You are here

Fashion models and mannequins in East Asia

Following the international furor over Satoshi Kanazawa’s article on the physical attractiveness of blacks, Lee Ellis and Ping He published a study on whether “some  racial or ethnic groups are considered on average more physically attractive than others even by members of other groups.”  Here is their study.

Lee Ellis & Ping He. Race and Advertising: Ethnocentrism or “Real” Differences in Physical Attractiveness? Indirect Evidence from China, Malaysia, and the United States. Mankind Quarterly 2011;51(4):471-489.

Implicit in the concept of ethnocentrism is the idea that people will consider members of their own race or ethnic group to be more attractive than members of other groups. If so, one would expect advertisers to take advantage of such preferences by choosing “local” models when promoting clothing fashions and other products. A contrary view is that judgments of physical attractiveness are to a substantial degree neurologically “hard-wired” and evolved similarly throughout the world. With the assumption that fashion models and manikins are considered highly attractive, the present study recorded the race of models and manikins publically displayed in city malls in China, Malaysia, and the United States. Caucasian (white, European) models were found to be mainly utilized in all three countries, especially in regard to clothing fashion displays. Even advertisements for cosmetics and fashion accessories were “Caucasian-biased” in China and Malaysia although less so than in the U.S. and less so than advertisements for clothing fashions. Findings call into question the relevance of ethnocentrism in determining the choice of fashion models used in advertising, and are instead consistent with other evidence of universal standards of physical beauty that advertisers rely on to help promote their products.

The findings of Ellis and He are similar to those of two previous published studies by Frith, Shaw and Cheng (2004, 2005), that they cited, which assessed the ethnic background of female models in prominent fashion magazines published in Singapore, Taiwan and the United States; Ellis and He found that the same find also applies to male models and mannequins of either sex.

Ellis and He made note of a study by Feng and Frith (2008), which reported that 80% of the models used in women’s magazines with a limited regional circulation in China were East Asian, whereas Asian editions of two international women’s magazines with wide circulation in China featured 33% and 50% East Asian models.  Feng and Frith’s data (2008) show, as can be expected, that there is no shortage of East Asians available as models, and that the most likely explanation of greater reliance on East Asian models by limited-circulation local women’s magazines is their limited budget, which mostly rules out paying for European models.

It is clear that to the extent the fashion modeling issue in the Ellis and He data is about physical appearance, it involves the face, not the body.  With less exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics [men looking less masculine, women looking less feminine], more slender bones and a very large population, one would think that East Asia is a haven for fashion designers looking for male and female models resembling adolescent boys, but East Asian fashion models are a rarity internationally and disfavored even in East Asia.  Similarly, the physiques of mannequins are not important because mannequins with either Asiatic or European faces can and usually will be made with similar physique proportions.

Ellis and He addressed three studies that challenge their interpretation.  The first is a group of studies reporting that computer averages of European and East Asian faces are rated more attractive than the parent populations, such as Rhodes et al. (2005).  This has gone uncommented by Ellis and He.  This is a topic that I have not addressed at this site, but have in a different publication; the find is dubious because of methodological flaws.  It is well documented that East Asians rated more attractive by East Asians have face shapes closer to European norms, and the pattern of facial cosmetic surgeries in East Asians is clearly a shift toward European norms.  This is evident in pictures of attractive East Asians provided by enthusiasts.  In contrast, no Asianization of attractiveness is seen among Europeans.

To illustrate, the masculinized European woman on the left below is not made more attractive by shifting the face toward Asiatic shapes (middle), but by retaining the European shape and simply enhancing femininity (right).

Frida Aasen, Amber Heard
Left: below average femininity.  Middle: below average femininity.  Right: slightly below average femininity.  The below average femininity of the woman shown in the middle, Frida Aasen, is clearer in this picture, where she is not even 18; the masculinity will better manifest in subsequent years.  Aasen is a long-skulled, lightly pigmented European and her face may have nothing to do with any Asiatic genetic input, which may not be there in the first place, but the shape elements count for our discussion.  Greater feminization than the example shown on the right, as in Britt Ekland, will continue to maintain a European shape if corresponding to greater attractiveness.

In two additional examples, the faces shown below can be made more attractive by making the facial features more Anglo/Jutish/Frisian/Saxonic (left, middle) or more feminine (right), not Asiatic in any case.  In general, it has been systematically shown that attractiveness in European women corresponds to changes in face shape in a direction away from Asianization.

Selvije and Cathrine Norgaard
Left and middle (Selvije): average femininity.  Right (Cathrine Nörgaard): below average femininity.

The second challenge to their interpretation, cited by Ellis and He, comes from Jankowiak, Gray and Hattman (2008).  These authors reported that women, both European and East Asian, rated male and female European magazine models better looking than their East Asian counterparts, whereas male raters found European male models better looking than East Asian, rating female models of the two populations similarly.  This is not a proper challenge.  Female fashion models tend to have below average femininity; the majority of men will usually not familiarize themselves with female high-fashion models whereas more women are expected to browse fashion magazines and be used to the looks of female high-fashion models; and European women having more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, the below average femininity of European women fashion models will tend to be more noticeable to most men whose brains attune them to breasts, hips and related cues to femininity, very well causing them to more negatively evaluate European women models than East Asian women models for lacking femininity. 

The third challenge cited by Ellis and He is by Honekopp (2006).  African, European and East Asian students in a Western university were asked to rate the attractiveness of African, European and East Asian student faces.  People tended to have a better opinion of the average attractiveness of members of their own ethnic group than others had.  However, this does not reflect on whether people rated their own ethnic group better looking than other ethnic groups.  And Honekopp’s find can fit within the possibility of Europeans universally seen as more attractive.  For instance, people will be more comfortable rating the physical attractiveness of their own ethnic group because of the familiarity factor, and may more negatively evaluate alien facial features not perceived as attractive than the aliens who possess these features, which could explain the general trend except the evaluation of European attractiveness, where Europeans use norms among themselves as a comparison point whereas non-Europeans use attractive Europeans [because Europeans are supposed to be better looking] as a yardstick and penalize those who fall short.  Note that the Honekopp study refers to the evaluation of ordinary individuals, whereas Ellis and He focus on models, including mannequins.

The more important find is about the model mannequin faces because when these are realistic, they tend to be idealized.  In East Asia, two-thirds of the models used to sell cosmetics, hair products, shoes, jewelry, electronics, and household goods were European, but mannequins modeling high fashion rarely represented East Asian faces.

Mannequins in China, Malaysia and America

The idealistic elements of a mannequin are illustrated in the following instance of an East Asian who had nothing wrong or deficient in her nose but sought surgery to obtain the idealized nose depicted in the mannequin she brought to the doctor’s office.

Korean patient wanting European nose
The Asian wanted a European nose; see source and context.

Ellis and He are dependent on the assumption that fashion models are selected for a high level of attractiveness.  This is correct if we add “to the dominant fashion designers.”  But the below average femininity of typical female fashion models, which diminishes their attractiveness to the general public, does not weaken their argument.

In the following example, for instance, it is clear that the major differences between East Asian and European models involve ethnic features, even if the individuals are picked far apart along the masculinity-femininity distribution.  Therefore, attractiveness as a function of femininity is not the issue.

Connie Chiu and Linn Arvidsson
A feminine albino East Asian fashion model, Connie Chiu, contrasted with a non-feminine, boyish non-albino European fashion model, Linn Arvidsson.  It is not necessary to pick an albino European for comparison as the person shown will look like one without sun exposure.

The following painting contrasts realism with the garbage that passes for modern art.

Cesar Santos painting
Cesar Santos illustrating the difference between realism and modern art.

Would the masters of realism in art, the only people worthy of the designation of great artists, draw inspiration from European or East Asian faces?  This is the key to understanding the question examined by Ellis and He, and the key to understanding the mannequins data.  The issue is not one of masculinity-femininity, nor is it of mere attractiveness as there is no difficulty in finding some East Asians that are more physically attractive than the majority of Europeans or very attractive by any standard, but whereas some European faces have artistic merit, East Asian faces are universally lacking in artistic merit.

Ellis and He quoted the director of a Chinese modeling agency saying, “The  foreign  models’ faces are much more three-dimensional…. They look nicer in pictures.”  This is a reference most extensively to the mid-facial flattening of East Asian faces, where the resemblance to ancestral species is the greatest and unambiguous.  It is for this reason that the pattern of cosmetic surgeries among East Asians is better understood in terms of looking less ethnic/more derived than one of Europeanization.

At this point it should also be considered whether the extensive use of European models and European-faced mannequins in East Asia is an imposition on the general population by the elite and not indicative of general preferences.  Since the models and mannequins are selling things to the people, this elite is the business elite.  The top concern of the business elite is profit, and if East Asian faces profitted them more, they would use more of them.  This leaves the possibility that reduced profits are accepted in exchange for another goal, though what this could be I have no idea.  Another possibility is that the desirability of the items marketed makes it largely irrelevant whether European or East Asian models are used, and the heavy use of European faces either reflects the atypical aesthetic preferences of the business elite or some other reason.  If there are any persuasive arguments in this regard, then I am not aware of them.

Ellis and He discussed three alternative possibilities that may explain the European overrepresentation:

Higher perceived social status of Europeans
But features may be found more attractive or more desirable even if the social status is low, as in the example of Northern European slaves being admired for their looks in Rome, and features may be found less attractive or less desirable even if the social status is high, as in most people finding the below average femininity and thinness of high-fashion models less appealing notwithstanding their high status.

The clothes being marketed are Western
To this the authors responded that advertisers would want to minimize the suggestion that the clothes marketed are inappropriate for customers, that modern dresses are usually used internationally, and Western clothes are often made in China, Malaysia and other Asian nations.

Lighter hair and lighter skin is favored among East Asians
But untanned Northeast Asians tend to be fairly light, often lighter than tanned Europeans, models can dye their hair and mannequins can have hair of any color.

It seems that the evidence is most consistent with the majority of East Asians finding Europeans more physically attractive than themselves.


I don`t understand what makes Frida Aasen face less feminine than Britt Ekland,please help?Is it her chin because it looks the same to me?Please please help?!

I fail to see how Frida Aasen has features shifted towards the Asiatic norm; her face seems extremely European to me. While it is true that you are probably more well-read on this pseudo-science (if it can even be called that) of objective beauty, I think the reality of facial features is far more complicated than you imagine. I would conjecture the following. If you view the space of facial features -- for instance, nose length would be one dimension, facial width another -- ethnic groups will not fall into well-defined regions. Rather, each group will fall into a number of volumes that may not even be well-connected. Of course, it goes without saying that there will also be some overlap between groups. A short nose combined with a certain type of forehead and chin may appear extremely European. On the other hand, when combined with a different set of features, a short nose may make one appear distinctly Asian or African. In this sense, it is difficult to even speak of norms, for the norm may correspond to an entirely different ethnic group. Norms are typically only well-defined for small isolated groups of people; even children occasionally look strikingly different from both parents.

Well, since you have demonstrated in the past your obsession that Nordics are leagues ahead of everybody else in terms of attractiveness, I will entertain the following idea. Perhaps your ideal group of people are so afraid of tainting their otherworldly beauty, that they refuse to interbreed with non-Nordics (those filthy subhuman mongoloids). In this case, perhaps a norm does exist for the Nordic race. How convenient! Now all you have to do is equate beauty with looking Nordic.

Me? Well I am of the opinion that Mongoloids, of a different type than previously mentioned, are the most attractive people. However, this is just my opinion. I am not going to make bold claims with false certainty (you didn't even try to hide it much) based on a few "investigations." Remember that the topic of this site can hardly even be called a science. Even in medicine, researchers show more discretion when presenting their findings.

Great article! I agree with you, although I have seen a different research!

Another scientists have discovered that white people tend to choose other races when asked to rate which faces they find most attractive. These scientists discovered that white men prefer the facial features of Asian women while white women go for the faces of black men. Are human beings 'hardwired' to find different the faces of different races attractive?

The Department of Psychology at Cardiff University, which carried out the study, says the results of their research are reflected in society. Men and women aged between 18 and 30 were shown 600 faces of the opposite sex and asked to grade them for attractiveness.

The women tended to go for black male faces, followed by white and then Asian.Men plumped for Asian women, followed by white, then black.Government figures show around one-and-a-half times more black men marrying white women than the other way around in the UK.More white men have also been found to marry East Asian women - compared to Asian men marrying white women. Dr Michael Lewis is who led the research project.

Anyway I've always rated as most attractive the European women. I congratulate Erik to use as example of female beauty to Britt Ekland, beautiful scandinavian big-eyed actress. I also had set as example to Elke Sommer, another gorgeous teutonic actress.

Nicegirl: Frida Aasen is pretty but her facial features are slightly less feminine than Britt Ekland because she has more pronounced chin and a square jaw. But the upper third of her face is feminine and cute, in my opinion.

Rose byrne,Minka Kelly and many more women on this site have large chins and square jaws,but they get put up as feminine.As far as i can tell the only thing about Frida Aasen face that is unfeminine is her cheekbones.Erik has even said that Minka Kelly does not have a square jaw,but it is no different from Frida`s.Some things on this site just do not add up sometimes.Even the feminine skull on the feminine VS masculine page has a square jaw,it is quit clear.I wish Erik could clear this up.

Comment number 5 is mine.

Erick, you also said that you would put jaclyn smith in the attractive women section.Are you putting her in there because she is feminine or because she is attractive and just feminine enough to make the cut?I notice she has a lot of masculine features.

nicegirl: I have not shown enough pictures of Frida Aasen and Britt Ekland for a proper comparison, but you can find many more pictures of them. You just have to keep in mind that most of the pictures of Ekland show her as a mature adult, whereas most pictures of Aasen show her as a girl in her mid-teens. Plenty of pictures of Aasen :

Compared to Ekland, in side view, the lower third of the face and the philtrum are longer in Aasen, and in front view, Aasen has a squarer chin, less expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area, and the border of the orbits is less sharp and more rounded. Individually, these changes occur with greater masculinization or lesser feminization, but you have to look for a pattern to see whether the differences involve masculinity-femininity or other factors. The pattern is there, and Aasen is not as feminine as Ekland.

Do not equate large chins and square jaws with the extent of femininity. Size [large vs. small] is separate from shape. Focus on shape. A square jaw only applies to a front-view description, and masculinization causes squaring of the chin, not squaring of the jaw. Rose Byrne and Minka Kelly do not have square jaws. If you look at how increasing feminization alters shape (on the left), jaws appear wider and the chin narrower in front view. Squaring of the jaws would require a wider jaw, not the direction masculinization would send it in. A square jaw may look feminine or masculine, depending on the rest of the face, and this also goes for a square chin. You can see a square chin in Elena Teplova, who looks feminine. Irena Gesvindrová (another picture) has a square chin and a square jaw and clearly looks feminine. You have to see how it comes together.

An illustration of the size and shape issue is this comparison of the chin of Heidi Montag through her various surgeries. Before surgery it was longer but more rounded. Now, masculinization would cause a longer chin but also a wider or squared chin. The most convenient route for the surgeon was to shave off part of the chin to reduce height, but this came at the cost of the chin appearing squarer, resulting in something that did not enhance femininity in spite of a reduction in chin length. The improvement of the chin needed more surgery.

I find Jaclyn smith attractive, which is why I indicated an interest in posting her pictures.

Comment #2 was left by someone who did not leave a name. This is a reply to her.

You have disputed the existence of ethnic face shape norms by stating that:

If you view the space of facial features -- for instance, nose length would be one dimension, facial width another -- ethnic groups will not fall into well-defined regions. Rather, each group will fall into a number of volumes that may not even be well-connected.

Nose length alone or face width alone or both these measurements taken together will do a poor job of distinguishing ethnic groups, but when you look at people’s faces, you see much more that just two variables. How many more? A lot. You could list two measurements in a text file that only occupies a few bytes, whereas a picture that reliably shows details of face shape will take many kilobytes.

There is a correlation structure underlying different face measurements. It is these correlation structures, that may be described as norms, that distinguish ethnic groups. Take enough measurements, sample populations from farther away and the overlap between population norms approaches zero.

In Frida Aasen, the person is easily identifiable as European but at the same time it is unmistakable in profile view that the caved in mid-facial region, the protruding mouth and the larger jaw are shifts toward Asiatic shapes as these three shifts tend to go together with shifts toward ancestral faces, including Asiatic faces.

You said that even in medicine, researchers show more discretion when presenting their findings. I have presented a nuanced argument that integrates a wide body of literature. And I am sure you will find some publications in medical journals very interesting: the high-profile academics listed as the investigators neither did the study nor wrote the paper; the actual authors are professional writers that remain incognito, and the study was carried out by an unrelated private group. You don’t think they would be tempted to massage the findings a bit?

This is another part of the reply to the person who left comment #2.

You talk about a face space where the nose is one dimension and facial width another. This assumes that these dimensions are independent, i.e., there are no common underlying factors affecting the two. But is this the case?

Something has to ensure that the nose develops in between the eyes and not in the middle of the forehead. There are many other constraints like this, placing limits on configurations and dimensions. Take these constraints, common underlying factors, and add in natural selection, random genetic drift, sexual selection, and you have the basis for correlation structures or norms that distinguish populations.

Dan: You referred to the research of Michael Lewis as a counter argument. His work is poor. Ellis and He have made an attempt to account for a large body of evidence, and I have added to their argument. Conclusions drawn from a wide body of literature are more likely to be reliable. Lewis would have a difficult time fitting his research within the wider body of observations, whereas it is an easy matter to fit his data within the picture that emerges from most observations and publications on the topic.

This is the study you referred to.


In the US and UK, more Black men are married to White women than vice versa and there are more White men married to Asian women than vice versa. Models of interracial marriage, based on the exchange of racial status for other capital, cannot explain these asymmetries. A new explanation is offered based on the relative perceived facial attractiveness of the different race-by-gender groups.

Method and Findings

This explanation was tested using a survey of perceived facial attractiveness. This found that Black males are perceived as more attractive than White or East Asian males whereas among females, it is the East Asians that are perceived as most attractive on average.


Incorporating these attractiveness patterns into the model of marriage decisions produces asymmetries in interracial marriage similar to those in the observed data in terms of direction and relative size. This model does not require differences in status between races nor different strategies based on gender. Predictions are also generated regarding the relative attractiveness of those engaging in interracial marriage.

Michael B. Lewis. A Facial Attractiveness Account of Gender Asymmetries in Interracial Marriage.

The results come from predominantly European college students rating on a 1-10 attractiveness scale facebook pictures of young adult Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians. These ratings are not properly interpretable in terms of a comparison of the attractiveness of ethnic groups as people in the 80th percentile of attractiveness in their ethnic group may be found less attractive than people in the 60th percentile of attractiveness in a different ethnic group, and raters may be ranking faces based on their impression of the average in the ethnic group to which the person belongs.

The ratings of facebook pictures selected by an assistant of his is what Lewis relies on. Lewis never addresses the ethnic backgrounds of fashion models, mannequins showing idealized features, whether black men and East Asian women are disproportionately perceived as the hottest looking on college campuses in the U.S. and U.K., whether men prefer to see East Asian women among pinup models and pinup artwork, what the literature shows about ratings of more ancestral-looking facial features and which groups have more ancestral facial features, trends in cosmetic surgery as they pertain to altering ethnic features and sundry. You will find much on these within this site, but Lewis has made no attempt to fit his data and interpretation within the wider body of evidence that spans multiple specialties.

The marriage or sexual partner disparities are easily explained within the wider body of observations. Men place a high premium on women’s attractiveness, and will end up with the most attractive women they can obtain. A corollary is that white men married to non-white women will on average have lower mate value.

White women who marry non-white men also on average have lower mate value. In an analysis of dating profiles, slender or normal-weight white women were nearly seven times more likely to exclude black men as dates compared to overweight white women. Contrast this with the prediction of Lewis’ model that white women married to black men are expected to have above average attractiveness. Lewis appears unaware of the real world.

The lower mate value of white women sexually involved with non-white men, especially blacks, is also evident in lower intelligence and worse mental health (see this and this). The partner choices of those with lower mate value have more to do with compromise and less with preference compared to those having higher mate value.

Points a-d about the sexuality of heterosexuals should be noted.

a) Both men and women desire attractive sexual partners, the more attractive the better.

b) Compromising on attractiveness criteria is the norm, and men are less restrictive about who they have sex with.

c) The extent to which men can compromise is limited by arousal because erection is not under voluntary control. In contrast, arousal is not a limiting factor in women. A woman who is not aroused by the looks of a man is still capable of voluntary intercourse with him, from which she will derive pleasure and likely orgasm. In contrast, men being more visual, if the physical appearance of a woman does not arouse them, then a non-trivial number of them will not be able to have natural intercourse with the woman even in the dark when they are trying to imagine she is another woman, forget about the light.

d) The nature of many pleasurable sensations, related to mechanical stimulation, will not change with the ethnicity of the partner.

If whites sexually involved with non-whites tend to have lower mate value, then the most likely explanation of why more white men than white women are sexually involved with non-whites is #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with. It should be possible to show that this applies to even sex with blacks when one considers whites capable of having sex with blacks.

Sex between whites and blacks is highly unusual, and in some regions, such as the U.S. and the U.K., more white women than white men are sexually involved with blacks. Noting #c, since women are not limited by arousal, almost all women are capable of sexual intercourse with black men but not all men can do it with black women.

In an interview by Playboy magazine, John Mayer had the following to say:

PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?

MAYER: I don’t think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick.

Mayer’s description is a characteristic of many men. Criminal justice statistics in the U.S. show the rarity of white men raping black women. The stark disparity in HIV infection rates among white and black populations in South Africa suggest a high level of sexual isolation between the populations; even with so many black women around, white men seeking some variety on the side or prostitutes for what their wives or girlfriends will not do are largely avoiding black women. This avoidance cannot be assigned to knowledge and fear of HIV infection as white men who have sex with men in the U.S. have this knowledge but still have HIV prevalence rates in the neighborhood of sub-Saharan Africans. If one considers #d, which is that the mechanical aspects of pleasurable sensations will not differ much as a function of the ethnicity of the partner, and #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with, it should be clear that there is a substantial proportion of white men incapable of natural sexual intercourse with the majority of black women they come across, because of lack of arousal.

Limiting oneself to whites capable of having sex with blacks, I am positive that more white men than white women are having sex with blacks. It is meaningless to compare all white men to all white women.

The simplest and most likely explanation of the interethnic marriage disparities addressed by Lewis is that whites marrying non-whites disproportionately have lower mate value, which makes their partner choices not just matters of preference but one of compromise, where men, as usual, are less restrictive about who they partner with but do not partner with blacks more often than the women because, unlike women, they need a working Johnson, which by design refuses to obey will power and which visual stimuli coming from a large proportion of black women fail to awaken from its slumber.

I am well aware that nose length and facial width are not the only parameters; I thought I made this clear when I used "for instance." Perhaps I should have added "etc." However my point stands. Even in China, people from the North and South look very different and are easily distinguished. The same can be said about populations in Europe. Do you not find it easy to distinguish people of Italian descent from people of English descent? In fact, the differences are often quite dramatic. This is what I meant by disjoint "volumes" in facial parameter space.

I am merely suggesting that maybe how we distinguish people of different races is not entirely by some sort of "average." Certainly, there is truth to this idea of norms. But another factor that may play a larger role than one might think is the factor of reinforced notions. When one sees somebody with dark skin, the most immediate notion is usually that they are black, or Indian. In fact, I have had people think they were looking at Africans when they were shown pictures of Australian Aboriginals. In actuality, the two races are very different when examining their features. Nevermind that even in Africa, as with China, people from East and West look distinct. Is it really fair to lump people into huge categories and call their features European, Asiatic, etc...

The reason I say all of this is from personal experience. For one, I have been to Asia. People from more southern regions do indeed have some of the features you mentioned. But in the north, such features are rare (caved in mid-facial region, protruding mouth, larger jaw). In fact, I am under the impression that their mouths protrude even less than most Europeans. And their faces are quite long, which may make their jaws larger by raw measurements, but I do not think by larger you meant it in this way. I have had similar experiences when I met Africans in college. I am from USA, and African Americans do for the most part have the distinguishing features that you oft mention on this site. However, most of the international students from Africa looked nothing like African Americans. I don't quite know how to describe it, but many of their features seemed pushed to the extreme of the Caucasoid spectrum. Their mouth regions had absolutely no protrusion, and their noses were very narrow and long.

I am always skeptical about studies that survey races. A "researcher" from the USA would most likely rely on a sample of African Americans to characterize African features. If I am not mistaken, you are from Europe. Is it not true that most Asians and Africans there come predominantly from a specific geographical area? I know that at least in England, most Chinese are of Cantonese descent. I think that unless one has traveled the vast majority of a continent, one is very likely to misrepresent the reality of the situation. If you do not believe me, I urge you to go visit Asia from North to South and East to West. I myself have only been to a few countries there myself, and already I have come to realize that Asians have extremely varied features that do not approximate the norm of which you speak. Or maybe you already have toured the entire continent, in which case I am simply stumped by our difference in experiences.

More Asian-American Women Prefer White Mates
The results on race and mate preferences were very interesting. First, the numbers
show that close to 30% of the women indicated that they prefer whites compared
to only 12% of the men. Still, almost 40% of the women and 46.5% of the men indicated
that Asians were their first choice. Finally, 30.8 % of the women and 38.3% of
the men indicated “no racial preferences.”

This was not surprising since more women indicated having had experience dating whites compared to Asian American men. In fact, the disparity in interracial dating experience was quite significant--88.9% of the women indicated that they have dated White men compared to just 47.9% of men who say they have dated White women.

Why was there such a disparity in interracial dating experiences between the women and men? A lot of people assume that somehow Asian American men are more wedded to preserving Asian culture or that Asian parents frown more upon sons marrying out than daughters.

As a sociologist, my educated hypothesis is that this disparity between the sexes is due more to the attitude of whites since they are the dominant group. In other words, for better or worse, more White men find Asian women appealing as mates.

Asian-Americans Who Prefer Whites
Most interesting were the reasons given for racial preferences. The group that
indicated a preference for White mates explained their preference for Whites in
the following ways:

“Why do I like White women more? They’re more mature, more fun, vivacious, vibrant. More confident too. I like the granola girl types and you don’t find very many Asian girls like that.”

“White women are more in touch with their bodies, more outspoken, more confident, more physical. Asian women are too submissive…doesn’t make me feel alive. I want someone who’s exciting and that’s usually White women. ”

“It’s not a race thing. More a personality preference. I like the way White women look more but I think it goes deeper than that. It’s character and personality…”

“I had this Asian boyfriend once and boy was he insecure…White guys are more giving and much more confident.”

“Don’t get me wrong. It’s just individual preference. Some people like macho guys or feminine women; some like dark hair, some like light. I just happen to find White men more appealing, especially the blonde types.”

Most revealing of why some Asian Americans prefer white mates was the “White identification” exhibited by many of those who prefer Whites. Many took pains to describe themselves in ways that would clearly differentiate themselves from stereotypes of Asians. One 27 year old Chinese-American man who grew up in an almost completely White environment described himself in the following way:

“I’m really into sports…Not just casually like some Asians. An example is when I ski. I really ski hard. I go to Tahoe a lot. You see Asians there but they’re just kind of winding down the bunny slopes. Oh and I work out…”

Another, a 44 year old Chinese-American mother who prefers white men, describes her 18 year old daughter in the following words:

“She’s just completely different from all the other Orientals in her school. She’s well-rounded, not just a bookworm like the other Orientals. She’s a cheerleader, student body rep and mixes very well with the Caucasian students. She’s very athletic…into rollerblading, mountain climbing…Not many Orientals are active in the way she is…Her friends tell her they don’t even notice that she’s, you know, Oriental (smiles, with obvious pride).

Asian-Americans Who Prefer Fellow Asians
Overall, there were no significant differences between the socioeconomic characteristics
of those who prefer White mates and those who prefer Asians. Since almost all
of those interviewed came of age in the post-Civil Rights era, are middle class
and college educated, the only differences were profession, childhood and present
environments. What I found was that White-identified subjects were somewhat more
likely to have grown up in all-white environments while those who were more Asian
American identified were more likely to have grown up or gone to school in places
with more Asian Americans.

So what did those who prefer Asian American mates say about their preferences? Reasons varied but most can be classified into one of these categories: 1) comfort level 2) cultural preservation 3) acquiring “better quality people.”

Some sample quotes about why Asian Americans were preferred:

“For me, it’s the comfort level from sharing a common background. You tend to think alike and not have to try hard to overcome all kinds of barriers such as prejudice.”

A Chinese American man who was previously involved in a 15 year relationship with a White woman explained his Asian preference in these words:

“It’s hard to put your on it but in my previous relationship, _____(a White woman) was kind of, well she was very insecure but with me, oddly, she was was quite arrogant, as if I should be grateful that she ’s with me…we never talked about it. It’s one of those things that I just began to realize more and more, especially now as I’m in a long term relationship with_______(a Japanese American woman) and it’s very different. It’s more comfortable, it feels right…There’s mo re of a feeling of equality to it.”

Still others talked about how their preference for Asian American spouses resulted from their realization of racism against Asian Americans:

“I never questioned White supremacy and White culture until I went to UCLA. Then when I was in college and hung around Asians and took Asian American courses…I realized the marginal feeling I’d always felt was because of racism…I had to re-culture myself and reeducate myself about my own heritage.”

No Racial Preferences
About a third of the respondents stated that they did not have racial preferences
for spouses. Explanations ranged from being “realistic, ” belief in “color blindness”
to having had bad experiences in the past when their choices were based on race.

Some notable responses included those (mostly men) who simply felt that they faced limited opportunities:

“You have to be realistic. I may desire something but as to whether you’re going to get it, that’s another question altogether. As an Asian man in this country, your choices are limited so you have to be open.”

The explanations that touched me the most were expressed by people who felt that even though they believed in color blindness, it was hard to be color blind in America. This 49 year old Chinese American women recounted a defining experience in her youth:

“This was back in the 60s….I remember how I was really excited about a date with this cute White guy. We were in his room, and he was trying to kiss me, and then I couldn’t believe what he said. He said something like, “I’m so starved for sex because there’s this White girl in my class that I go out with but I can’t bring myself to sleep with her because she’s like a blonde goddess.” I thought, what does he think I am, some cheap Asian whore? It took me a long time to get over that one…before I dated a White guy again. I try not to let a person’s race influence me but sometimes it’s really hard because we live in a society where people are not treated as equals because of the color of their skin.”

What Do Asian Americans Think about Interracial Couples?
Beyond their own preferences, opinions about interracial relationships between
Asians and Whites were enlightening.The most important finding was that most,
regardless of their own preferences, thought that the reason why there were so
many White male/Asian female relationships was because some White men feel that
they can more easily dominate Asian women.

One Chinese-American woman put it this way:

“When I see Asian women with White men I automatically think that he wants somebody he can dominate and somebody with an exotic allure…”

Another, a young Japanese-American man, talked about what his White male friends thought about Asian women:

“When I was at Santa Barbara a few years back, my White guy friends, some, I mean, were interested in Asian women for the control…I mean they were sort of losers, socially anyway…I think they were just too insecure to date White women.”

We don’t know whether or not most white men with Asian American partners are insecure and seek to dominate. But the fact that most of those interviewed thought this to be the case is worth pondering. This was true even for subjects involved in interracial relationships themselves-they did not think it was true about their own relationships but felt that it was true in general.

Another interesting finding on general attitudes toward interracial coupling was how some of the interviewed men feel when they see Asian women-White men couples in public. The following are some sample comments:

“When I see an Asian female with a White man and particularly if she’s pretty, it sort of hits me in the gut. I feel like we’ve lost something valuable.”

“It ticks me off, and I know it’s wrong…she’s free to choose. But I can’t help thinking, what’s wrong with us. How come you’re not with one of us?”

What Should We Think About Interracial Relationships?
When I presented my findings to my students during my final year at Stanford,
what students really wanted to know was how they should use the information in
their personal lives. In the words of one of the students, “Professor Chow, this
is very interesting, but what are your recommendations…what should I do?”

I am not a psychologist nor a relationship expert. As a sociologist, I can only tell people about broad trends and patterns in human behavior. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize one point: I believe that individual level dynamics, or person to person interactional patterns are very important in relationships and much more important than race.

On a personal level, whether we are involved in interracial relationships or same-race relationships, our happiness really hinges upon how we deal with our relationship dynamics-whether we allow destructive or positive patterns to prevail.

“Tradeoffs” in Interracial Relationships
OK, that caution aside, let me say that because socioeconomic and status inequalities
have been organized around skin color for so long, when two people of different
races come together, there is the possibility that at least part of the attraction
was based on “tradeoffs” resulting from these unspoken inequalities.

What do I mean? The most extreme example of such structurally-based relationship inequalities are when white men go to Asia to look for poor women to marry. Some of these men say explicitly that they are tired of “feminist” white women over whom they have no control. Their search for impoverished Asian wives is a search for relationships in which they hold not only economic power but racial power.

One case told to me by a friend who lives on a military base in California involves a 50 something year old White man who went to Korea to find a wife. He brought his “wife” back several years ago and has kept her in his apartment as a virtual prisoner. He doesn’t let her learn English and she can’t go out without him. Meanwhile he brags to his friends that he has the “perfect” relationship since he “gets it” whenever he wants and she takes care of all his physical needs.

This is admittedly a very extreme case but available evidence suggests that “tradeoffs” may have occurred historically in marriages between Asian Americans and other races.

James Loewen, the author of Mississippi Chinese, talks about how the middle class Chinese grocers in the Mississippi who married White women before the 1970s almost always married poorer, working class women. In contrast, Chinese men who married Black women during the same era almost always married educated, middle class women. In Loewen’s own words:

When Chinese grocers married Delta whites, they selected lower-class white women, who could look “up” to their husbands as small businessmen while looking “down” upon them racially; the grocer who married a Negro usually selected a mate at least his equal in occupational class (many were teachers) and usually his superior in education.”

Recent statistics appear to indicate tradeoffs may still be at work today. For example, a recent study (Jacobs and Labov, 1995) based on 1990 Census data shows that White women married to Chinese and Japanese American men have lower educational levels as well as lower labor force participation rates than the Asian-American wives of Asian American men.

Final Remarks:
In closing, I would like to return to my students’ question about how to apply
such knowledge to one’s personal life.

I think Asian Americans should be aware that race may well influence other people’s attitude toward them but should not let race influence their own assessment of others, particularly not when it comes to choosing intimate partners.

Most importantly, we should all try hard to be conscious of our own motives and psychological dynamics. Some Asian Americans may not be aware that they have “bought into” the mindset of subconsciously valuing whites more than other races. When this occurs, you are subconsciously setting yourself up for a life that de-values who you are and you will never be at peace with yourself.

As long as relationships are founded upon individual characteristics and you are certain that race plays no part in how you and your partner value each other (as well as yourselves), then that will definitely contribute to a healthy relationship. That goes for both interracial relationships as well as same race relationships. I mean there are same race relationships founded upon racial considerations too!*

*For example some of my respondents talked about how they married fellow Asians
even though they preferred White spouses when they were young because they did
not feel that they could attract whites. These were certainly ”racially-motivated”

I don't think in homotypic preference (individuals prefer partners of similar attractiveness to their own or with the same ethnic heritage, race, etc). Scientists premised homotypic preference for a long time [Walster et al. 1966] until empirical research proved that people prefer individuals of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own [Walster et al. 1966, Huston 1973]

Seeing at couples in public settings will likely lead to the observation that people tend to pair up with those who are similar in physical attractiveness. The handsome man and the gorgeous woman date and marry each other, while their more homely counterparts pair up with their plainer counterparts. Similarity in physical attractiveness occurs and this is referred to as dating in “one’s league;” a person assumed to be unattainable because of being so much more physically attractive than oneself is described as “out of one’s league.” However, it has also been repeatedly demonstrated that people are largely unaware attractiveness of their own,

Some questions for Erik,which raises the question about the mechanism responsible for the within-pair matching? How the within-pair matching in attractiveness can arise, given such poor awareness of own appeal?

Occasionally, however, one will see a couple who, a quick glance, seems mismatched. What attracted them to each other? why refer to the tendency for people to pair up with others who are equally physically attractive (unattractive)?

Complex matching, which occurs when people are able to attract partners far more physically attractive than themselves by offering compensatory assets—say, status, power, or financial standing. But why some people pair up with others without these offering compensatory assets?

Elaine Hatfield (Walster) and her colleagues proposed the original version of the Matching Hypothesis. Based on Kurt Lewin’s Level of Aspiration theory, they proposed that in making dating and mating choices, people will choose someone of their own level of social desirability and people prefer to match with partners of their own level of attractiveness Theoretically, they will be influenced by both the desirability of the potential match (What they want) and their perception of the probability of obtaining that date (What they think they can get). They referred to such mating choices as realistic choices, because they are influenced by the chances of having one’s affection reciprocated.

Self-esteem, intelligence, and personality did not affect liking for the dates or subsequent attempts to date them. This study, then, did not find any support for the matching hypothesis. Most people – regardless of how attractive they were – reacted more positively to profiles of attractive dates than of unattractive dates. Although learning one could be rejected by a potential date had a dampening effect on reactions to the other, overall the physical attractiveness effect (liking someone more, the more attractive he/she was) predominated over a matching effect or a concern about rejection.

Do you think the correct hypothesis would be the courtship rejections? all people prefer highly attractive individuals but only the attractive ones are accepted by them. In consequence, the attractive people will pair with each other leaving the non attractive ones to mate among themselves.

Further support for the mechanism of courtship rejections comes from blind dates [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011], where highly attractive participants are universally preferred.

Strategic behaviors were not found in participants of blind dates [Kurzban & Weeden 2005, Todd et al. 2007, Luo & Zhang 2009, Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011, but see Lee et al. 2008]. Courtship thus may not be strategic when the number of prospective partners is large and costs o searching or being rejected are low [Hitsch et al. 2010].
But why observations of Actual Couples there was strong evidence found for the matching hypothesis. Similarity has been found between the partners’ levels of physical attractiveness in real couples?

most people prefer most appealing mate they can get. For those who are physically attractive, what they want and what they can get are identical. For those who are unattractive, however, desire conflicts with reality. In making their choices, they must balance the two.)

Realistic choices: What do people choose under more realistic social situations, where they must approach someone (or wait to be approached), and social rejection is a very real possibility? Under these conditions, Hatfield and her colleagues proposed that—although prefer an ideal partner—they would be likely to choose to approach someone of approximately their own level of attractiveness. This form of the hypothesis distinguishes between preferences and choices.

The Reality: The reality considers everything what a person desires, whether the other wants him/her in return, and market considerations (including whether other desirable alternatives come along for one or both of them). In real life, people settle for mating within “their league” whether they want to or not.

An individual can not to come to a relationship offering others many desirable characteristics if he/she is out of social net persons may not compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with a charming personality, kindness, status, money, and so forth. I think that unknown person (club and bar dating, online dating) can not gain access to a potential mate if he/she does not have a good appeal. people usually consider only the physical attractiveness as a main feature to accept an unknown person as a mate. The situation may be different if that individual belongs to their social environment, such as a co-worker, classmate, etc.

Today there is compelling evidence that although men and women may yearn for the ideal mate, when the time comes to make a choice they generally settle for mating someone below their aesthetic requirements.

I suppose a person I can pair with someone who is in a rank, and even if your partner is in the lower limit of that range, they may be happy to share his life with that person. When less attractive people accept less attractive dates, do they persuade themselves that the people they choose to date are more physically attractive than others perceive them to be?

(Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999) people seem to adapt to the advantages and disadvantages they experience as a result of their
physical looks (much as they adapt to many other situations), achieving roughly similar levels of happiness throughout a wide range of attractiveness levels
What types of processes contribute to such hedonic adaptation?

How a person can be happy mating up someone below their minimum subjective threshold of desire and attraction? From an evolutionary perspective, such a motivated change in dating preferences can potentially increase an individual’s pool of potential mates, reducing the likelihood that a physically unattractive person will end up without a partner, and supporting assortative mating. But how can people find away to love the ones they do not like?

Anyway In a series of recent studies, researchers investigated the mating hypothesis with actual online daters
They found that people:

-choose the highly desirable profiles most often (out of their league behavior), but
- that one’s level of self-worth influenced the process to a degree (in their league behavior).
- tended to contact other members who were of higher attractiveness then themselves (out of their league behavior).

Further Readings
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E., III (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673-682.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in

Individuals from both sexes prefer neotenous features in the opposite sex. there are preference for facial symmetry and also preference for femininity in females is a by-product of preference for neotenous cues. Erik tells us that ehnicity could therefore play a role in beauty and he tends to ranking groups by degree of attractiveness, and his preference for noth european groups, specially for nordic types, using arguments based around ethnicity to support a surreptitious racism.

According to Ashley Montagu, "The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people." "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European." "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull."
In Montagu's list of "[n]eotenous structural traits in which Mongoloids... differ from Caucasoids", Montagu lists "Larger brain, larger braincase, broader skull, broader face, flat roof of the nose, inner eye fold, more protuberant eyes, lack of brow ridges, greater delicacy of bones, shallow mandibular fossa, small mastoid processes, stocky build, persistence of thymus gland into adult life, persistence of juvenile form of zygomatic muscle, persistence of juvenile form of superior lip muscle, later eruption of full dentition (except second and third molars), less hairy, fewer sweat glands, fewer hairs per square centimeter [and] long torso".
An interpretation of a claim by zoologist Clive Bromhall is that "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme pedomorphic humans."
Richard Grossinger claimed, "The intuition that advanced human development was pedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists." "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development."
Stephen Oppenheimer claimed, "An interesting hypothesis put forward by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould many years ago was that the package of the Mongoloid anatomical changes could be explained by the phenomenon of neoteny, whereby an infantile or childlike body form is preserved in adult life. Neoteny in hominids is still one of the simplest explanations of how we developed a disproportionately large brain so rapidly over the past few million years. The relatively large brain and the forward rotation of the skull on the spinal column, and body hair loss, both characteristic of humans, are found in foetal chimps. Gould suggested a mild intensification of neoteny in Mongoloids, in whom it has been given the name pedomorphy. Such a mechanism is likely to involve only a few controller genes and could therefore happen over a relatively short evolutionary period. It would also explain how the counterintuitive retrousse [turned up at the end] nose and relative loss of facial hair got into the package." "Decrease unnecessary muscle bulk, less tooth mass, thinner bones and smaller physical size; ...this follows the selective adaptive model of Mongoloid evolution."

To the person who left comment #12, why don’t you pick a unique name so that it is easy to refer to you and and facilitate readers following the conversation? Visitor is a default name assigned by the software to people who do not fill in a name.

You ask “Is it really fair to lump people into huge categories and call their features European, Asiatic, etc...”? It is not a question of fairness but one of what is observed, and the broad lumps are observed regardless of what you choose to call them.

Your argument rests on tremendous variation within Africa, Asia and other regions. This variation is correctly observed. There is another aspect to variation that is absent in your comment, which is that most variation in human face shapes is found within populations, not between populations. But correlation structures or norms are observed notwithstanding this distribution of variation.

That you know of people who have mistaken Australian aborigines for Africans is an indictment against their ignorance, not one against the existence of norms.

You mention dark students from Africa with Caucasoid face shapes. These would be from the eastern region, and they are not sub-Saharan African types. African or black could be vague without the context, but in the case of Lewis there is no confusion as he is talking about sub-Saharan African types.

According to you, “caved in mid-facial region, protruding mouth, larger jaw” are rare in the northern part of East Asia compared to the south, but the caved-in look is greater in the north, the mouth more protruding in the south, and contrary to your impression, the mouth even in the north is more protruding on average than in Europeans. All this here:

Macgyver: It appears you took the excerpts from another author. In the future, you should refer us to the source instead of pasting lengthy excerpts on something that goes into a tangent.

Dan: I do not see the point of your lengthy comment. That you “don’t think in homotypic preference (individuals prefer partners of similar attractiveness to their own or with the same ethnic heritage, race, etc)” is not relevant to my reply to you where I addressed the work of Michael Lewis because I did not invoke it.

You asked me to comment on the mechanisms responsible for within-pair matching, but it appears that you know more about this than me, and I can be of no help to you.

Milos: Your comment does not address the article, and it cites old, debunked arguments. You should have searched for comments on Stephen Gould and Ashley Montagu within this site prior to leaving the comment.

Gould was debunked when it was shown that neoteny only applies to human face size, not face shape:

When it comes to face size, East Asians have larger faces (both absolutely and, obviously, relative to body size) than Europeans: (Table 8) pdf here

So it is Europeans who have more neotenous faces than East Asians... not that neoteny is of much relevance to the article.

And yes, East Asian teeth are larger than European teeth on average:

Notice the dates of the publications compared to the decades-old claims you have cited.

Gould and Montagu were charlatans. Only charlatans can portray East Asian faces with their larger size, larger teeth, more robust jaws and cheekbones, mid-facial flattening, noses wider in the fleshy part, and more protruding mouths, which are documented in the linked publications, as having “proceeded further than in any other people,” i.e., being more overall derived than European faces.

This is "visitor" by the way. Anyways, this is a little off topic, but I was wondering if you have ever considered implementing a rating feature on your attractive women section. It seems like you have very different notions of beauty from me, so I decided to take a look at the attractive women section. I have to admit a select few of them are stunning. However, the vast majority of them seem very plain to me; a small percentage of them I would even deem ugly. In the end, the best judgement of whether somebody is attractive is by popularity contest. Wouldn't you like to know how your viewpoints stack up against the masses? And don't worry; I'm pretty sure homosexual men don't frequent your site.

By the way, what is with you and homosexual men? I understand that you think they promote a skewed standard of beauty. However, I always detect a poorly concealed sense of disgust when you speak about them, almost as if they are a lesser form of existence.

oh, nevermind. Just found this doing a google search on your name...


1-I think my comment is related to your previous post where you write about the matue value. I do not think it was absurd or out of context

2-I know that the main interest of the site is focused on the role that represents the feminine beauty in the fashion industry, clothing modeling, glamour and nude models, beauty contests, and to promote the use of more feminine women in modeling business. I also appreciate that kind of themes, but maybe more guests and readers can join to this site if they would have access to different topics. Physical attractiveness can affect a lot of things, such as getting a job (especially in occupations where the image is relevant such a models, singers, dancers, hostesses, commercials, shop assistants, work towards the public, etc) and mainly towards the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection and mating behaviour. I think it can also be interesting to try this issues related to the beauty science.

Erik: I do not have enough time to check all items and content of your website. and I am a layman in anthropology and anatomy in order to stay current with the latest research. Anyway from what I know I'm not completely agree with you.

Proportions: A key feature of beautiful female faces is the quality known as neoteny, or youthfulness. The eyes of adolescent women appear wider set relative to the distance from the brow to the tip of the nose. High cheekbones are also an important factor, as cheeks and eyes tend to droop with age. Asian women are favored with rounder faces that are more likely to possess these features, though a significant minority have faces that would be deemed overly broad. On the other hand many white women possess neotenous features, especially those of nordic, slavic or germanic ancestry.

Skin: Asian women are generally blessed with fine skin with small pores. Many also have light skin when not tanned. While the majority of white women have light skin with the pinkish hue considered universally appealing in females, many are freckly, and hairier.

Nose: On average Asian women have shorter noses but some are broad and fleshy. White women generally have longer noses though a significant minority have the small delicate noses universally admired in wome

Lips: Asian women tend to have full lips while white women tend to have thin lips. On the extremes, some Asian women can have lips that are too thick and coarse while many white women have lips that are too thin, creating a prissy look.
Erik:I am a layman in the anatomy and anthropology and I'm not updated on the latest researchk but I do not have enough time to check all the items and fcomments in your website is very extensive content.

Eyes:Asian women tend to have smallish eyes that are generally upslanted. White women have larger eyes that are often downslanted. White women are more likely to have the larger eyes considered generally desirable in women. Also, the broader color palette of caucasian eyes allow for attractive hues not found in Asian eyes.

By the other hand, if Scandinavians are highly neotenous based upon mutual sexual selection (Miller, 2000), with both sexes choosing mates exhibiting those blue-eyed, blond-haired, pale skin markers of a person able to thrive off dairy and sunlight (Harris, 1989), then one would also expect to see larger brains (Tobias, 1970) and a cooperative, care-based society (Eisler, 2007). Long arms and legs can also go with a low-testosterone neotenous constellation.

Asian societies, specifically Chinese peoples, also exhibit neoteny, with perhaps both sexes choosing small-sized mates to manage limited nourishment sources. Female estrogen levels are low (Diamond, 1986) and left-handedness is low (Dawson, 1974), with the males testes size almost half of a Scandinavian population adjusted for size (Diamond, 1986). These are all patrifocal markers.

Chinese populations mature far faster and reach puberty sooner (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976) than Northwest Europe populations, an acceleration consonant with a patrifocal frame, yet they exhibit neotenous or maturational-delayed features such as relatively larger brains and flat-faced, diminutive features.

Asian populations that require large-scale, multilevel cooperation encourage the societal cooperation bonuses that come with neoteny, while small size and fast maturation are demanded by intense agrarian population concentrations. In this highly patrifocal context requiring cooperative, neotenous characteristics, you get a dramatic drop in hormone levels, resulting in te females and TE males, shifted down to allow for cooperation between competing forces within a male-domination societal foundation.

Whereas in Scandinavia, with both males and females choosing neotenous features in each other based upon an ideal mate exhibiting the nutrient-absorbing markers of blond hair, blue eyes and light skin, their populations evolved in highly neotenous societal directions, culminating in today’s most cooperation-based industrialized societies, exhibiting what Eisler ( 2007) notes as extremely care-based cultures.

There is pattern here. But how quite tease out the effects of estrogen in Scandinavia, particularly with the female, or if there is a hormone-threshold shift as evidence suggests there is in Asia?

Scandinavians and Asians are social structure archetypes, beautiful examples of derivations from the classic social structure norms. The Asian paradigm is settling down to make sense after years of my being confused, though there are aspects that still befuddle me. One can add estrogen to the equation while noting across-culture hormone thresholds make a difference. There is a riddle in the Scandinavians ripe for picking. The riddle is: What is the hormonal constellation of the Scandinavian woman? Males are likely low testosterone, low to high estrogen. Females could be high testosterone, but they would seem less likely to exhibit the highly neotenous features. Can the female be high in testosterone with all markers suggesting neoteny? If so, what estrogen level most encourages this to work? Are female Scandinavians Te?

If so, you have the opposite paradigm to the Asian female. In Asia, you achieve a patrifocal culture lowering hormone thresholds, speeding up growth and lowering puberty while at the same time investing a host of neotenous characteristics to act as glue. In Scandinavia, you have an emerging matrifocal culture, prolonged ontogenetic growth, later puberty and evidence of neoteny in both sexes, not just in the males, as is the case in classic matrifocal culture with hormonal constellations not seeming to easily support neoteny in both sexes. The easy prediction is female tE, male tE. But somehow I’m just not seeing that as the case. Right now, it’s looking like Scandinavian female Te, male tE.

Erik: I understand that you are interested towards addressing about morphometry, anatomy, the role of homosexuals in the fashion industry or other aspects of the appeal as eating disorders!
I can respect that your avoiding dealing with the association of physical appearance to other issues like mating and sexual selection. Although I think you know about evolutionary biology and ethology. At least I can deduct that of your discussions about human sexual selection in some article like "Why is physical attractiveness for women More Important?"
Anyhow you used to ignored comments of many other visitors which they are related to the type of issues that you tend to discuss. I guess it is due to lack of interest or time. It is also respectable.

Erik,thankyou for the reply.I may be getting this,but it is taking some time i am afraid.
I wanted to know how feminine or masculine the face of Jaclyn smith was.The cheekbones,her jawline/gonial angles/chin?I was talking about Minka kellys gonial angles when i said she had a square jaw.Are they sharp or feminine?
I would also like your help in better understanding the whole cheekbone thing.Your comment on Gabrielle from MC nudes page helped me a lot,but i still lack understanding.What if the cheekbones where filled in at the bony part of the cheek area(yellow part).But were also well rounded in the orange area with only a little of the cheekbone arches built up.If the orange area of the cheekbones were also well rounded would the cheekbone still be feminine?At the front of the face when a picture is taken the side of the orange area is very round.Is this feminine as well?

Asians have bigger faces. Having a larger face-to-body ratio is a sign of neoteny. Asians are more neotenous.

Erik,do you not understand the way i said my comment or do you just not have the time to answer it?

Just to try and give you a better idea as to what i am trying to say.Britt Ekland does seem to have the kind of cheekbones i am talking about.I have done my best to look for as many pictures of her as i can and i think that hers are what i am talking about.

Click here to post a new comment