rare as anything celebrated by the fashion industry. an hourglass shape may be lovely but it is rare, totally roughly 11% of the population at most. the majority of women have what is termed a straight up and down shape with relatively little HWR.
Keeley is more feminine and appealing than Gisele, who is downright masculine. In that regard Keeley is exactly what Erik said, a striking contrast to the fashion models, even if masculinized to an extent.
Keeley is a mixture of feminine and masculine, her worst part being her large shoulders, I think. And if you need a wheelbarrow rather than a bra to carry around your breasts in it might actually be too much of a good thing..hihi.
fashion is elitest, as such it prefers things/people that are elite, or rare. the homosexual thing actually doesn't totally hold out. i know alot of gay men and most of their female icons are very femine, very jessica rabbit. think about drag queens, big boobs big ass big hair the full nine yards. and there is plenty of fashion for men with male models that male fashion designers could drool over. but they aren't sex maniacs, is it not possible that they can seperate their art and careers from the need to get off???
i think it is much more about snobbery, the bizarre the strange the unusual. they want to set themselves apart from the ordinary and every day. like kings and queens they are above mere mortals, the lumps and bumps that come with it. further proof, take a look at high society. heiresses like jemima goldsmith, skinny has been 'in' for a long time. where i live we get a lot of rich kids from upper class families, the norm for the girls here is skinny leggy and flat chested. they are like clones of one another.
but i agree that beauty comes in every kind of shape and size and i do wish that mgazines and mainstream brands and fashion retailers who ARE all about appealing to the everyday women would have the brains to realise this and diversify in their adevertising. television aswell has no excuse.
Emily : the large head asian people are cleaver people. most sciecetists have got large head as well.
anyway I'd like you to look at these links. The square jaw, large head or board face mean you developed correctly and healthy.
Look at this pages and you will understand more about it: http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/facial-development.html http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html
however, I have notice the asian from japan tend to have weak jaw and narrow head than the other east asian like chinese and korean and I find the feminine-looking east asian women are feminier than the feminine-looking caucasian women. but the best looking women for me are the eastern europeans or southern europeans with the sharp features.
"Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians?"
Perhaps you should have read Erik's entry here before asking me questions.
"In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments."
Well, in that case they need glasses, perhaps.
"Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection"
LOL So that is why the double eye lid surgery is so popular in Asia, and why their idols often look Eurasian, and most often have had that operation. It gives the eye a hugely unattractive form.
"The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?"
Actually, I think they support them very well. If you are Asian they might appear less androgynous but to westerners they do seem very non-feminine and non-masculine, respectively. It's not impossible to identify their gender but the gender difference is simply much smaller than in other races. It is a lack of evolvement into adulthood, as if something is unfinished.
And before you start arguing that Asian women are feminine; it requires a fully developed, feminine body in order to be feminine. Asian females are generally terribly underdeveloped and look like pubescent girls. That is why they often play on the Lolita look - regardless of the many distasteful associations it brings to mind, apparently.
Tiny bodies with over-sized heads, straight bodies without much hips or breasts, and often with childlike qualities, do not cut it, I'm afraid. A vast majority of them look like that. The monotonous hair- and eye colour doesn't help, the black colour as usual being hard and masculine.
Your lack of response to my arguments indicates that you are not a fan of logic and reason. I can understand that, they are pretty soulless things. Dr Spock is logical, but difficult to have a pint with. Subjectivity and the way you feel is more important to you and I respect that, I really do.
So with this in mind, please read the following personal opinions and tell me:
Would you consider coming to Cameroon?
The place:
It is such a beautiful country. In the south it has beaches to match any you have ever seen, magnificent waterfalls that cascade down into the sea, and freshly-caught barbecued prawns the like I have never tasted before. Further north, there are national parks where you can trek in the rainforest and see chimpanzees and gorillas and a vast array of birdlife. Or you can head into the mountains, climb Mount Cameroon, enjoy the scenery and the most amazing volcanic landscape. You can take the train up north, buying freshly picked fruits and nuts through the train window at every stop (sold by villagers from trays they carry expertly on their heads). Then you can take the bus to the extreme north, watching as the scenery changes before your eyes from lush forest, to scrubland, to desert. During the journey there will be hippos and, if you’re lucky, baboons too. Once up north you could visit the Waza national park, with the chance to see elephants and lions and giraffes. You could visit a nationally renowned sorcerer who will tell your fortune. Perhaps he will predict love for you. Maybe even love of the interracial kind (shock horror!).
The people:
Along the way, you would meet beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women. And gorgeous, athletic men. But more importantly, you would be humbled by the generosity of people who will give readily what little they have, just to make you that little bit more comfortable. Adorable children playing on the roadside with bits of rubbish and string would see you and smile and wave, and it would melt your heart.
The logistics:
If you want to come, I will help you. I will make sure you have pleasant places to stay and are looked after and never feel lost or vulnerable.
What you would learn:
If you met my neighbours, you would ask yourself, why do these people, who are so good, and intelligent, and hardworking (and – well, just like me really)… Why do they live in such destitution? Why do they not have access to even the most basic healthcare? Why do good people suffer needlessly every day from preventable illness? And how do they still find the strength to face each day with grace and good humour?
You might even ask, "How did I get so lucky as to live in Sweden?" and "What can I do to help?"
You would return home, and read back the things you have written, and you would recognise their callous inhumanity. You would resolve never to use offensive, racist terms, ever again. And you would remember that, while it is interesting to reflect on the nature of beauty, it is vital never to confuse objective reflection with personal prejudice.
It is not my Latin genes that were the cause of my weight gain(which went down, thank god!), but it was the AMERICAN culture I am part of. I eat college food now. I have no idea what is in the food, but I know it can't be good. I would eat salads, but too bad anything that is shipped over here in the United States has absolutley no taste. I am not in the comfort of my own home where I actually grow my own vegetables over the summer. Therefore I eat what I tasteful. That includes a lot of cheese and soda...and cookies...
I understand that Keeley Hazel has some back fat in some of the photos, or that she is fuller and maybe that adds some weight to her shoulders or whatever. I know what fat can do. I have a really small frame, and I gain weight in my bust, hips, butt, thighs, and arms. It just makes me overall bulkier so I actually look husky. But you see, Keeley Hazel doesn't have a small frame. So, its just her big frame that makes her look like that not any fat...
I still think that Nordic women are more feminine on average, but something I am noticing from some foreign exchange students here:
The French woman have small frames. They are short, all between 5'0-5'4. At first I thought they looked like little girls. They were all wearing hoodies that overpowered their small frames and height. Then as they started wearing tighter clothes, I noticed how small their frames were and how shapely those little frames were. The majority had hourglass figures or a variation of that figure. They also all had cute features. No ugly noses. I also noticed lack of gain weight. Barberella mentioned that Latin women gain weight easily. Well if they do, (which they really don't), French women sure keep their weight on well. I also noiced that there were not many differences between the Italian women and the French women. In fact many times I got them confused...
The Nordic women (from Denmark specifically) just have bigger frames. They are taller and seem bigger boned. Actually 2 out of 5 of the girls have pretty pudgey. A few have hourglass figures, but not as strongly shaped as the French women. Meaning the waists were not quite as sucked in and small it seems and the frames were just bigger overall. The shortest girl in this group was like 5'4 if even, probably 5'5.
I'd also like to add that the French girls certainly did not lack behinds or breasts, while the Nordic women certainlty didn't lack behinds, some lacked big breasts. It seemed the girls either resembled the pear shape or more of an upsidown traingle shape. Few had real hourglass figures...
You know Giselle doesn't look bad with a little weight huh? She actually has breasts, I don't think those are implants they actually sag too much to be so. Hmm....
"Erik didn't say she is very feminine but that she is attractive (attractive women's section)."
Erik's whole site is about how femininity is a strong correlate of attractiveness for women. Therefore, considering he believes Keeley Hazel should be around #4 on the Ask Men's attractive women's list, I think that she should at least be FEMININE! I mean if she is number 4, then I guess the women above her wouldn't have to be very feminine to be better and therefore I guess that Erik is wrong and femininity isn't what makes a woman beautiful. I mean sure it helps, but maybe its just genes then huh?
I guess you just have to have the big boobs, good pores, good nose, pretty eyes, pretty hair, right face shape, pouty lips, sexy hips, long legs, small waist,big ass, small hands and feet genes. And then you know that stuff called estrogen? If you've got that then that's a plus too....
Maybe Erik's site should read something like that then huh?
Keeley Hazel is a very weak example of a feminine woman. She seems to be between a very tall well built male and a very voluptuous female. Basically she looks like a man with wide shoulders, good muscle formation, but with big boobs and a small waist...
I think Keeley Hazel is attractive but she is not very feminine. That is just that... and that to a certain extent contradicts what Erik is saying, especially because Keeley is as attractive as she is.
The point is that things on this site are off and there need to be more explanations...
Sometimes I feel as if Erik does a good job choosing what is feminine and what is not...
Other times I feel like he just picks what he likes for whatever reason he likes it(because many times the reason is not related to femininity in any way) and makes his points around that even if it contradicts everything....
I also find it interesting how Erik has no problem claiming that Keeley Hazel is attractive, despite her manlike appearance at times. However, Erik criticizes men who like fashion models and accuses them to be borderline homosexuals. I actually think it is more likely a man will confuse a high fashion model as being feminine than Keeley Hazel, because in the majority of Keeley Hazel's photos you can clearly see she has broad shoulders and manly features. At least the Victoria Secret models are more expertly posed and more misguiding...
Giselle Budchen:
and here is the link in case Photobucket deletes it:
Besides, I happen to think epicanthal folds are beautiful. I'd also like to add that I have seen pure Nordics with epicanthal eye folds. I think Finns have epicanthal eyelids in the highest frequency among Nordics, then Swedes. However, I have seen GERMANS with epicanthal eyelids. And, I have seen these in the Northern part of Germany, and in less frequencies in the South. I have been to Germany so I KNOW what I am talking about. We have epicanthal folds in my family on my Romanian side as well, probably from slight Hungarian admixture, as we all know Hungarians originally came from Asia. I find them attractive, and my cousin whom has them is probably the most wanted girl in my town. However, her epicanthal eyelids very different than the Asian ones, but epicanthal nonethless. Kind of like this:
And yes, we do have blue eyes in my family, on my Romanian side. Not in high frequencies, but still they are there...
Thanks for the advice. I like that you gave me scholarly stuff, that is always a plus! I will read it Thanks!
Emily,
Epicanthal eye lids are an evolutionary advantage and thus part of EVOLUTION meaning they are EVOLVED! These are good for keeping dust sand and anything else out of the eyes. That is their purpose.
And seriously, AGAIN! AGAIN you post photos of CHILDREN! Sick. I don't think I can come back on here if it goes on...
And what do you have against Asians?
I am personally not attracted to Asian men, but if you ask me the people I am most attracted to are those that have features close to mine. I fall into that, " You are attracted to those who look like you" category, with similar face shape, nose shape, etc. For example I like thin noses on men because I have a thin nose and I want to pass it on. So, I'm not attracted to ASIAN men or men of other races, but I can still appreciate what makes them attractive. Just because YOU aren't attracted to something doesn't mean they are not attractive. Everyone has their reason for being attracted to different things.
Take this into consideration. Everyone likes different foods. Some like sweet foods, some like spicy. Your taste for food is the result of evolution as well. You evolved to like the food you like. Therefore, just because you like cheesy or spicy foods, doesn't mean EVERYONE does. Just as everyone has different tastes in foods, sometimes for reasons unkown, everybody has different tastes in people. Therefore, even though most people may be attracted to Nordics, just like most people like the food pizza, not everyone will be attracted to Nordics, or not everyone will want a Nordic to be their first choice. Just like everyone may like pizza, some people may like other foods more than pizza, even though they still like pizza. GET IT?
Emily,
I just discovered this site in the past week. Since then, I've encountered some very intriguing arguments here, but also some incredibly shoddy scholarship coupled with what seems to be a lack of regard for appropriate methodology. Therefore, I apologize for singling you out, but having just read through your post on Asian aesthetics, I'm profoundly disturbed.
When you use language such as "poorly developed" or "less evolved," you tacitly establish a standard of "well developed" and "more evolved" that relies on some sort of example you are envisioning for both. What might that example be? Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians? Anglos? Hispanics? Nordic peoples? Inuits? Ethiopians?
In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments. As Geoffrey Miller writes in The Mating Mind, Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection, NOT from lack of evolution or "poor development." The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?
Finally, on a personal rather than academic note, you seem to have a real problem with Asians. Why is that, do you think?
So, it turned out that the Swedish females possess facial features that Emily associates with non Nordic people. Especially robust noses, marked by Emily as"typical" Romanian and Indian, and also long and wide noses with huge bumps. Some of the women on the photos even have Asian-like slanted eyes. Does that mean that Emily discriminates her own people? LOL.
Lack of evolvement manifests itself in different ways. There is the underdeveloped asian body type, which is so typical for that race. A very large head compared to the body, very small hips and breasts, often followed by short legs, make many asians look childish and not like fully developed adults. They will often appeal to western men who like the girlish look of adolescent girls, or younger.
The asian adult face with its flat profile, sunken nose bridge and round, mongoloid traits often look similar to that of children. The distinction between child and adult is less pronounced.
Another effect of what resembles poor development into adult maturity is the feminine-looking men. Very rounded, soft facial features in men are not masculine and instead look child-like.
Child;
Adult;
Poorly developed nose bridge, strangely malformed eyelids, huge puffy and childish cheeks and a very flat profile make the asian race look less evolved, and therefore also less attractive and appealing. This goes for both body and face. The asians who look more attractive will better approach the white standard of beauty and have more muted mongoloid traits.
The underdeveloped and immature-looking facial traits are often unsatisfactory to asians themselves, and plastic surgery photos show which general look is desired. A more adult-looking, masculine face.;
Before;
After;
Yet another effect of the strange lack of distinction between child- and adulthood is that the genders approach each other in looks. Oftentimes neither one of them look maturely feminine or masculine, but instead often rather androgynous.
Like you, I think personal insults are a poor substitute for rational debate:
“Try to use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.” (your advice to another poster, above on this page)
So, consider the following rational argument:
When you quoted Barack Obama and then claimed that his words were racist, there are two possible reasons why you did so: either you were deliberately misrepresenting what he said to make it seem racist when really it wasn’t, or you genuinely thought his comments were racist and were trying to explain why.
Similarly, when I quoted you and then claimed that your words were offensive and unbecoming, either I was deliberately misrepresenting what you said to make it look that way when really it wasn’t, or that was genuinely my view, and I was trying to explain why.
I assure you that the latter is true. I genuinely thought (and still think) your words were self-evidently indefensible, regardless of context, and I think they paint a negative picture of you. I have been completely honest about that and I have shown why.
We have both used quotations to support our point. So either we are both as bad and deceitful as each other, or (as I believe) we were both within our rights to use quotation in the way we did.
I compiled a sample of your most offensive statements because I think that if you repeatedly make discourteous remarks about other ethnicities, and about other people on the basis of their ethnicities, using terms with racist connotations, it’s really not surprising if someone comes along and assumes that you are a racist. I think I have been quite clear about that. Stating that your words were judicious in context is fine, but it is only convincing if you can demonstrate clearly that the circumstances under which you said them justifies their offensive nature – i.e. which specific remarks provoked you, and why your response was appropriate. This is something you have yet to do. You may feel that it was unfair of me to put the onus on you to justify the offensive things you said. I feel that I was right to do so, because I think if you cannot defend them you should refrain from saying them.
You have said a lot of controversial things, and in my last comment, I tried to respond to some of them intelligently and fairly in the hope of entering into sensible discussion. So far, I note that you have failed to address any of my points and instead cast numerous aspersions about my character.
In response, I simply repeat your own words, with which I very much agree:
“saying I’m such a terrible person is not an argument. Try to use arguments...
Surprise me.”
I could answer your post in detail, but you see, I believe that someone has to have at least some small kind of basic decency and integrity in order for me to spend my time doing that.
I also don't believe you for one second when you say you didn't intend to be underhand. That was exactly what you intended. You are intelligent, and you knew what you were doing. The thing is, such nasty and deceitful behavior always backfires because the one doing it loses the respect of others. You might not always like my views on the issues here - or my choice of words when I am annoyed and provoced - but I would never do something like that to somebody else in order to give a twisted and untrue image of them.
If you dislike my comments I suggest you don't read them instead of spending your time going through everything I say, picking out the most negative parts totally out of context. You, by the way, have proven yourself to be the last person to give others advice on how to conduct themselves, or how to write. I would worry more about yourself if I were you.
Godis, that was a very generous comment and I was flattered when I read it, thank you. Although you might not think so highly of me if you could see the state I get into when I lose my house keys in the morning!
If you’re interested in analysing your own way of putting your arguments, the following web-page is a very brief analysis of ways we use language to express ourselves, and how different ways of saying things are helpful in different contexts. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e04.htm If you find that piques your interest, I can try to find some pages that are a bit more comprehensive.
A bit off-topic, but I think as someone who enjoys learning about yourself, and people in general, you might enjoy a book called “Emotional Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman, or “How the Mind Works” by Steven Pinker. Pinker touches on some of the issues here like evolution, genetics, why we find certain features beautiful, but he discusses a lot more besides. Goleman is more concerned with character, why human beings evolved to have strong emotional reactions and how we can use our intellect to deal with them productively. While both books are accessible, they are also academic, so although they have very different styles, both writers know how to make their case effectively using neutral language. It’s helpful to study how they convey strong and firmly held beliefs, but in a moderate, well-argued way.
Hey. Thanks for your reply Emily. I don’t know about brave, but you’re certainly outspoken.
My lowbrow tactics:
It’s true that I took your words out of context. It wasn’t my intention to be underhand. They were your words after all, and I just thought that if you take a fresh look at them, you might understand why some people assume that you are racist, since this seems to annoy you. My point was to demonstrate how people might form this impression on the basis of your words, and in my defence I was up front about that from the start. I agree that nothing you say gives others the right to be obnoxious towards you. And by the same token nothing they say gives you the right to be obnoxious either, which you sometimes are. Personally I think a lot of your comments are unacceptable regardless of context.
My uncivilised president?
Obama is not my president as I’m not from the USA, although I remember the lipstick-on-pig comment, and how the media response seemed overblown, since it’s a common idiom that means “you can’t dress something up as something it’s not”, and he was talking about Republican party rhetoric. He also said that "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change’, it's still gonna stink after eight years.” So maybe he was trying to say that John McCain, and by association all white people, smell like fish? (Forgive my facetiousness, but I hope you see my point.) His words did echo Sarah Palin’s. She had said that the difference between a hockey mum and a pitbull is lipstick, thus comparing herself with a pitbull, the implication being that she is a fighter. Luckily people saw what she was getting at and didn’t claim discrimination against hockey mums.
I think people can take offense too easily and be overly zealous with the word “racism” and that seems to be something you and I both agree on. So maybe by the same logic we shouldn’t assume that Obama’s remarks were racist. A cheap shot at Sarah Palin, maybe, but it’s a bit far fetched to brand him a racist on the basis of those comments. His words were more moderate than many of your own, and you definitely don’t like it when people use that word about you. Having one standard for yourself and another for everyone else is wrong, as you have said on more than one occasion.
Putting things mildly:
I agree with you in principle that there is nothing wrong with having a preferred look or “type”. (My own physical preference is for Johnny Depp lookalikes.) But the statement “I find myself attracted to white men and not to other ethnicities” is very different from the statement “The majority of people here don't like underdeveloped dwarfs with mongoloid traits, looking like pubescent girls when they are 25”. The first is a neutral statement of fact. The second is subjective, negative and insulting. This is why I think it is better that when you say offensive things like that, you just say that this is your opinion and steer clear of phrases like “the majority of people”. You certainly do not represent the “majority of people” that I know when you express yourself in that way. Similarly if you say that something is “deemed” to be true, as in your previous comment, I think you really ought to provide evidence. (“Deemed” by whom? How do you know?). The same with phrases like “generally speaking”, “the truth is” or “the fact is”. Unless the statement is objectively verifiable, it is more straightforward just to say “My opinion is” or “my impression is” and leave it at that.
Incidentally, the word “mongoloid” has been used historically as a term of abuse, so if you don’t want people saying you’re racist, you might want to give that term a wide berth.
It is my understanding that we no longer call people with Down syndrome “mongoloids”, partly because, as I say, that word has become a term of abuse, but also because it is incorrect, as the facial characteristics that are trademark of Down’s are not the same as the features of East Asians. Down made that connection on the basis of epicanthal folds alone, which tells me more about socio-historical attitudes to race and difference than it does about physiognomy. I feel glad we now live in a more progressive, less ignorant age.
Perceptions of beauty:
So anyway, I’m based in Africa right now, and I’m surrounded by, to use your terminology, “pure blacks”. In my town, white skin is tied to a whole range of assumptions about status and character, which clouds the beauty issue somewhat. So perhaps little children are the most reliable judges, since they haven’t yet learned to make these evaluative associations, and they just do what comes naturally. And what comes naturally when they see me for the first time, is usually to run away in tears! As far as they are concerned my appearance is not just unattractive but downright weird. Luckily most have got used to me by now. So I subscribe to the theory that what we find aesthetically pleasing depends somewhat on our instinct, but a lot on what we’ve learned and got used to.
Most Europeans grow up in their home country surrounded largely by other Europeans, and during crucial stages of their development, as they are building a sense of identity and belonging, working out what they find “normal” or “attractive”, it is other Europeans that they are exposed to. Conversely, ask a group of schoolgirls in Kyoto whether they prefer Japanese heartthrob Hideaka Takizawa or US sex symbol Brad Pitt. I think I can guess whose picture they have lovingly glued into their exercise books. It’s not Brad, even though in my opinion he wins hands down.
A good analogy, perhaps, is with food. My neighbours here eat crickets. I don’t like them at all (crickets that is. My neighbours are fine). As far as I’m concerned, insects are not for eating. It would be meaningless to try to prove objectively that they taste bad, because taste is not objective. I can’t say with any authority that it’s not normal to like crickets, only that I don’t find it normal, and that they probably wouldn’t sell in an English supermarket. My neighbours like them well enough and find my distaste for them decidedly odd. It would be absurd to try and rationalise my preference by writing detailed critiques, comparing them with poisonous scorpions, and proclaiming the intrinsic superiority of the perfectly formed prawn. I just don’t like eating crickets. End of story.
In other words our tastes stem from impulse, not intellect. If an African man finds my pale skin unattractive, fine. That’s just the way he feels. But if he then tries to reason that I’m unattractive because I resemble a pig, I’ll feel offended.
Similarly there is no need to rationalise your dislike of non-white looks by making incongruous and unflattering references to snakes and primates and disease. You can just say “this is my preference” and “research indicates that this is most white people’s preference” and leave it at that. Unless, of course, you have objective data to substantiate any reasons you give. True that this website attempts to rationalise perceptions of beauty, but it does so by showing us verifiable facts, research, statistics, discoveries from academic fields such as evolutionary psychology and genetics. It makes no claim without providing such evidence to support it. The arguments put forward are therefore persuasive, if challenging. I think a similarly disciplined approach on your part would help you make a more compelling case and, importantly, help put an end to those pesky accusations of racism.
xx
By the way, credit where it’s due. Reading your comments I would swear you were a native English speaker. I might not like some of the things you say, but the ability to speak and write so eloquently in more than one language is something I deeply admire.
not sure where this is going really. are you attacking the general standards of the modelling industry as outlined by the above article? I would have to agree with that especially given the young age of most high fashion models. I would certainly like to see all models under 18 banned from high fashion.
or are you attacking the so called masculization? and putting blame for it squarely at the feet of homosexual fashion deseigners, which comes across as an attack on homosexuals. it is a relatively small section, nay tiny, of society that you are lashing out at. surely you don't begrudge them their sphere of influence?
I prefer Cories definitions of dominant features, and believe it is this rather than masculinazation that gives these girls their appeal. besides there is a scale, as someone who has a small nose and wide jaw, flat bum and big boobs, i think i fall squarely in the middle of said scale as probably do most woman, and much of what you call masculine, such as jawlines etc are more to do with the fact that the average face of a woman has more fat on it than the average fashion models, lack of fat making the features seem more dominant/masculine.
further more, i wonder why this so called masculisation bothers you so much, as you have pointed out and proved by this site, there are more than enough feminine women for men to ogle and most seem quite happy with what is out there. as said above in reagrds womens self esteem picking odd or unusual looking women and celebrating them is good. idealising overly skinny women is not. as for your obsession with so called feminity again it seems as extreme and as rare as anything celebrated by the fashion industry. an hourglass shape may be lovely but it is rare, totally roughly 11% of the population at most. the majority of women have what is termed a straight up and down shape with relatively little HWR.
Keeley is more feminine and appealing than Gisele, who is downright masculine. In that regard Keeley is exactly what Erik said, a striking contrast to the fashion models, even if masculinized to an extent.
Keeley is a mixture of feminine and masculine, her worst part being her large shoulders, I think. And if you need a wheelbarrow rather than a bra to carry around your breasts in it might actually be too much of a good thing..hihi.
Here Keeley gets some much needed rest
fashion is elitest, as such it prefers things/people that are elite, or rare. the homosexual thing actually doesn't totally hold out. i know alot of gay men and most of their female icons are very femine, very jessica rabbit. think about drag queens, big boobs big ass big hair the full nine yards. and there is plenty of fashion for men with male models that male fashion designers could drool over. but they aren't sex maniacs, is it not possible that they can seperate their art and careers from the need to get off???
i think it is much more about snobbery, the bizarre the strange the unusual. they want to set themselves apart from the ordinary and every day. like kings and queens they are above mere mortals, the lumps and bumps that come with it. further proof, take a look at high society. heiresses like jemima goldsmith, skinny has been 'in' for a long time. where i live we get a lot of rich kids from upper class families, the norm for the girls here is skinny leggy and flat chested. they are like clones of one another.
but i agree that beauty comes in every kind of shape and size and i do wish that mgazines and mainstream brands and fashion retailers who ARE all about appealing to the everyday women would have the brains to realise this and diversify in their adevertising. television aswell has no excuse.
Emily : the large head asian people are cleaver people. most sciecetists have got large head as well.
anyway I'd like you to look at these links. The square jaw, large head or board face mean you developed correctly and healthy.
Look at this pages and you will understand more about it:
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/facial-development.html
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html
however, I have notice the asian from japan tend to have weak jaw and narrow head than the other east asian like chinese and korean and I find the feminine-looking east asian women are feminier than the feminine-looking caucasian women. but the best looking women for me are the eastern europeans or southern europeans with the sharp features.
"i think that Reon Kadena is a lot more feminine than Keeley"
And a fetus is a lot more feminine than Reon.
Shocked But Not Surprised;
"Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians?"
Perhaps you should have read Erik's entry here before asking me questions.
"In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments."
Well, in that case they need glasses, perhaps.
"Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection"
LOL So that is why the double eye lid surgery is so popular in Asia, and why their idols often look Eurasian, and most often have had that operation. It gives the eye a hugely unattractive form.
"The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?"
Actually, I think they support them very well. If you are Asian they might appear less androgynous but to westerners they do seem very non-feminine and non-masculine, respectively. It's not impossible to identify their gender but the gender difference is simply much smaller than in other races. It is a lack of evolvement into adulthood, as if something is unfinished.
And before you start arguing that Asian women are feminine; it requires a fully developed, feminine body in order to be feminine. Asian females are generally terribly underdeveloped and look like pubescent girls. That is why they often play on the Lolita look - regardless of the many distasteful associations it brings to mind, apparently.
Tiny bodies with over-sized heads, straight bodies without much hips or breasts, and often with childlike qualities, do not cut it, I'm afraid. A vast majority of them look like that. The monotonous hair- and eye colour doesn't help, the black colour as usual being hard and masculine.
Hey Emily.
Your lack of response to my arguments indicates that you are not a fan of logic and reason. I can understand that, they are pretty soulless things. Dr Spock is logical, but difficult to have a pint with. Subjectivity and the way you feel is more important to you and I respect that, I really do.
So with this in mind, please read the following personal opinions and tell me:
Would you consider coming to Cameroon?
The place:
It is such a beautiful country. In the south it has beaches to match any you have ever seen, magnificent waterfalls that cascade down into the sea, and freshly-caught barbecued prawns the like I have never tasted before. Further north, there are national parks where you can trek in the rainforest and see chimpanzees and gorillas and a vast array of birdlife. Or you can head into the mountains, climb Mount Cameroon, enjoy the scenery and the most amazing volcanic landscape. You can take the train up north, buying freshly picked fruits and nuts through the train window at every stop (sold by villagers from trays they carry expertly on their heads). Then you can take the bus to the extreme north, watching as the scenery changes before your eyes from lush forest, to scrubland, to desert. During the journey there will be hippos and, if you’re lucky, baboons too. Once up north you could visit the Waza national park, with the chance to see elephants and lions and giraffes. You could visit a nationally renowned sorcerer who will tell your fortune. Perhaps he will predict love for you. Maybe even love of the interracial kind (shock horror!).
The people:
Along the way, you would meet beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women. And gorgeous, athletic men. But more importantly, you would be humbled by the generosity of people who will give readily what little they have, just to make you that little bit more comfortable. Adorable children playing on the roadside with bits of rubbish and string would see you and smile and wave, and it would melt your heart.
The logistics:
If you want to come, I will help you. I will make sure you have pleasant places to stay and are looked after and never feel lost or vulnerable.
What you would learn:
If you met my neighbours, you would ask yourself, why do these people, who are so good, and intelligent, and hardworking (and – well, just like me really)… Why do they live in such destitution? Why do they not have access to even the most basic healthcare? Why do good people suffer needlessly every day from preventable illness? And how do they still find the strength to face each day with grace and good humour?
You might even ask, "How did I get so lucky as to live in Sweden?" and "What can I do to help?"
You would return home, and read back the things you have written, and you would recognise their callous inhumanity. You would resolve never to use offensive, racist terms, ever again. And you would remember that, while it is interesting to reflect on the nature of beauty, it is vital never to confuse objective reflection with personal prejudice.
Haelsningar!
Liza
xx
i think that Reon Kadena is a lot more feminine than Keeley.
Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com
It is not my Latin genes that were the cause of my weight gain(which went down, thank god!), but it was the AMERICAN culture I am part of. I eat college food now. I have no idea what is in the food, but I know it can't be good. I would eat salads, but too bad anything that is shipped over here in the United States has absolutley no taste. I am not in the comfort of my own home where I actually grow my own vegetables over the summer. Therefore I eat what I tasteful. That includes a lot of cheese and soda...and cookies...
I understand that Keeley Hazel has some back fat in some of the photos, or that she is fuller and maybe that adds some weight to her shoulders or whatever. I know what fat can do. I have a really small frame, and I gain weight in my bust, hips, butt, thighs, and arms. It just makes me overall bulkier so I actually look husky. But you see, Keeley Hazel doesn't have a small frame. So, its just her big frame that makes her look like that not any fat...
I still think that Nordic women are more feminine on average, but something I am noticing from some foreign exchange students here:
The French woman have small frames. They are short, all between 5'0-5'4. At first I thought they looked like little girls. They were all wearing hoodies that overpowered their small frames and height. Then as they started wearing tighter clothes, I noticed how small their frames were and how shapely those little frames were. The majority had hourglass figures or a variation of that figure. They also all had cute features. No ugly noses. I also noticed lack of gain weight. Barberella mentioned that Latin women gain weight easily. Well if they do, (which they really don't), French women sure keep their weight on well. I also noiced that there were not many differences between the Italian women and the French women. In fact many times I got them confused...
The Nordic women (from Denmark specifically) just have bigger frames. They are taller and seem bigger boned. Actually 2 out of 5 of the girls have pretty pudgey. A few have hourglass figures, but not as strongly shaped as the French women. Meaning the waists were not quite as sucked in and small it seems and the frames were just bigger overall. The shortest girl in this group was like 5'4 if even, probably 5'5.
I'd also like to add that the French girls certainly did not lack behinds or breasts, while the Nordic women certainlty didn't lack behinds, some lacked big breasts. It seemed the girls either resembled the pear shape or more of an upsidown traingle shape. Few had real hourglass figures...
That is my observation.
You know Giselle doesn't look bad with a little weight huh? She actually has breasts, I don't think those are implants they actually sag too much to be so. Hmm....
"Erik didn't say she is very feminine but that she is attractive (attractive women's section)."
Erik's whole site is about how femininity is a strong correlate of attractiveness for women. Therefore, considering he believes Keeley Hazel should be around #4 on the Ask Men's attractive women's list, I think that she should at least be FEMININE! I mean if she is number 4, then I guess the women above her wouldn't have to be very feminine to be better and therefore I guess that Erik is wrong and femininity isn't what makes a woman beautiful. I mean sure it helps, but maybe its just genes then huh?
I guess you just have to have the big boobs, good pores, good nose, pretty eyes, pretty hair, right face shape, pouty lips, sexy hips, long legs, small waist,big ass, small hands and feet genes. And then you know that stuff called estrogen? If you've got that then that's a plus too....
Maybe Erik's site should read something like that then huh?
Keeley Hazel is a very weak example of a feminine woman. She seems to be between a very tall well built male and a very voluptuous female. Basically she looks like a man with wide shoulders, good muscle formation, but with big boobs and a small waist...
I think Keeley Hazel is attractive but she is not very feminine. That is just that... and that to a certain extent contradicts what Erik is saying, especially because Keeley is as attractive as she is.
The point is that things on this site are off and there need to be more explanations...
Sometimes I feel as if Erik does a good job choosing what is feminine and what is not...
Other times I feel like he just picks what he likes for whatever reason he likes it(because many times the reason is not related to femininity in any way) and makes his points around that even if it contradicts everything....
I also find it interesting how Erik has no problem claiming that Keeley Hazel is attractive, despite her manlike appearance at times. However, Erik criticizes men who like fashion models and accuses them to be borderline homosexuals. I actually think it is more likely a man will confuse a high fashion model as being feminine than Keeley Hazel, because in the majority of Keeley Hazel's photos you can clearly see she has broad shoulders and manly features. At least the Victoria Secret models are more expertly posed and more misguiding...
Giselle Budchen:
and here is the link in case Photobucket deletes it:
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/03/08-15/gisele-bundchen-nude-auction-01.jpg
Besides, I happen to think epicanthal folds are beautiful. I'd also like to add that I have seen pure Nordics with epicanthal eye folds. I think Finns have epicanthal eyelids in the highest frequency among Nordics, then Swedes. However, I have seen GERMANS with epicanthal eyelids. And, I have seen these in the Northern part of Germany, and in less frequencies in the South. I have been to Germany so I KNOW what I am talking about. We have epicanthal folds in my family on my Romanian side as well, probably from slight Hungarian admixture, as we all know Hungarians originally came from Asia. I find them attractive, and my cousin whom has them is probably the most wanted girl in my town. However, her epicanthal eyelids very different than the Asian ones, but epicanthal nonethless. Kind of like this:
And yes, we do have blue eyes in my family, on my Romanian side. Not in high frequencies, but still they are there...
Liza,
Thanks for the advice. I like that you gave me scholarly stuff, that is always a plus! I will read it Thanks!
Emily,
Epicanthal eye lids are an evolutionary advantage and thus part of EVOLUTION meaning they are EVOLVED! These are good for keeping dust sand and anything else out of the eyes. That is their purpose.
And seriously, AGAIN! AGAIN you post photos of CHILDREN! Sick. I don't think I can come back on here if it goes on...
And what do you have against Asians?
I am personally not attracted to Asian men, but if you ask me the people I am most attracted to are those that have features close to mine. I fall into that, " You are attracted to those who look like you" category, with similar face shape, nose shape, etc. For example I like thin noses on men because I have a thin nose and I want to pass it on. So, I'm not attracted to ASIAN men or men of other races, but I can still appreciate what makes them attractive. Just because YOU aren't attracted to something doesn't mean they are not attractive. Everyone has their reason for being attracted to different things.
Take this into consideration. Everyone likes different foods. Some like sweet foods, some like spicy. Your taste for food is the result of evolution as well. You evolved to like the food you like. Therefore, just because you like cheesy or spicy foods, doesn't mean EVERYONE does. Just as everyone has different tastes in foods, sometimes for reasons unkown, everybody has different tastes in people. Therefore, even though most people may be attracted to Nordics, just like most people like the food pizza, not everyone will be attracted to Nordics, or not everyone will want a Nordic to be their first choice. Just like everyone may like pizza, some people may like other foods more than pizza, even though they still like pizza. GET IT?
Emily,
I just discovered this site in the past week. Since then, I've encountered some very intriguing arguments here, but also some incredibly shoddy scholarship coupled with what seems to be a lack of regard for appropriate methodology. Therefore, I apologize for singling you out, but having just read through your post on Asian aesthetics, I'm profoundly disturbed.
When you use language such as "poorly developed" or "less evolved," you tacitly establish a standard of "well developed" and "more evolved" that relies on some sort of example you are envisioning for both. What might that example be? Which ethnicity are you assuming is well developed and more evolved when compared to Asians? Anglos? Hispanics? Nordic peoples? Inuits? Ethiopians?
In addition, most reputable evolutionary biologists would disagree with almost each and every one your arguments. As Geoffrey Miller writes in The Mating Mind, Asian features such as the skin folds you label "strangely malformed" that give Asian eyes their classic "almond" shape arise from sexual selection, NOT from lack of evolution or "poor development." The two photos you include that allegedly demonstrate the androgynous appearance of both sexes withing Asian ethnicites also fail to provide support for your contentions. Can anyone look at the first photo and honestly claim not to be able to immediately identify the female in the group?
Finally, on a personal rather than academic note, you seem to have a real problem with Asians. Why is that, do you think?
Tipical Swedish females!
[image]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/1901563345_a46c381429.jpg?v=0[/image]
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/1901563345_a46c381429.jpg?v=0
[image]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6337711/2/istockphoto_6337711-young-swedish-girl.jpg[/image]
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6337711/2/istockphoto_6337711-young-swedish-girl.jpg
[image]http://www.swedishtranslator.com/images/tina.jpg[/image]
http://www.swedishtranslator.com/images/tina.jpg
[image]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45251000/jpg/_45251301_annieborjesson226by282.jpg[/image]
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45251000/jpg/_45251301_annieborjesson226by282.jpg
[image]http://www.minigolf2007.com/dbtn/200706/tn0000121sandra.jpg[/image]
http://www.minigolf2007.com/dbtn/200706/tn0000121sandra.jpg
[image]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/298400938_bdbc0924f9.jpg[/image]
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/298400938_bdbc0924f9.jpg
[image]http://mainisorri.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/maini-isma2-ansikte.jpg[/image]
http://mainisorri.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/maini-isma2-ansikte.jpg
etc.
So, it turned out that the Swedish females possess facial features that Emily associates with non Nordic people. Especially robust noses, marked by Emily as"typical" Romanian and Indian, and also long and wide noses with huge bumps. Some of the women on the photos even have Asian-like slanted eyes. Does that mean that Emily discriminates her own people? LOL.
The statement: "non Nordics have ugly noses" is the same like saying "all Nordict have upward noses". Both statements are incorrect, ofcourse!
It is very sad that some people feel insecure about their own looks and feel the urge to spit venom at other people.
Lack of evolvement manifests itself in different ways. There is the underdeveloped asian body type, which is so typical for that race. A very large head compared to the body, very small hips and breasts, often followed by short legs, make many asians look childish and not like fully developed adults. They will often appeal to western men who like the girlish look of adolescent girls, or younger.
The asian adult face with its flat profile, sunken nose bridge and round, mongoloid traits often look similar to that of children. The distinction between child and adult is less pronounced.
Another effect of what resembles poor development into adult maturity is the feminine-looking men. Very rounded, soft facial features in men are not masculine and instead look child-like.
Child;
Adult;
Poorly developed nose bridge, strangely malformed eyelids, huge puffy and childish cheeks and a very flat profile make the asian race look less evolved, and therefore also less attractive and appealing. This goes for both body and face. The asians who look more attractive will better approach the white standard of beauty and have more muted mongoloid traits.
The underdeveloped and immature-looking facial traits are often unsatisfactory to asians themselves, and plastic surgery photos show which general look is desired. A more adult-looking, masculine face.;
Before;
After;
Yet another effect of the strange lack of distinction between child- and adulthood is that the genders approach each other in looks. Oftentimes neither one of them look maturely feminine or masculine, but instead often rather androgynous.
Charloviex:
That's brilliant, thanks for the comment. They are such good books!
xx
Hey Emily.
Like you, I think personal insults are a poor substitute for rational debate:
“Try to use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.” (your advice to another poster, above on this page)
So, consider the following rational argument:
When you quoted Barack Obama and then claimed that his words were racist, there are two possible reasons why you did so: either you were deliberately misrepresenting what he said to make it seem racist when really it wasn’t, or you genuinely thought his comments were racist and were trying to explain why.
Similarly, when I quoted you and then claimed that your words were offensive and unbecoming, either I was deliberately misrepresenting what you said to make it look that way when really it wasn’t, or that was genuinely my view, and I was trying to explain why.
I assure you that the latter is true. I genuinely thought (and still think) your words were self-evidently indefensible, regardless of context, and I think they paint a negative picture of you. I have been completely honest about that and I have shown why.
We have both used quotations to support our point. So either we are both as bad and deceitful as each other, or (as I believe) we were both within our rights to use quotation in the way we did.
I compiled a sample of your most offensive statements because I think that if you repeatedly make discourteous remarks about other ethnicities, and about other people on the basis of their ethnicities, using terms with racist connotations, it’s really not surprising if someone comes along and assumes that you are a racist. I think I have been quite clear about that. Stating that your words were judicious in context is fine, but it is only convincing if you can demonstrate clearly that the circumstances under which you said them justifies their offensive nature – i.e. which specific remarks provoked you, and why your response was appropriate. This is something you have yet to do. You may feel that it was unfair of me to put the onus on you to justify the offensive things you said. I feel that I was right to do so, because I think if you cannot defend them you should refrain from saying them.
You have said a lot of controversial things, and in my last comment, I tried to respond to some of them intelligently and fairly in the hope of entering into sensible discussion. So far, I note that you have failed to address any of my points and instead cast numerous aspersions about my character.
In response, I simply repeat your own words, with which I very much agree:
“saying I’m such a terrible person is not an argument. Try to use arguments...
Surprise me.”
I know that wasn't directed to me but that was really helpful...haha
Liza,
Thank you! You've basically nailed some of my interests. I will look into those!
Liza,
I could answer your post in detail, but you see, I believe that someone has to have at least some small kind of basic decency and integrity in order for me to spend my time doing that.
I also don't believe you for one second when you say you didn't intend to be underhand. That was exactly what you intended. You are intelligent, and you knew what you were doing. The thing is, such nasty and deceitful behavior always backfires because the one doing it loses the respect of others. You might not always like my views on the issues here - or my choice of words when I am annoyed and provoced - but I would never do something like that to somebody else in order to give a twisted and untrue image of them.
If you dislike my comments I suggest you don't read them instead of spending your time going through everything I say, picking out the most negative parts totally out of context. You, by the way, have proven yourself to be the last person to give others advice on how to conduct themselves, or how to write. I would worry more about yourself if I were you.
Godis, that was a very generous comment and I was flattered when I read it, thank you. Although you might not think so highly of me if you could see the state I get into when I lose my house keys in the morning!
If you’re interested in analysing your own way of putting your arguments, the following web-page is a very brief analysis of ways we use language to express ourselves, and how different ways of saying things are helpful in different contexts. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e04.htm If you find that piques your interest, I can try to find some pages that are a bit more comprehensive.
A bit off-topic, but I think as someone who enjoys learning about yourself, and people in general, you might enjoy a book called “Emotional Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman, or “How the Mind Works” by Steven Pinker. Pinker touches on some of the issues here like evolution, genetics, why we find certain features beautiful, but he discusses a lot more besides. Goleman is more concerned with character, why human beings evolved to have strong emotional reactions and how we can use our intellect to deal with them productively. While both books are accessible, they are also academic, so although they have very different styles, both writers know how to make their case effectively using neutral language. It’s helpful to study how they convey strong and firmly held beliefs, but in a moderate, well-argued way.
Hey. Thanks for your reply Emily. I don’t know about brave, but you’re certainly outspoken.
My lowbrow tactics:
It’s true that I took your words out of context. It wasn’t my intention to be underhand. They were your words after all, and I just thought that if you take a fresh look at them, you might understand why some people assume that you are racist, since this seems to annoy you. My point was to demonstrate how people might form this impression on the basis of your words, and in my defence I was up front about that from the start. I agree that nothing you say gives others the right to be obnoxious towards you. And by the same token nothing they say gives you the right to be obnoxious either, which you sometimes are. Personally I think a lot of your comments are unacceptable regardless of context.
My uncivilised president?
Obama is not my president as I’m not from the USA, although I remember the lipstick-on-pig comment, and how the media response seemed overblown, since it’s a common idiom that means “you can’t dress something up as something it’s not”, and he was talking about Republican party rhetoric. He also said that "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change’, it's still gonna stink after eight years.” So maybe he was trying to say that John McCain, and by association all white people, smell like fish? (Forgive my facetiousness, but I hope you see my point.) His words did echo Sarah Palin’s. She had said that the difference between a hockey mum and a pitbull is lipstick, thus comparing herself with a pitbull, the implication being that she is a fighter. Luckily people saw what she was getting at and didn’t claim discrimination against hockey mums.
I think people can take offense too easily and be overly zealous with the word “racism” and that seems to be something you and I both agree on. So maybe by the same logic we shouldn’t assume that Obama’s remarks were racist. A cheap shot at Sarah Palin, maybe, but it’s a bit far fetched to brand him a racist on the basis of those comments. His words were more moderate than many of your own, and you definitely don’t like it when people use that word about you. Having one standard for yourself and another for everyone else is wrong, as you have said on more than one occasion.
Putting things mildly:
I agree with you in principle that there is nothing wrong with having a preferred look or “type”. (My own physical preference is for Johnny Depp lookalikes.) But the statement “I find myself attracted to white men and not to other ethnicities” is very different from the statement “The majority of people here don't like underdeveloped dwarfs with mongoloid traits, looking like pubescent girls when they are 25”. The first is a neutral statement of fact. The second is subjective, negative and insulting. This is why I think it is better that when you say offensive things like that, you just say that this is your opinion and steer clear of phrases like “the majority of people”. You certainly do not represent the “majority of people” that I know when you express yourself in that way. Similarly if you say that something is “deemed” to be true, as in your previous comment, I think you really ought to provide evidence. (“Deemed” by whom? How do you know?). The same with phrases like “generally speaking”, “the truth is” or “the fact is”. Unless the statement is objectively verifiable, it is more straightforward just to say “My opinion is” or “my impression is” and leave it at that.
Incidentally, the word “mongoloid” has been used historically as a term of abuse, so if you don’t want people saying you’re racist, you might want to give that term a wide berth.
It is my understanding that we no longer call people with Down syndrome “mongoloids”, partly because, as I say, that word has become a term of abuse, but also because it is incorrect, as the facial characteristics that are trademark of Down’s are not the same as the features of East Asians. Down made that connection on the basis of epicanthal folds alone, which tells me more about socio-historical attitudes to race and difference than it does about physiognomy. I feel glad we now live in a more progressive, less ignorant age.
Perceptions of beauty:
So anyway, I’m based in Africa right now, and I’m surrounded by, to use your terminology, “pure blacks”. In my town, white skin is tied to a whole range of assumptions about status and character, which clouds the beauty issue somewhat. So perhaps little children are the most reliable judges, since they haven’t yet learned to make these evaluative associations, and they just do what comes naturally. And what comes naturally when they see me for the first time, is usually to run away in tears! As far as they are concerned my appearance is not just unattractive but downright weird. Luckily most have got used to me by now. So I subscribe to the theory that what we find aesthetically pleasing depends somewhat on our instinct, but a lot on what we’ve learned and got used to.
Most Europeans grow up in their home country surrounded largely by other Europeans, and during crucial stages of their development, as they are building a sense of identity and belonging, working out what they find “normal” or “attractive”, it is other Europeans that they are exposed to. Conversely, ask a group of schoolgirls in Kyoto whether they prefer Japanese heartthrob Hideaka Takizawa or US sex symbol Brad Pitt. I think I can guess whose picture they have lovingly glued into their exercise books. It’s not Brad, even though in my opinion he wins hands down.
A good analogy, perhaps, is with food. My neighbours here eat crickets. I don’t like them at all (crickets that is. My neighbours are fine). As far as I’m concerned, insects are not for eating. It would be meaningless to try to prove objectively that they taste bad, because taste is not objective. I can’t say with any authority that it’s not normal to like crickets, only that I don’t find it normal, and that they probably wouldn’t sell in an English supermarket. My neighbours like them well enough and find my distaste for them decidedly odd. It would be absurd to try and rationalise my preference by writing detailed critiques, comparing them with poisonous scorpions, and proclaiming the intrinsic superiority of the perfectly formed prawn. I just don’t like eating crickets. End of story.
In other words our tastes stem from impulse, not intellect. If an African man finds my pale skin unattractive, fine. That’s just the way he feels. But if he then tries to reason that I’m unattractive because I resemble a pig, I’ll feel offended.
Similarly there is no need to rationalise your dislike of non-white looks by making incongruous and unflattering references to snakes and primates and disease. You can just say “this is my preference” and “research indicates that this is most white people’s preference” and leave it at that. Unless, of course, you have objective data to substantiate any reasons you give. True that this website attempts to rationalise perceptions of beauty, but it does so by showing us verifiable facts, research, statistics, discoveries from academic fields such as evolutionary psychology and genetics. It makes no claim without providing such evidence to support it. The arguments put forward are therefore persuasive, if challenging. I think a similarly disciplined approach on your part would help you make a more compelling case and, importantly, help put an end to those pesky accusations of racism.
xx
By the way, credit where it’s due. Reading your comments I would swear you were a native English speaker. I might not like some of the things you say, but the ability to speak and write so eloquently in more than one language is something I deeply admire.
Pages