The Keltic Nordic type, most common in England, Ireland, and even in the US, is a Nordic sub-race. It is of the "Inner sub-races or core" of Nordic subraces. It is distinctly different from the Halstatt type, whose refuge area is in Sweden, as well as the Oslo area of Norway. There is only a 2-5% Halstatt type in Ireland, and the Keltic type is almost completely absent in Scandinavia.
To be fair, Godis, the Irish are of a Nordic sub-race, but not, by and large, more Nordic than Scandinavia.
No bias for the Irish on my part either, my father is nearly a full-blooded Irish American (with one English grandparent). Yes, there was bias, but the Irish were discriminated against in the early part of the twentieth century after their arrival in the US. It was HERE (in America) where the most ardent bias was implemented. I am the daughter of a mother who is Dutch Nordic, and whose father (my grandfather) was born on the Jutland Peninsula in Northern Germany, to one Danish parent (his mother) and one North German father. I am a mixture of a great and diverse lot of Northern European ancestry, however, my only TRUE claim of Nordic blood can come from my Danish great grandmother, although I have Nordic features and coloring. It is a known historical fact that the Vikings settled and founded Dublin, for example, but that does not make the Irish Nordic people, even if there is considerable admixture. The Irish are mostly Keltic, not Nordic. There are distinct differences. The coloring is similar, but the Irish are generally shorter skulled, and are shorter in stature than Nordics. They have a lesser frequency of blondness, but a higher frequency of rufiosity (red hair). They are fairly competitive in blue-eyed births, still, Sweden and Denmark have the most blue eyed births world wide. Norway and Ireland are almost tied, with almost three quarters of the population reporting blue eyed births to Sweden's almost 90 per cent. This I have found on Wikipedia, as well as several European Anthropology websites. I am merely citing those, not claiming that these are unequivocably accurate. There are always other sources that may claim different numbers. These numbers do not include other light colors such as green eyes, or green/blue eyes, just blue eyed births.
First, "Eastern European" nations aren't impoverished --- that's not only a stretch, but it reeks of worldly ignorance.. While those in the Russian sphere of influence are certainly economically less prosperous at the moment than their Western counterparts, and would consider forms of income other's wouldn't as readily, the word "impoverished" stirs images concocted by the American Cold War propaganda machine whose aim was to discredit the Soviets. The truth of course was that no one in the Eastern Block was homeless because all were guaranteed housing by the state. The divide between rich and poor did not exist for the most part. In short, just because the economy is doing poorly doesn't mean the populace is in Somalia-mode. We're talking about Europe here, not Darfur or Calcutta. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the reason many models hail from said reason is because there is a greater number of women there that meet the criteria needed to be a model? Sorry guys, but Nigerians do really run better than Joe the Plumber from Arkansas.
That being said, there is no doubt that homosexual designers exert some influence over the models which are chosen. To what degree, I'm not sure. Models who are androgynous seems to be more versatile for photography and fashion modeling. The sexually ambiguous nature of many models today allows for them to be made more masculine or feminine using makeup as needed. On the other hand, I have a suspicion that a restrained femininity, not masculinity, seems more resistant to age-related problems, such as sagging of facial tissue. Wrinkles are less of a problem with makeup and photoshop.
European women who wear light soft hair colors beautifully....
Reds...
Blondes...
Yes, Godis, pictures of some Nordic girls, some Northern European (Keltic and Teuton) types. Those whom these colors are found most often (not rarely) in nature, are those who can wear them beautifully.
Like your imaginary friend Karen, I AM a redhead, though not the carroty red with freckles type (I have no freckles). Dark reddish blond, to light blondes look best on those with ancestry that produces these colors naturally. They really don't look natural on most others. And yes, red shades are very popular as well.
Godis, I am well aware of Hitler's use of the word Nordic, but the facts remain: Nordic countries include Scandinavian countries, and Germany is not in Scandinavia or Northern Europe, although the Nordic people of today are North Germanic in descent (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm incorrect, sorry Emily). No, Germany is not a Nordic country, it is in Central/Western Europe. You are a 20 year old college student and you don't know this? Emily, not all Americans are this misinformed, thanks. If my incomplete sentences were too complicated for someone of your intellect to discern, I will try to be more careful, for your benefit, from now on. You're English is not perfect, not by a LONG SHOT, and you're a college student, so how about the pot calling the kettle black? And the reason Irish aren't considered Nordic is because they're NOT. There is considerable admixture in certain parts, but it is not a Nordic country. By the UN definition, it IS in Northern Europe, Northern Europe containing Scandinavia, but not all of Northern Europe is Scandinavian, or Nordic.
I was not trying to compare my body to yours, although my error in giving my physical description gave you that incorrect assumption. This website is not about us, but your error in posting your own photos invited comments. Maybe you'll reconsider before doing that again?
Godis, I do believe your taste in what is considered beautiful or attractive is odd and out of the ordinary. Your photos illustrate this, time and time again. You criticize the photos I used to represent attractive Romanians, but the ones you used, on the Ekaterina thread, were not much better, sorry.
Sweden is, by the way, the MOST NORDIC of all Nordic countries, in terms of what constitutes "Nordic" features, they being the home of the Halstatt type, something that a little reading on your part would've informed you of. Your false assumptions that they aren't are just a worthless bait to irritate Emily. I see she didn't jump on it, because she, and most others, know that was a false statement.
You don't think people ask for Scandinavian hair colors? Wrong. The popularity of warm, natural "wheat" shades are extremely popular, and many celebrities wear these shades as well. Blue contacts, another popular item, but of course, no one admires and emulates these colors, as you would have everyone believe. The natural blondes Emily showed, are representations of NATURAL haircolors, because THEY ARE. Your trying to, once again, misinform people and it pains me to see this, because it's irrational. That is why I assumed jealousy, you are failing to see facts. You are posting outlandish inaccuracies and I can only assume insecurity is the reason. Unless you really are that misinformed.
Emily was right about the fact that one too far removed from Teuton, Nordic (and Keltic) type, cannot often wear light, soft colors. And as far as Godis=Karen, I once thought she may have been Kayla B., the Nordic Puerto Rican. LOL.
I am a woman and for most of my life I have hated my body because it looks so much like a man's: large features, big nose, broad shoulders, wide rib cage, small breasts, short waist, fat stomach, narrow hips, big hands and feet, long, skinny, but muscular arms and legs, shall I go on? I could not bear a child vaginally and needed a c-section; I was even fitted for the very smallest diaphragm. My husband and I suffered through several years of miscarriages before we finally had our son (who is now a wonderful, healthy teen) - among the many tests we took to try to diagnose the reason for the miscarriages, a hormone test revealed that I was abnormally deficient in - yes, TESTOSTERONE. So there, everyone who is reading this, go and look at this site and how it goes on and on about how it is the testosterone that makes for a masculinized body, etc. etc. Hello??? Can anyone explain this to me??? I guess I have been cursed beyond my fair allotment with various genetic material that has resulted in this unfortunate anomaly that is my body. I wish I could die and come back as a "real" woman - I would revel in the opportunity to dress seductively, show off the curves that I never had and never will have, engage in fun sex with men who see me as an attractive WOMAN! If anything, I get looks of disgust from guys, if they look at me at all. It is painful beyond words to be "invisible" - even to your own husband. Even the "average" woman who may feel a bit self-conscious about the size of her breasts or her hips - I say that you should revel in what you've been given, enjoy it to the max, because honey, compared to me, you've got nothing to complain about, believe me!!!
Erik---- why are you going with the name Emily now? Are you hoping to avoid outbursts from frustration since people are less likely to be aggressive towards a woman who is criticizing other women? This is silly and cowardly. Hopefully, at some point you will realize the chasms between your points of reason. Your site draws followers like a moth to a flame; its so absurd, one can't help but keep reading.
You claim your site is about feminine beauty but it is really on northern European women. I applaud for your including the Brazilian woman in the feminine beauty section--- at least she is Mediterranean! I have yet to determine why Sofia Vergara is not included. Her breasts are real---she is a friend of the family. Her face is feminine, her figure is legendary! Shakira is athletic but clearly curvy small waist, bigger bum, curved hips) Yes, she has a "broad nose" but it is much smaller than the typical man of her origin--Columbian/Lebanese. FYI--most Columbians are mixed w/ Black, Indigenious, and Spanish. Some investigation into her her past--which her original hair,skin color, and height (under 5ft) would confirm she is not white, explaining her nose.
Have you thought of incorporating more celebrities? Leighton Meester is definitely curvy with cutesy, femme face. Why no old pics of Iman? She is African and has a great figure!! Kim Kardashian is Middle Eastern. While her face is not to your liking, she is clearly not a man and possesses an outstanding figure. Please reply as your true gender, Erik/Emiy.
I've read a lot of comments above. I wonder if I'm the only one that found #3 as my first pick? This was before I read about #7 and other people's comments. It's because she has nice soft skin, a nice butt, and I actually like her face (I'm heterosexual male), although her breasts are lopsided I don't really care. The lesson here to be learned is that while beauty can be generalized it really is in the eye of the beholder...
"You are OBSESSED with bumpy or hooked noses! What is the deal?"
No, godis. I merely show where you are coming from when you make ridiculous comments as to Kay's nose being more romantic than the other girl's nose.
You have a very unusual and strange taste in noses, attacking fine Nordic noses, saying they are too small or too upturned, or too this and that, and then you post photos of unattractive, long and fairly large noses, clearly resembling typical Romanian noses, trying to say these are preferrable.
You said yourself that you "identify" with Romanians. Yes, you surely do, and that identification prevents you from being objective, I think. Your taste is simply too off.
This is Kay Francis that you put up next to the Swedish girl;
Her nose is not particularly attractive to me, nor is it "romantic".
Swedish girl that you compared her to;
The Swedish girl is ten times warmer than Kay, and that is feminine, I think.
Now, that girl is an ordinary Swedish girl - not a movie star. Her nose may not be perfect, and no one says it is. She was used as an example of one type of Swede, not as an example of a perfect nose.
By the way, this thread is about eye brows, so let's point out that Kay Francis has some of the most hideously ugly eye brows I have ever seen on a movie star.
I see beauty in different kinds of noses, straight ones, upturned ones, small and cute ones, and elegant ones.
What I don't find attractive or feminine are coarse, hooked, or large and very long noses, typical of many Romanians and Middle Easterners, for example. It is simply not feminine.
The difference between you and me is that you constantly defend large, hooked and long noses, while bashing cute or smaller ones.
It is anyone's guess why your taste is always on the very edge of what is mainstream.
You are also obsessed with blonde hair and blue eyes, and you seem to think that everyone tries to imitate those colors and does so distastefully. You are paranoid.
I admire blonde hair and blue eyes as well,but that doesn't mean there is no room left for the admiration of other features and colors as well. You see I have an open mind, while I see very little fits into your mind.
You are OBSESSED with bumpy or hooked noses! What is the deal? I said SOME Swedes have what seems to be stunted noses. God. I didn't say ALL of them or that is what the average Swede looks like. Please calm down. Your response of tons of photos with Romanian women and hooked noses was an overeaction to one small statement. I don't understand where this obsession is coming from!
I have to address A LOT on here it seems. I will return when I have more time:)
Blonde hair,brown hair,red hair etc can all be beautiful and feminine depending on the person.
Diversity is what makes thing beautiful.What would the world be like if everyone had the same colour and tone of hair,same eye colour,same tone and colour of skin etc?
Finns are not Scandinavians. Scandinavians don't speak Uralic languages, they speak Germanic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family.
That's OK, I wouldn't expect facts and truths from you.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however, as I see that English Wikipedia is incorrect right now and includes Finland in Scandinavia. Beware, anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Scandinavia is comprised of Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
These countries have close linguistic, cultural, racial and historic ties.
Finland is only included when you speak of "Nordic" countries. They have a totally separate language group, Finno-Ugric, part of the Uralic language family.
Please don't make me spend my time correcting your mistakes. Thanks.
Under Wikipedia "Nordic Countries" you will find a good and correct definition of "Nordic countries";
"The Nordic countries make up a region in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic (called Norden in the Scandinavian languages) which consists of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden and their associated territories which include the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.
Scandinavia is sometimes used as a synonym for the Nordic countries,[1] although within the Nordic countries the terms are considered distinct."
"This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing"
Yes, I realize that. I think she seems schizofrenic, creating multiple nicknames and arguing with herself (Karen = godis). I'm not surprised if she turns out to be yet another one on here..
What she forgets when she rants about Scandinavians is that people do have eyes and can see for themselves.
The fact that Scandinavia has light natural blondes who also tan well is lost on her. Too bad for her, then. I don't intend to waste time convincing her of something most people already know.
She misrepresents Romanians, implying they are not infrequently naturally blonde there.
The truth is this; Romanians are generally a swarthy lot. They have dark brown or black hair and different shades of brown eyes, sometimes hazel. There are other colours but the brown and black dominate overwhelmingly.
Many Romanians are closely related to gypsies with all that this entails.
Romanians often have huge and very long noses. It is fascinating looking at their photos. Someone who has a nose three miles long would perhaps be envious of Scandinavian noses and call them "stunted". Anything normal would look stunted compared to that.
They love to bleach their hair, and in photos they sometimes retouch their eyes to blue or green. They admire Nordic colours but their efforts to emulate them is generally in vain and often looks bizarre due to their coarse facial features, and the atypical face and nose shape.
The rule is; if you are too far removed from Nordics/Germanics in type, avoid bleaching your hair. It won't look good.
I think it's funny that godis always brings up her own people's shortcomings, comparing them to Scandinavians. To bring up noses and blonde hair colour is not wise for a Romanian. Those are actually their weakest points.
Why have blackish hair and eyes...
..when you can be a blonde and light-eyed Nordic girl?
I'm really a natural blonde and my blue eye colour is NOT painted on my photo!
I feel like Swedish Anita Ekberg..or perhaps Brigitte Bardot..
I don't think my nose looks big. I prefer this angle..
Why don't people get that I'm a real blonde!? They say the colour doesn't go with my face but I have no idea what they mean.
Yes, my eyes are that blue. I think brownish yellow skin is beautiful and it goes with my naturally blonde hair.
I have blue eyes, too, and no we don't hate Scandinavian girls because we, in fact, look just like them.
We really are naturally blonde. We just like to dye our hair black.
Romanian interpretation of "blonde" and "redhead"..
Our noses look so much better and more romantic than Nordic ones. Swedish girl with stunted nose:
What do you mean we are direct descendants of Vlad the Impaler? Nordics could only dream of having our noses..
So I don't understand how Emily can argue that GERMANS are not Nordic. I understand how she can argue that the Irish are. Even though the Irish have every Nordic element, I guess they weren't considered Nordic for some reason. I just remember reading something about how they were disliked or something and they couldn't possibly be classified as the "superior" Nordics. But anyone with common sense can see that the Irish have very Nordic features, and in fact I see more "Nordic" Irish than Scandinavians. Seriously, I understand there are more types of Nordic than Halstatt type, but it doesn't add up. These Nordics have such features that they could easily be classified as Alpines, but yet, they are still classified as Nordic. It is ridiculous and there was a lot of innaccuracy going on. I am no expert on anthropology but just by scanning some photos and articles I can tell you that there was a lot of bias going on when it came to classifying groups.
Wow, I'm surprised Emily hasn't jumped on that yet. Since she jumped on the guy on here who first made a connection to Scandinavians not being soo Nordic. Reading that post has only aroused my suspisions that Scandinavians had a different element to them than the traditional Nordics, which by and far are not Scandinavians.
I noticed this primarily because of their high cheekbones. I also noticed this because of their flat facial features, such as a small tiny nose for example. The traditional Nordic has a medium to long STRAIGHT nose.
Anyways, after I read that post I did five minutes of research and instantly the fact that Scandinavians, particularly Finns, spoke Uralic languages showed that there is a non-Nordic or non-Germanic influence at work.
I think Swedes are not affected to the extreme Uralic or Ugric elements, however I do think they are AT LEAST minutley affected. Since the countries are so close together there has to be at least some connection, however small.
I'd like to add that the Halstatt type of Swede is probably what I would consider most "Nordic". This is because the skull shape is most similar to what anthropologists back then would consider "Nordic". You realize that way back when, anthropolgists characterized Europe into the 3 subraces of Nordic, Mediterranean, and Alpine. Ideally, anyone in Northern Europe would fall into the "Nordic" category. Anyone in Central and Eastern Europe would fall into the "Alpine" category. Anyone in the South would fall into the Mediterannean category. Romanians for example would be a mix of Alpine and Mediterranean since they belong to a South Eastern European country. This is basic anthropology everyone knows.
However, I have noticed that many Scandinavians do not have the Nordic nose, face, or skull shape overall. This is especially noticable in Finns. Well, do a little research and you find out that Finns speak a language that belong to the Uralic or Ugric family. I don't remember. Either way, there is a connection here. Hungarians actually speak a Uralic language. What is interesting is that Hungarians actually originally came from Asia. Sammi languages, and you do know that Sammis are a minority in Sweden and Finland right? Sammis speak this type of language. Well, I don't know how accurate all that is because I don't have time to read it but let me make the connection:
"The Uralic languages geographically cover Scandinavia, Finland, and Eastern Central Europe to Central Russia"
"The healthiest Uralic languages in terms of the number of native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Mari and Udmurt. Countries that are home to a significant number of speakers of Uralic languages include Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Slovakia"
The hilarious thing here is that Hungarians are not ALL that different from Finns who aren't all that diff. from Swedes. What is funny here is I am actually a tad-bit Hungarian. I speak Hungarian and Finns speak a similar language and they are a similar people.
Anyways, what I am trying to say is that Swedes and Scandinavians have something going on there that interfere with them being the "perfect" Nordics. I am sure there are many Swedes that can be classified as "perfect" Nordics, but for every one of those there is one that cannot be classified like that.
I have more Nordic bone structure than some Swedes! Some Swedes have such flat faces, that mine is more qualified. So there you go. And Finns, well they just have many Asiatic features such as epicanthal folds, flat noses, flat and round faces. Must I go on?
Swedes actually speak a Germanic language, but there is a clear influence there that is not Germanic.
First of all I would like to accept your apologies for name calling. I'm sorry too if I said anything mean, which I am sure I did. Now I would like to adress some of your comments:
"Godis, my description of my body isn't valid, just because I won't show my photos? It is tempting, though, lol...if for no other reason than to shut you the **** UP!! But...you don't win godis, sorry."
The problem is not that your description of your body is not valid. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way I can objectivley compare your body to mine with words alone. If your point is to prove that you have a nicer body, which you very well may, than you need to prove this by objectivley comparing your body to mine. The most objective way possible to compare is with clear photographs. Otherwise, the argument is not valid. I'd like to add that no one "wins" and this is an immature way of viewing any debate.
"This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing, like I said, the ash blond girls she's posting have the kind of coloring that it works on, and we don't know for sure if it works on her, I'm assuming NO."
There is no way you can assume anything. There is no way I can prove to you that I have naturally ash blonde hair. In this case photographs would prove nothing. First of all, my camera distorts color. Second of all, I have highlights. All you can do is take my word for it. However, my main argument is that it is possible for even an 100% Romanian to have naturally blonde hair. You yourself have posted photos of two girls with obvious blonde hair and even blue eyes, from ROMANIA.
I too can post photos of blonde Romanians all day. In the end though, who would know if they truly are Romanians? Romanians don't have as distinguished a look as Swedes. I would have to cite all my sources, and many times even those sources may not prove they are Romanians. That would take too much time and in the end it still wouldn't be really objective. For example, can you tell if the women below are Romanian or Ukranian?
Well, they are actually Romanian."Girls from the village of Iernut, Romania." However, the folk costumes are so similar to the ones in the Ukraine, I could have easily taken a photo of the more common blonde Ukranians and claimed them to be Romanians... Therefore, I can only argue that blonde hair is found naturally among Romanians, which it is. The best proof to cite to you would be the fact that you yourself have posted a photo of what you believed to be a valid representation of blonde Romanians.
"Godis, if the point of posting your photos was to compare it to other Swedes and not me or Emily, than stop asking us to post our pics!! The only reason we commented on your body was because you made the mistake of posting your photos. Not everyone is going to like your looks, get over it. That last paragraph does not make sense. Proofreading is your friend."
The only reason I ask you to post your pics is because you have claimed that you have a nicer body than me. I refuse to accept that argument 100% unless you have valid proof for it, the best of which would be photographs. The point of posting my photos was to prove that someone who is not a Swede can be just as attractive as a Swede even though that someone, aka me, comes from a place that has less attractive people on average. This is to prove that in the end someone's beauty is based on them as an individual and not the population they belong to. I'd also like to add that my last paragraph is fine. Better wording could have been chosen. I could care less about proofreading, I don't have time for it in all honesty. Someone with average intelligence can figure out what I am trying to say, so I would hope you could too.
"Emily, Godis' taste in things is what we call here in the US, very "ghetto" and her opinions must be taken with a grain of salt...lol. Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people whom they're not flattering to..."
You criticize my paragraphs, but your paragraph actually makes little sense.My taste is hardly ghetto. You clearly do not understand what ghetto means. I have shown an interest in pinup looks actually. There is quite a contrast between that and "ghetto". I cite the beauty of Elizabeth Taylor all too often, how does one who appreciates the look of Elizabeth Taylor have "ghetto" taste?You are very ignorant. I don't know what you mean specifically by, " Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people...." I mean I understand what you are saying, but it's not even a complete sentence...
"I happen to think that Irish and Germans are still not as attractive as Scandinavians, and I AM Irish, as well as Dutch, and German. Hmmm...why is it that it doesn't bother me to admit this, but Godis has to defend her ethnicity?"
I defend my ethnicity when someone claims things of it that are not true. Otherwise, I have gone as far to admit that my ethnicity is probably among the least attractive in relation to all the other European ethnicities. It doesn't bother me to admit that. I don't understand your point here? I defend only what is innaccurate, I admit the negatives that are accurate in regards to my "ethnicity". In all honesty, you act like Romanians are from Africa or something. They are Indo-Europeans. They are not that different than other Europeans overall...
"By the way godis, take it from me, I make a huge chunk of my living coloring peoples hair the very colors YOU claim are unnatural, or unattractive. It's the most asked for salon service in the US: HAIR LIGHTENING. Who are you trying to convince of these outlandish claims?"
This is not surprising, since lighter hair attracts attention away from any flaws such as acne, wrinkles, blotchy skin, etc. The fact that hair lightening is in high demand does not do anything for the argument that Scandinavian blonde is an attractive tone. I doubt that the majority of people ask for specifically that color, and as an up scale stylist, or whatever you do, you should advise them not to get that specific color since that hair color would suit a minority of people, much less such a diverse group as Americans. I assume since the majority of your customers ask for this, there has to be SOME diversity among them. The ultimatum is that I personally do not find natural Scandinavian hair colors attractive, or at least specifically the color I demonstrated in my photographs. This is my personal opinion, however, I believe that many people could see how a yellow type of hair color is less attractive than say a champagne, ash, beige, wheat, or strawberry blonde. It looks like the same color I used to have to use as a child at the age of 5 to demonstrate blonde hair in my artwork, since the closest color to blonde was the yellow crayon. However, at the same time, I am positive there are many people or enough people to keep you satisfied that appreciate that very color.
"One more thing Godis: IRISH AND GERMAN IS NOT "NORDIC", SCANDINAVIANS ARE THE ONLY TRUE NORDICS. ALTHOUGH SOME IRISH, AND MANY GERMANS HAVE NORDIC COLORING AND FEATURES, THEY ARE NOT NORDIC. NORTHERN EUROPE MAY INCLUDE THESE COUNTRIES, BUT SCANDINAVIA DOES NOT!!!
STOP POSTING INACCURACIES, FOR ONCE"
Do you realize that the term "Nordic" was popularized by a man called Hitler who was an Austrain dictator that took over Germany and convinced the people there that they are the "Nordic" and superior race. I'm sorry that I have made the mistake to buy into this and actually believe that Germans out of all people could be considered Nordic. How very silly of me. Actually, in all seriousness, since of course you know I wasn't being serious before right? Anyways, in all seriousness I barely consider Scandinavians Nordic. This is because to me "Nordic" is characterized by disinctive bone structure. Since I consider bone structure something more substantial and solid than coloring I look at that to identify whether someone is Nordic or not. In my opinon, your photos reinforce the fact that many Scandinavians do not have pure Nordic bone structure. I believe that Germans and even some North Eastern European areas have more "Nordic" bone structure than the average Scandinavian.
One more thing Godis: IRISH AND GERMAN IS NOT "NORDIC", SCANDINAVIANS ARE THE ONLY TRUE NORDICS. ALTHOUGH SOME IRISH, AND MANY GERMANS HAVE NORDIC COLORING AND FEATURES, THEY ARE NOT NORDIC. NORTHERN EUROPE MAY INCLUDE THESE COUNTRIES, BUT SCANDINAVIA DOES NOT!!!
For some reason, my computer just refreshed after I posted this comment, and hadn't seen the last four comments by Emily and Godis, but....Godis is just going to have to be ignored. She's now, again, showing her true colors.
Emily, Godis' taste in things is what we call here in the US, very "ghetto" and her opinions must be taken with a grain of salt...lol. Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people whom they're not flattering to...
Godis, my description of my body isn't valid, just because I won't show my photos? It is tempting, though, lol...if for no other reason than to shut you the **** UP!! But...you don't win godis, sorry.
This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing, like I said, the ash blond girls she's posting have the kind of coloring that it works on, and we don't know for sure if it works on her, I'm assuming NO.
Godis, if the point of posting your photos was to compare it to other Swedes and not me or Emily, than stop asking us to post our pics!! The only reason we commented on your body was because you made the mistake of posting your photos. Not everyone is going to like your looks, get over it. That last paragraph does not make sense. Proofreading is your friend.
Godis, I DO NOT belong to ANY social networking sites, NONE, and I would never post pics of myself on them, either. That's why I choose not to belong to sites like that. I just don't trust it.
I happen to think that Irish and Germans are still not as attractive as Scandinavians, and I AM Irish, as well as Dutch, and German. Hmmm...why is it that it doesn't bother me to admit this, but Godis has to defend her ethnicity?
By the way godis, take it from me, I make a huge chunk of my living coloring peoples hair the very colors YOU claim are unnatural, or unattractive. It's the most asked for salon service in the US: HAIR LIGHTENING. Who are you trying to convince of these outlandish claims?
Godis, as much as I've entertained the idea of submitting to the "challenge" of proving you wrong, I just don't think I can justify posting my pics. Not that I wasn't tempted!! But, after assessing the pros and cons, I have concluded that it isn't in the best interest of myself or the site itself.
I have reread my posts and am regretful at the name calling, but I think that your implying my boyfriend is gay, I'm ugly, or don't know anything about men is immature and irrelevant to what you had brought the topic to: your looks. I guess that means that you will continue taunting me, assuming I must not actually look like I describe, so...if that's what you want to believe, that's OK with me:)
I don't know why you'd assume I was lying, and then resort to baiting me when I wouldn't comply, that isn't adult-like.
ALL of this needs to be dropped, I am apologizing for the name calling, I realize that you are a young girl, at 20, and I also know at that age, I was still figuring out who I was, and wouldn't have appreciated the types of comments that I'd directed towards you, for that, I am sorry. To be fair, though, posting pics of one's self does bring about attention and comments, both good and bad.
I still stand by my stated opinions in regards to the looks of different races, ethnicities, and still believe that Nordics are superior in looks. However, that does NOT mean that I don't see the beauty in all ethnicities.
Liz, EVERY woman can be beautiful, in her own right...
The Keltic Nordic type, most common in England, Ireland, and even in the US, is a Nordic sub-race. It is of the "Inner sub-races or core" of Nordic subraces. It is distinctly different from the Halstatt type, whose refuge area is in Sweden, as well as the Oslo area of Norway. There is only a 2-5% Halstatt type in Ireland, and the Keltic type is almost completely absent in Scandinavia.
To be fair, Godis, the Irish are of a Nordic sub-race, but not, by and large, more Nordic than Scandinavia.
No bias for the Irish on my part either, my father is nearly a full-blooded Irish American (with one English grandparent). Yes, there was bias, but the Irish were discriminated against in the early part of the twentieth century after their arrival in the US. It was HERE (in America) where the most ardent bias was implemented. I am the daughter of a mother who is Dutch Nordic, and whose father (my grandfather) was born on the Jutland Peninsula in Northern Germany, to one Danish parent (his mother) and one North German father. I am a mixture of a great and diverse lot of Northern European ancestry, however, my only TRUE claim of Nordic blood can come from my Danish great grandmother, although I have Nordic features and coloring. It is a known historical fact that the Vikings settled and founded Dublin, for example, but that does not make the Irish Nordic people, even if there is considerable admixture. The Irish are mostly Keltic, not Nordic. There are distinct differences. The coloring is similar, but the Irish are generally shorter skulled, and are shorter in stature than Nordics. They have a lesser frequency of blondness, but a higher frequency of rufiosity (red hair). They are fairly competitive in blue-eyed births, still, Sweden and Denmark have the most blue eyed births world wide. Norway and Ireland are almost tied, with almost three quarters of the population reporting blue eyed births to Sweden's almost 90 per cent. This I have found on Wikipedia, as well as several European Anthropology websites. I am merely citing those, not claiming that these are unequivocably accurate. There are always other sources that may claim different numbers. These numbers do not include other light colors such as green eyes, or green/blue eyes, just blue eyed births.
No suprise, they are beautiful as brunettes as well...
Women of Nordic, Teutonic and Keltic ancestry can carry any color it would seem.
First, "Eastern European" nations aren't impoverished --- that's not only a stretch, but it reeks of worldly ignorance.. While those in the Russian sphere of influence are certainly economically less prosperous at the moment than their Western counterparts, and would consider forms of income other's wouldn't as readily, the word "impoverished" stirs images concocted by the American Cold War propaganda machine whose aim was to discredit the Soviets. The truth of course was that no one in the Eastern Block was homeless because all were guaranteed housing by the state. The divide between rich and poor did not exist for the most part. In short, just because the economy is doing poorly doesn't mean the populace is in Somalia-mode. We're talking about Europe here, not Darfur or Calcutta. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the reason many models hail from said reason is because there is a greater number of women there that meet the criteria needed to be a model? Sorry guys, but Nigerians do really run better than Joe the Plumber from Arkansas.
That being said, there is no doubt that homosexual designers exert some influence over the models which are chosen. To what degree, I'm not sure. Models who are androgynous seems to be more versatile for photography and fashion modeling. The sexually ambiguous nature of many models today allows for them to be made more masculine or feminine using makeup as needed. On the other hand, I have a suspicion that a restrained femininity, not masculinity, seems more resistant to age-related problems, such as sagging of facial tissue. Wrinkles are less of a problem with makeup and photoshop.
European women who wear light soft hair colors beautifully....
Reds...
Blondes...
Yes, Godis, pictures of some Nordic girls, some Northern European (Keltic and Teuton) types. Those whom these colors are found most often (not rarely) in nature, are those who can wear them beautifully.
Like your imaginary friend Karen, I AM a redhead, though not the carroty red with freckles type (I have no freckles). Dark reddish blond, to light blondes look best on those with ancestry that produces these colors naturally. They really don't look natural on most others. And yes, red shades are very popular as well.
Godis, I am well aware of Hitler's use of the word Nordic, but the facts remain: Nordic countries include Scandinavian countries, and Germany is not in Scandinavia or Northern Europe, although the Nordic people of today are North Germanic in descent (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm incorrect, sorry Emily). No, Germany is not a Nordic country, it is in Central/Western Europe. You are a 20 year old college student and you don't know this? Emily, not all Americans are this misinformed, thanks. If my incomplete sentences were too complicated for someone of your intellect to discern, I will try to be more careful, for your benefit, from now on. You're English is not perfect, not by a LONG SHOT, and you're a college student, so how about the pot calling the kettle black? And the reason Irish aren't considered Nordic is because they're NOT. There is considerable admixture in certain parts, but it is not a Nordic country. By the UN definition, it IS in Northern Europe, Northern Europe containing Scandinavia, but not all of Northern Europe is Scandinavian, or Nordic.
I was not trying to compare my body to yours, although my error in giving my physical description gave you that incorrect assumption. This website is not about us, but your error in posting your own photos invited comments. Maybe you'll reconsider before doing that again?
Godis, I do believe your taste in what is considered beautiful or attractive is odd and out of the ordinary. Your photos illustrate this, time and time again. You criticize the photos I used to represent attractive Romanians, but the ones you used, on the Ekaterina thread, were not much better, sorry.
Sweden is, by the way, the MOST NORDIC of all Nordic countries, in terms of what constitutes "Nordic" features, they being the home of the Halstatt type, something that a little reading on your part would've informed you of. Your false assumptions that they aren't are just a worthless bait to irritate Emily. I see she didn't jump on it, because she, and most others, know that was a false statement.
You don't think people ask for Scandinavian hair colors? Wrong. The popularity of warm, natural "wheat" shades are extremely popular, and many celebrities wear these shades as well. Blue contacts, another popular item, but of course, no one admires and emulates these colors, as you would have everyone believe. The natural blondes Emily showed, are representations of NATURAL haircolors, because THEY ARE. Your trying to, once again, misinform people and it pains me to see this, because it's irrational. That is why I assumed jealousy, you are failing to see facts. You are posting outlandish inaccuracies and I can only assume insecurity is the reason. Unless you really are that misinformed.
Emily was right about the fact that one too far removed from Teuton, Nordic (and Keltic) type, cannot often wear light, soft colors. And as far as Godis=Karen, I once thought she may have been Kayla B., the Nordic Puerto Rican. LOL.
I am a woman and for most of my life I have hated my body because it looks so much like a man's: large features, big nose, broad shoulders, wide rib cage, small breasts, short waist, fat stomach, narrow hips, big hands and feet, long, skinny, but muscular arms and legs, shall I go on? I could not bear a child vaginally and needed a c-section; I was even fitted for the very smallest diaphragm. My husband and I suffered through several years of miscarriages before we finally had our son (who is now a wonderful, healthy teen) - among the many tests we took to try to diagnose the reason for the miscarriages, a hormone test revealed that I was abnormally deficient in - yes, TESTOSTERONE. So there, everyone who is reading this, go and look at this site and how it goes on and on about how it is the testosterone that makes for a masculinized body, etc. etc. Hello??? Can anyone explain this to me??? I guess I have been cursed beyond my fair allotment with various genetic material that has resulted in this unfortunate anomaly that is my body. I wish I could die and come back as a "real" woman - I would revel in the opportunity to dress seductively, show off the curves that I never had and never will have, engage in fun sex with men who see me as an attractive WOMAN! If anything, I get looks of disgust from guys, if they look at me at all. It is painful beyond words to be "invisible" - even to your own husband. Even the "average" woman who may feel a bit self-conscious about the size of her breasts or her hips - I say that you should revel in what you've been given, enjoy it to the max, because honey, compared to me, you've got nothing to complain about, believe me!!!
Erik---- why are you going with the name Emily now? Are you hoping to avoid outbursts from frustration since people are less likely to be aggressive towards a woman who is criticizing other women? This is silly and cowardly. Hopefully, at some point you will realize the chasms between your points of reason. Your site draws followers like a moth to a flame; its so absurd, one can't help but keep reading.
You claim your site is about feminine beauty but it is really on northern European women. I applaud for your including the Brazilian woman in the feminine beauty section--- at least she is Mediterranean! I have yet to determine why Sofia Vergara is not included. Her breasts are real---she is a friend of the family. Her face is feminine, her figure is legendary! Shakira is athletic but clearly curvy small waist, bigger bum, curved hips) Yes, she has a "broad nose" but it is much smaller than the typical man of her origin--Columbian/Lebanese. FYI--most Columbians are mixed w/ Black, Indigenious, and Spanish. Some investigation into her her past--which her original hair,skin color, and height (under 5ft) would confirm she is not white, explaining her nose.
Have you thought of incorporating more celebrities? Leighton Meester is definitely curvy with cutesy, femme face. Why no old pics of Iman? She is African and has a great figure!! Kim Kardashian is Middle Eastern. While her face is not to your liking, she is clearly not a man and possesses an outstanding figure. Please reply as your true gender, Erik/Emiy.
I've read a lot of comments above. I wonder if I'm the only one that found #3 as my first pick? This was before I read about #7 and other people's comments. It's because she has nice soft skin, a nice butt, and I actually like her face (I'm heterosexual male), although her breasts are lopsided I don't really care. The lesson here to be learned is that while beauty can be generalized it really is in the eye of the beholder...
Godis;
"You are OBSESSED with bumpy or hooked noses! What is the deal?"
No, godis. I merely show where you are coming from when you make ridiculous comments as to Kay's nose being more romantic than the other girl's nose.
You have a very unusual and strange taste in noses, attacking fine Nordic noses, saying they are too small or too upturned, or too this and that, and then you post photos of unattractive, long and fairly large noses, clearly resembling typical Romanian noses, trying to say these are preferrable.
You said yourself that you "identify" with Romanians. Yes, you surely do, and that identification prevents you from being objective, I think. Your taste is simply too off.
This is Kay Francis that you put up next to the Swedish girl;
Her nose is not particularly attractive to me, nor is it "romantic".
Swedish girl that you compared her to;
The Swedish girl is ten times warmer than Kay, and that is feminine, I think.
Now, that girl is an ordinary Swedish girl - not a movie star. Her nose may not be perfect, and no one says it is. She was used as an example of one type of Swede, not as an example of a perfect nose.
By the way, this thread is about eye brows, so let's point out that Kay Francis has some of the most hideously ugly eye brows I have ever seen on a movie star.
I see beauty in different kinds of noses, straight ones, upturned ones, small and cute ones, and elegant ones.
What I don't find attractive or feminine are coarse, hooked, or large and very long noses, typical of many Romanians and Middle Easterners, for example. It is simply not feminine.
The difference between you and me is that you constantly defend large, hooked and long noses, while bashing cute or smaller ones.
It is anyone's guess why your taste is always on the very edge of what is mainstream.
You are also obsessed with blonde hair and blue eyes, and you seem to think that everyone tries to imitate those colors and does so distastefully. You are paranoid.
I admire blonde hair and blue eyes as well,but that doesn't mean there is no room left for the admiration of other features and colors as well. You see I have an open mind, while I see very little fits into your mind.
Emily,
You are OBSESSED with bumpy or hooked noses! What is the deal? I said SOME Swedes have what seems to be stunted noses. God. I didn't say ALL of them or that is what the average Swede looks like. Please calm down. Your response of tons of photos with Romanian women and hooked noses was an overeaction to one small statement. I don't understand where this obsession is coming from!
I have to address A LOT on here it seems. I will return when I have more time:)
dasdsas
Blonde hair,brown hair,red hair etc can all be beautiful and feminine depending on the person.
Diversity is what makes thing beautiful.What would the world be like if everyone had the same colour and tone of hair,same eye colour,same tone and colour of skin etc?
Godis;
"Wow, I'm surprised Emily hasn't jumped on that yet."
Sorry that I won't take your every factually incorrect bait.
Godis;
"Scandinavians, particularly Finns, spoke Uralic languages"
Finns are not Scandinavians. Scandinavians don't speak Uralic languages, they speak Germanic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family.
That's OK, I wouldn't expect facts and truths from you.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however, as I see that English Wikipedia is incorrect right now and includes Finland in Scandinavia. Beware, anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Scandinavia is comprised of Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
These countries have close linguistic, cultural, racial and historic ties.
Finland is only included when you speak of "Nordic" countries. They have a totally separate language group, Finno-Ugric, part of the Uralic language family.
Please don't make me spend my time correcting your mistakes. Thanks.
Under Wikipedia "Nordic Countries" you will find a good and correct definition of "Nordic countries";
"The Nordic countries make up a region in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic (called Norden in the Scandinavian languages) which consists of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden and their associated territories which include the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.
Scandinavia is sometimes used as a synonym for the Nordic countries,[1] although within the Nordic countries the terms are considered distinct."
Barberella;
"This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing"
Yes, I realize that. I think she seems schizofrenic, creating multiple nicknames and arguing with herself (Karen = godis). I'm not surprised if she turns out to be yet another one on here..
What she forgets when she rants about Scandinavians is that people do have eyes and can see for themselves.
The fact that Scandinavia has light natural blondes who also tan well is lost on her. Too bad for her, then. I don't intend to waste time convincing her of something most people already know.
She misrepresents Romanians, implying they are not infrequently naturally blonde there.
The truth is this; Romanians are generally a swarthy lot. They have dark brown or black hair and different shades of brown eyes, sometimes hazel. There are other colours but the brown and black dominate overwhelmingly.
Many Romanians are closely related to gypsies with all that this entails.
Romanians often have huge and very long noses. It is fascinating looking at their photos. Someone who has a nose three miles long would perhaps be envious of Scandinavian noses and call them "stunted". Anything normal would look stunted compared to that.
They love to bleach their hair, and in photos they sometimes retouch their eyes to blue or green. They admire Nordic colours but their efforts to emulate them is generally in vain and often looks bizarre due to their coarse facial features, and the atypical face and nose shape.
The rule is; if you are too far removed from Nordics/Germanics in type, avoid bleaching your hair. It won't look good.
I think it's funny that godis always brings up her own people's shortcomings, comparing them to Scandinavians. To bring up noses and blonde hair colour is not wise for a Romanian. Those are actually their weakest points.
Why have blackish hair and eyes...
..when you can be a blonde and light-eyed Nordic girl?
I'm really a natural blonde and my blue eye colour is NOT painted on my photo!
I feel like Swedish Anita Ekberg..or perhaps Brigitte Bardot..
I don't think my nose looks big. I prefer this angle..
Why don't people get that I'm a real blonde!? They say the colour doesn't go with my face but I have no idea what they mean.
Yes, my eyes are that blue. I think brownish yellow skin is beautiful and it goes with my naturally blonde hair.
I have blue eyes, too, and no we don't hate Scandinavian girls because we, in fact, look just like them.
We really are naturally blonde. We just like to dye our hair black.
Romanian interpretation of "blonde" and "redhead"..
Our noses look so much better and more romantic than Nordic ones. Swedish girl with stunted nose:
What do you mean we are direct descendants of Vlad the Impaler? Nordics could only dream of having our noses..
So I don't understand how Emily can argue that GERMANS are not Nordic. I understand how she can argue that the Irish are. Even though the Irish have every Nordic element, I guess they weren't considered Nordic for some reason. I just remember reading something about how they were disliked or something and they couldn't possibly be classified as the "superior" Nordics. But anyone with common sense can see that the Irish have very Nordic features, and in fact I see more "Nordic" Irish than Scandinavians. Seriously, I understand there are more types of Nordic than Halstatt type, but it doesn't add up. These Nordics have such features that they could easily be classified as Alpines, but yet, they are still classified as Nordic. It is ridiculous and there was a lot of innaccuracy going on. I am no expert on anthropology but just by scanning some photos and articles I can tell you that there was a lot of bias going on when it came to classifying groups.
Wow, I'm surprised Emily hasn't jumped on that yet. Since she jumped on the guy on here who first made a connection to Scandinavians not being soo Nordic. Reading that post has only aroused my suspisions that Scandinavians had a different element to them than the traditional Nordics, which by and far are not Scandinavians.
I noticed this primarily because of their high cheekbones. I also noticed this because of their flat facial features, such as a small tiny nose for example. The traditional Nordic has a medium to long STRAIGHT nose.
Anyways, after I read that post I did five minutes of research and instantly the fact that Scandinavians, particularly Finns, spoke Uralic languages showed that there is a non-Nordic or non-Germanic influence at work.
I think Swedes are not affected to the extreme Uralic or Ugric elements, however I do think they are AT LEAST minutley affected. Since the countries are so close together there has to be at least some connection, however small.
I'd like to add that the Halstatt type of Swede is probably what I would consider most "Nordic". This is because the skull shape is most similar to what anthropologists back then would consider "Nordic". You realize that way back when, anthropolgists characterized Europe into the 3 subraces of Nordic, Mediterranean, and Alpine. Ideally, anyone in Northern Europe would fall into the "Nordic" category. Anyone in Central and Eastern Europe would fall into the "Alpine" category. Anyone in the South would fall into the Mediterannean category. Romanians for example would be a mix of Alpine and Mediterranean since they belong to a South Eastern European country. This is basic anthropology everyone knows.
However, I have noticed that many Scandinavians do not have the Nordic nose, face, or skull shape overall. This is especially noticable in Finns. Well, do a little research and you find out that Finns speak a language that belong to the Uralic or Ugric family. I don't remember. Either way, there is a connection here. Hungarians actually speak a Uralic language. What is interesting is that Hungarians actually originally came from Asia. Sammi languages, and you do know that Sammis are a minority in Sweden and Finland right? Sammis speak this type of language. Well, I don't know how accurate all that is because I don't have time to read it but let me make the connection:
"The Uralic languages geographically cover Scandinavia, Finland, and Eastern Central Europe to Central Russia"
Source: http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/uralic.html
"The healthiest Uralic languages in terms of the number of native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Mari and Udmurt. Countries that are home to a significant number of speakers of Uralic languages include Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Slovakia"
The hilarious thing here is that Hungarians are not ALL that different from Finns who aren't all that diff. from Swedes. What is funny here is I am actually a tad-bit Hungarian. I speak Hungarian and Finns speak a similar language and they are a similar people.
Anyways, what I am trying to say is that Swedes and Scandinavians have something going on there that interfere with them being the "perfect" Nordics. I am sure there are many Swedes that can be classified as "perfect" Nordics, but for every one of those there is one that cannot be classified like that.
I have more Nordic bone structure than some Swedes! Some Swedes have such flat faces, that mine is more qualified. So there you go. And Finns, well they just have many Asiatic features such as epicanthal folds, flat noses, flat and round faces. Must I go on?
Swedes actually speak a Germanic language, but there is a clear influence there that is not Germanic.
Barberella,
First of all I would like to accept your apologies for name calling. I'm sorry too if I said anything mean, which I am sure I did. Now I would like to adress some of your comments:
"Godis, my description of my body isn't valid, just because I won't show my photos? It is tempting, though, lol...if for no other reason than to shut you the **** UP!! But...you don't win godis, sorry."
The problem is not that your description of your body is not valid. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way I can objectivley compare your body to mine with words alone. If your point is to prove that you have a nicer body, which you very well may, than you need to prove this by objectivley comparing your body to mine. The most objective way possible to compare is with clear photographs. Otherwise, the argument is not valid. I'd like to add that no one "wins" and this is an immature way of viewing any debate.
"This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing, like I said, the ash blond girls she's posting have the kind of coloring that it works on, and we don't know for sure if it works on her, I'm assuming NO."
There is no way you can assume anything. There is no way I can prove to you that I have naturally ash blonde hair. In this case photographs would prove nothing. First of all, my camera distorts color. Second of all, I have highlights. All you can do is take my word for it. However, my main argument is that it is possible for even an 100% Romanian to have naturally blonde hair. You yourself have posted photos of two girls with obvious blonde hair and even blue eyes, from ROMANIA.
I too can post photos of blonde Romanians all day. In the end though, who would know if they truly are Romanians? Romanians don't have as distinguished a look as Swedes. I would have to cite all my sources, and many times even those sources may not prove they are Romanians. That would take too much time and in the end it still wouldn't be really objective. For example, can you tell if the women below are Romanian or Ukranian?
Well, they are actually Romanian."Girls from the village of Iernut, Romania." However, the folk costumes are so similar to the ones in the Ukraine, I could have easily taken a photo of the more common blonde Ukranians and claimed them to be Romanians... Therefore, I can only argue that blonde hair is found naturally among Romanians, which it is. The best proof to cite to you would be the fact that you yourself have posted a photo of what you believed to be a valid representation of blonde Romanians.
"Godis, if the point of posting your photos was to compare it to other Swedes and not me or Emily, than stop asking us to post our pics!! The only reason we commented on your body was because you made the mistake of posting your photos. Not everyone is going to like your looks, get over it. That last paragraph does not make sense. Proofreading is your friend."
The only reason I ask you to post your pics is because you have claimed that you have a nicer body than me. I refuse to accept that argument 100% unless you have valid proof for it, the best of which would be photographs. The point of posting my photos was to prove that someone who is not a Swede can be just as attractive as a Swede even though that someone, aka me, comes from a place that has less attractive people on average. This is to prove that in the end someone's beauty is based on them as an individual and not the population they belong to. I'd also like to add that my last paragraph is fine. Better wording could have been chosen. I could care less about proofreading, I don't have time for it in all honesty. Someone with average intelligence can figure out what I am trying to say, so I would hope you could too.
"Emily, Godis' taste in things is what we call here in the US, very "ghetto" and her opinions must be taken with a grain of salt...lol. Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people whom they're not flattering to..."
You criticize my paragraphs, but your paragraph actually makes little sense.My taste is hardly ghetto. You clearly do not understand what ghetto means. I have shown an interest in pinup looks actually. There is quite a contrast between that and "ghetto". I cite the beauty of Elizabeth Taylor all too often, how does one who appreciates the look of Elizabeth Taylor have "ghetto" taste?You are very ignorant. I don't know what you mean specifically by, " Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people...." I mean I understand what you are saying, but it's not even a complete sentence...
"I happen to think that Irish and Germans are still not as attractive as Scandinavians, and I AM Irish, as well as Dutch, and German. Hmmm...why is it that it doesn't bother me to admit this, but Godis has to defend her ethnicity?"
I defend my ethnicity when someone claims things of it that are not true. Otherwise, I have gone as far to admit that my ethnicity is probably among the least attractive in relation to all the other European ethnicities. It doesn't bother me to admit that. I don't understand your point here? I defend only what is innaccurate, I admit the negatives that are accurate in regards to my "ethnicity". In all honesty, you act like Romanians are from Africa or something. They are Indo-Europeans. They are not that different than other Europeans overall...
"By the way godis, take it from me, I make a huge chunk of my living coloring peoples hair the very colors YOU claim are unnatural, or unattractive. It's the most asked for salon service in the US: HAIR LIGHTENING. Who are you trying to convince of these outlandish claims?"
This is not surprising, since lighter hair attracts attention away from any flaws such as acne, wrinkles, blotchy skin, etc. The fact that hair lightening is in high demand does not do anything for the argument that Scandinavian blonde is an attractive tone. I doubt that the majority of people ask for specifically that color, and as an up scale stylist, or whatever you do, you should advise them not to get that specific color since that hair color would suit a minority of people, much less such a diverse group as Americans. I assume since the majority of your customers ask for this, there has to be SOME diversity among them. The ultimatum is that I personally do not find natural Scandinavian hair colors attractive, or at least specifically the color I demonstrated in my photographs. This is my personal opinion, however, I believe that many people could see how a yellow type of hair color is less attractive than say a champagne, ash, beige, wheat, or strawberry blonde. It looks like the same color I used to have to use as a child at the age of 5 to demonstrate blonde hair in my artwork, since the closest color to blonde was the yellow crayon. However, at the same time, I am positive there are many people or enough people to keep you satisfied that appreciate that very color.
"One more thing Godis: IRISH AND GERMAN IS NOT "NORDIC", SCANDINAVIANS ARE THE ONLY TRUE NORDICS. ALTHOUGH SOME IRISH, AND MANY GERMANS HAVE NORDIC COLORING AND FEATURES, THEY ARE NOT NORDIC. NORTHERN EUROPE MAY INCLUDE THESE COUNTRIES, BUT SCANDINAVIA DOES NOT!!!
STOP POSTING INACCURACIES, FOR ONCE"
Do you realize that the term "Nordic" was popularized by a man called Hitler who was an Austrain dictator that took over Germany and convinced the people there that they are the "Nordic" and superior race. I'm sorry that I have made the mistake to buy into this and actually believe that Germans out of all people could be considered Nordic. How very silly of me. Actually, in all seriousness, since of course you know I wasn't being serious before right? Anyways, in all seriousness I barely consider Scandinavians Nordic. This is because to me "Nordic" is characterized by disinctive bone structure. Since I consider bone structure something more substantial and solid than coloring I look at that to identify whether someone is Nordic or not. In my opinon, your photos reinforce the fact that many Scandinavians do not have pure Nordic bone structure. I believe that Germans and even some North Eastern European areas have more "Nordic" bone structure than the average Scandinavian.
One more thing Godis: IRISH AND GERMAN IS NOT "NORDIC", SCANDINAVIANS ARE THE ONLY TRUE NORDICS. ALTHOUGH SOME IRISH, AND MANY GERMANS HAVE NORDIC COLORING AND FEATURES, THEY ARE NOT NORDIC. NORTHERN EUROPE MAY INCLUDE THESE COUNTRIES, BUT SCANDINAVIA DOES NOT!!!
STOP POSTING INACCURACIES, FOR ONCE.
The guys Emily posted are BEAUTIFUL....thank you ;)
Tall, blonde, and gorgeous eyes...mmmmmmmmm
Ola Toivanen is very sexy, it would appear they have the hottest guys as well!
For some reason, my computer just refreshed after I posted this comment, and hadn't seen the last four comments by Emily and Godis, but....Godis is just going to have to be ignored. She's now, again, showing her true colors.
Emily, Godis' taste in things is what we call here in the US, very "ghetto" and her opinions must be taken with a grain of salt...lol. Sure, the fake blonde colors she likes, and on people whom they're not flattering to...
Godis, my description of my body isn't valid, just because I won't show my photos? It is tempting, though, lol...if for no other reason than to shut you the **** UP!! But...you don't win godis, sorry.
This is, as usual, a clear cut case of envy, her trying to imply that Swedish haircolors are unappealing, like I said, the ash blond girls she's posting have the kind of coloring that it works on, and we don't know for sure if it works on her, I'm assuming NO.
Godis, if the point of posting your photos was to compare it to other Swedes and not me or Emily, than stop asking us to post our pics!! The only reason we commented on your body was because you made the mistake of posting your photos. Not everyone is going to like your looks, get over it. That last paragraph does not make sense. Proofreading is your friend.
Godis, I DO NOT belong to ANY social networking sites, NONE, and I would never post pics of myself on them, either. That's why I choose not to belong to sites like that. I just don't trust it.
I happen to think that Irish and Germans are still not as attractive as Scandinavians, and I AM Irish, as well as Dutch, and German. Hmmm...why is it that it doesn't bother me to admit this, but Godis has to defend her ethnicity?
By the way godis, take it from me, I make a huge chunk of my living coloring peoples hair the very colors YOU claim are unnatural, or unattractive. It's the most asked for salon service in the US: HAIR LIGHTENING. Who are you trying to convince of these outlandish claims?
Godis, as much as I've entertained the idea of submitting to the "challenge" of proving you wrong, I just don't think I can justify posting my pics. Not that I wasn't tempted!! But, after assessing the pros and cons, I have concluded that it isn't in the best interest of myself or the site itself.
I have reread my posts and am regretful at the name calling, but I think that your implying my boyfriend is gay, I'm ugly, or don't know anything about men is immature and irrelevant to what you had brought the topic to: your looks. I guess that means that you will continue taunting me, assuming I must not actually look like I describe, so...if that's what you want to believe, that's OK with me:)
I don't know why you'd assume I was lying, and then resort to baiting me when I wouldn't comply, that isn't adult-like.
ALL of this needs to be dropped, I am apologizing for the name calling, I realize that you are a young girl, at 20, and I also know at that age, I was still figuring out who I was, and wouldn't have appreciated the types of comments that I'd directed towards you, for that, I am sorry. To be fair, though, posting pics of one's self does bring about attention and comments, both good and bad.
I still stand by my stated opinions in regards to the looks of different races, ethnicities, and still believe that Nordics are superior in looks. However, that does NOT mean that I don't see the beauty in all ethnicities.
Pages